This posting is one of a series which presents a set of
functions that a group, which might be at any level of institutionalization,
needs to satisfy in order to be a federated collective of people or
subgroups. Prior to this entry, I have
presented three functions: producing,
adapting, and sophisticating. I now turn
my attention to a fourth function, that of liberating. My efforts are motivated by the goal to have
civics teachers approach the study of government and politics from the
perspective of collectives. This, in
turn, is based on the assumption that meaningful accomplishments in those
realms of human endeavors are done by groups, organizations, associations, or
institutions. Individuals are important,
but they are important as members of groups.
They have roles and there are the expectations that these roles are
performed to varying levels of proficiency.
But the often misleading habit is to zero in on individuals and this
gives the student an inaccurate picture of how politics works and functions. A way to approach a study of government or
politics from the perspective of groups is to analyze a group’s ability to meet
essential functions.[1]
I use this term liberating with reservations; I don’t want to
communicate that a federated group does whatever it wants or has the power to
do so. But it needs enough liberty to be
able to be distinguished from other groups; that is, it has enough
autonomy. Without this autonomy, a group
is merely a social gathering of people who get together by happenstance or for
limited reasons – so limited that no one cares if the reasons are satisfied or
not. But for a group pursuing any more
substance, it has to have enough authority, integrity, legitimacy, and the ability
to set options and be able to choose independently which options it wants to
pursue in its drive to be viable. In
order to do this, it has to be conscious of its environment and be able to
establish its borders, be able to patrol those borders, and be able to meet any
challenges other groups might use to thwart its liberty. For some groups, this includes competition
with other groups, especially if the group needs or wants limited resources that
are needed or wanted by other groups – a condition endemic among political
groups. There is also the challenge of a
group that is organizationally situated within a larger group, for example an
individual school within a school district.
What is the appropriate level of liberty an individual school should have
in running its affairs? Policy determines
this and policy makers who want groups to be successful need to give these
liberating concerns a lot of thought.
Let me use this latter concern to illustrate what a group has
to consider in meeting this function of liberating. I worked in a high school in a large school
district, Miami-Dade Public School District. The district’s policy not only had “downtown”
name each school’s principal but each of its assistant principals as well. The consequence is that the principal – and therefore
the school – was denied a very important option. As an organization, this lack of authority
interferes very seriously with the school settling in on an operational
philosophy. Without a single philosophy,
the school cannot have anything resembling a curriculum toward which teachers
can gear their efforts. Students go from
class to class with each class having a different view of what schooling is all
about, what expectations will be kept, or what constitutes success. I don’t want to give the impression that
schools are unreasonably chaotic, but in some very important ways, they do not exemplify
smooth running operations with clear senses of their missions.
In studying political or governmental groups, teachers can
use the following questions when considering this function:
Does the group have a clear sense of what it is? Does it have a formal organizational mission
and philosophy?
Does the group have processes in place with supporting
structural elements to review its policies, strategies, and operations to see whether
they are reflections of the group’s guiding ideals?
Is the group respected by other entities?
Is the group suitably prepared and equipped to meet
challenges from environmental forces whether they be social or natural in
origin?
Are the limits of the group’s authority clear to the policy
makers within the group and to members of other groups?
What sources of power are available to the group; that is, does
the group have the ability to administer coercion, rewards, or legitimacy
toward other entities?
As with the other functions, one can probably think of other
questions, but these can start a study of liberating.
[1] This series of
postings is highly influenced by the work of Samuel P. Huntington. See Huntington, S. P. (1968).
Political order in changing
societies. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
No comments:
Post a Comment