If I were to get my “druthers,” the nation would, in its
civics classes, adopt the liberated federalist construct to guide the choices
of content. It would be a content filled
with stories and issues that would have students engage in questions over how
collectives, as opposed to individuals, make a difference in the formulation
and implementation of public policy. It
would have students make valuations of public actions that affect the common
welfare of the nation, as opposed to public policy that affects the private
interests of individuals and/or factions.
It would certainly have students be offended by claims of ideologues who
unquestionably accept versions of the truth, be it based on political,
economic, and/or religious belief systems.
No; liberated federalism would strive to have students be of a critical
disposition; more questioning than accepting, more dubious than accommodating –
not in a disrespectful way, but in a loving or, at least, respectful way. Given this, I believe Daniel C. Dennett[1] asks a
very interesting and important question.
Let me share with you how he asks it:
I put it this way. Suppose that we face some horrific, terrible
enemy, another Hitler or something really, really bad, and here’s two different
armies that we could use to defend ourselves.
I’ll call them the Gold Army and Silver Army: same numbers, same training, same
weaponry. They’re all armored and armed
as well as we can do. The difference is
that the Gold Army has been convinced that God is on their side and this is the
cause of righteousness, and it’s as simple as that. The Silver Army is entirely composed of
economists. They’re all making side
insurance bets and calculating the odds of everything.
Which army do you want on the front
lines? It’s very hard to say you want
the economists, but think of what that means.
What you’re saying is that we’ll just have to hoodwink all these young
people into some false beliefs for their own protection and for ours. It’s extremely hypocritical.
Wow!
I must say, when you put it that way, I take pause. How critical do I want the next generation to
be? The concern entailed in Dennett’s
question puts the basic premise of liberated federalism into a very uncomfortable
light.
Of course, when Dennett mentions
economists, he could as easily have said scientist or philosopher or political
theorist or thinking citizen. It could be
anyone who is open to new information, to divergent arguments, to unorthodoxy. It surely is not someone who buys into a view
of final truth. It is not someone who
cannot distinguish between faith and knowledge where faith is that position
between knowledge and ignorance.
I have a faith. It is that we can encourage students to be
skeptical yet motivated by a love for the common good so that he or she can be called
on to sacrifice for the betterment of the commonwealth and be sufficiently
obedient when the demands and the reality of a troubling time call for it.
[1]
Dennett, D. C.
(2013). The normal well-tempered
mind. In John Brockman (Ed.) Thinking: The new science of
decision-making, problem-solving, and prediction (pp. 1-17). New York, NY:
Harper Perennial. Citation on pp.
16-17.
No comments:
Post a Comment