There are a lot of issues a civics teacher can cover in the
course of a year. I have in this blog
argued that one of the chief functions of a mental construct is to guide the
choice of issues and social problems that will then be studied in the
classroom. Of course, not all civics
teachers deal with issues; many see their charge is to simply offer factual
information, usually information regarding the structure of government. Their students, who happen to have good
memories, do well. But, and this has always
been the case, intelligence – social intelligence in particular – reflects the
ability to figure things out. This sense
of intelligence is more apt today with cyber memory readily available to all of
us who might own a smart phone with Internet access. Problem-solving is becoming more central in
the demands we hold for students; hence, reliance on choosing appropriate
problems – issues and social problems – is, in turn, becoming more
important.
Yet this phase of instructional preparation gets very little
attention. By default then, teachers,
parents, and other interested parties tend to simply apply our current
dispositions and biases to settle on what specific problems will be
studied. One of the main purposes of
this blog is to point out the function of mental constructs in this process. I have argued that we currently hold, as a
prevailing construct, the natural rights view and that perspective has been the
basis by which we analyze issues and social problems. Not only does the construct heavily influence
what issues will be entertained, but how we view those issues; what questions
we will ask; and what will be deemed as relevant or irrelevant information and
argumentation? While a construct plays
such important functions, it is, by and large, not questioned and is used
mostly on a subconscious level.
Another main message of this blog has been that we should
replace the natural rights construct with the federalist theory construct. The introduction above reviews the main elements
of federalist theory – at least, as I see them.
My purpose is not to re-argue these views, but to simply state that
despite the fact there is significant differences between natural rights
construct and federalist theory, there are some issues that I believe would be
addressed irrespective of which of these two constructs is used to guide the
content of a civics course. Let me
identify them:
The environmental degradation of the planet
The concentration of wealth and income in the global economy
National policy regarding what leads to healthy economic
development
The degradation of our national infrastructure (particularly
as it affects transportation)
Perhaps you can add to this list – the issue of terrorism
might be considered a must – but if a teacher is going to approach civics
through the analyses of issues, the above list seems to me to identify the
necessary issues a teacher should include.
A curriculum guided by the natural rights construct, as I just
indicated, would see these issues from a different perspective than one guided
by federalist theory. Let me illustrate
by looking at the first on this list:
the environmental issue.
A natural rights view would probably emphasize costs and
imposing the gauntlet of regulations, taxes, and other liberty-limiting
policies a serious approach in tackling the odious effects of pollution and a degraded
natural world would entail. I am not
saying that a natural rights approach would necessarily push a conservative,
pro-business agenda. What I am saying is
that that construct will view the environmental issue from the perspective of
calculations regarding how addressing the environmental issue or ignoring it will
affect our levels of liberty. One can
easily imagine how an environment chuck full of carbons, for instance, can
limit our ability to seek our self-defined goals. Just ask the citizens of Texas right now how
they view the effects that severe weather has on their liberty. The question is one in which we calculate how,
against these liberty-limiting realities, they compare with how a vigorous
governmental policy will affect those liberties. Which is worse?
From a federalist point of view, on the other hand, instruction
would point out these liberty issues, but would also view the political maneuvering
that is in play, especially in terms of climate change deniers, language
manipulation by the advocates of either side of the environmental debates, and
the extent of vested stakes any of the involved parties have in either changing
our environmental policies or keeping the status quo. These particular items of interests are tapped
because they reflect how the environmental issue affects our sense of
partnership among the citizenry. This
might be a subtle difference for many, but I believe an important one. Do you calculate detrimental effects or do
you feel the human anguish involved with our partners’ fates? I believe that a federalist approach comes
closer to the humanizing questions more readily than the natural rights
approach does. What do you think?
