A Crucial Element of Democracy

This is a blog by Robert Gutierrez ...
While often taken for granted, civics education plays a crucial role in a democracy like ours. This Blog is dedicated to enticing its readers into taking an active role in the formulation of the civics curriculum found in their local schools. In order to do this, the Blog is offering a newer way to look at civics education, a newer construct - liberated federalism or federation theory. Daniel Elazar defines federalism as "the mode of political organization that unites separate polities within an overarching political system by distributing power among general and constituent governments in a manner designed to protect the existence and authority of both." It depends on its citizens acting in certain ways which Elazar calls federalism's processes. Federation theory, as applied to civics curriculum, has a set of aims. They are:
*Teach a view of government as a supra federated institution of society in which collective interests of the commonwealth are protected and advanced.
*Teach the philosophical basis of government's role as guardian of the grand partnership of citizens at both levels of individuals and associations of political and social intercourse.
*Convey the need of government to engender levels of support promoting a general sense of obligation and duty toward agreed upon goals and processes aimed at advancing the common betterment.
*Establish and justify a political morality which includes a process to assess whether that morality meets the needs of changing times while holding true to federalist values.
*Emphasize the integrity of the individual both in terms of liberty and equity in which each citizen is a member of a compacted arrangement and whose role is legally, politically, and socially congruent with the spirit of the Bill of Rights.
*Find a balance between a respect for national expertise and an encouragement of local, unsophisticated participation in policy decision-making and implementation.
Your input, as to the content of this Blog, is encouraged through this Blog directly or the Blog's email address: gravitascivics@gmail.com .
NOTE: This blog has led to the publication of a book. The title of that book is TOWARD A FEDERATED NATION: IMPLEMENTING NATIONAL CIVICS STANDARDS and it is available through Amazon in both ebook and paperback versions.

Friday, September 9, 2016

“THE WHOLE IS GREATER THAN ITS PARTS” (cont.)

[Note:  this essay began with the last posting (9/6/16).  In order to understand the context for what follows, I suggest that if you have not read that posting, click on that entry by using the archival feature found on the right side of this page.]

As a holistic approach, humanist psychology focuses on the whole instructional setting when its study turns to instruction.  Part of that concern is what a person, a student or a teacher, naturally contends to be his/her felt needs.  And this leads us to look at the first of two influential theorists of this psychology, Abraham Maslow.[1] 

I have, in this blog, referred to Maslow’s model on the hierarchy of needs.  As with Piaget’s and Kohlberg’s models (described in the 9/2/16 posting), Maslow’s model has a developmental dimension to it.  Basically, this model claims that from birth, humans have needs and those needs can be categorized as types which follow a progression. 

That progression is as follows:  physiological needs (food, water, etc.), safety/security needs, belongingness and love needs (friendship, intimacy, etc.), esteem needs (prestige and feelings of accomplishment), and self-actualization needs (achieving one’s full potential).  A summarized way of describing this progression can be from basic to psychological to self-actualizing. 

The more basic needs need to be sufficiently satisfied before the psychological needs become stridently felt and, in turn, the psychological needs need to be sufficiently satisfied before self-actualizing needs become stridently felt.   As with Kohlberg’s model of moral development, not all individuals arrive at the highest levels indicated by this model. 

As with the other developmental models, I sense there is a progression from the concrete and parochial to the abstract and universal.  One can define maturation by these progressions.  And whether one is concerned with cognitive ability, moral reasoning, or motivational needs, teachers and curriculum developers need to know about these changes and account for them in their plans and actual teaching practices. 

Throughout, the dignity of the person, the experiences the person has had, and the person’s march toward knowing and understanding who he/she is provide the focal concerns upon which this particular development of needs is fixed.  Accounting for the dynamic nature of the development can be challenging to a teacher as he/she prepares lessons and interacts with students.

The other theorist is Carl Rogers.  His main psychological model is concerned with self-perceptions.  His “perceptionalism” heightens, as a determinant force, how a person perceives him/herself and how that perception affects the manner in which that subject engages in challenging activities such as learning.  In terms of children, how they perceive they are wanted, liked, and loved are very important to their success in the classroom. 

Teachers need to develop a personal relationship with the child so that the young one feels emotionally safe in the school setting.  With this security, he/she can progress.  A student who falters is either not sufficiently prepared intellectually or is suffering from some psychological hindrance obstructing his/her growth in developing a positive self-perception.

The self-esteem movement found its origins in how Rogers’ theoretical work was received by the general public.  His message seemed to congeal with a general reaction to the more Puritanical traditions that used to characterize American educational modes of operations.  I have previously made the case,[2] that this shift coincided with the upgrading of the natural rights construct as the main perspective that guided our substantive beliefs concerning politics and, therefore, authority.

Perceptionalism, under the influence of Rogers, ushers in a softer, more student-friendly approach and discards such practices as paddling and other forms of punishments that were deemed to demean a student’s self-definition of his/her worth.  Concerns for dignity became more prominent in the strategic planning of school officials and even in laws governing teacher disciplinary practices.

Positively, humanistic psychology would emphasize the more artistic educational activities a curriculum could offer.  The arts, literature, dance, and other expressive subjects work well with this increased focus on self-defining aims.  It is through these subjects that students are assisted in learning who they are. 

I would point out, though, that with this concentration on the individual – in his or her determining life-defining values and other decisions – humanistic psychology shares an important attribute with the more behaviorally oriented perspective of the natural rights construct.  Both promote an emphasis on the individual.  This heightened individualism has been castigated, in this blog, as an enabling factor which contributes to a more narcissistic culture.

Many have pointed out that this concentration on the self is a counterproductive influence in regard to our striving to attain the common good or social capital; that is, promoting a societal quality, which is characterized by having an active, public-spirited citizenry, egalitarian political relations, and a social environment of trust and cooperation.[3] 

The concern is one of balance:  how weighted should one’s beliefs be in terms of placing importance on oneself?  How positive does a self-image have to be in order for a person to accomplish learning objectives or succeed in other, self-defining activities?  Yes, one needs a sufficiently healthy view of oneself, but are there prudent and constructive limits?  If yes, what are they?

These questions do not seem to be asked by the adherents of humanistic psychology.  Their language speaks of authoritarian school systems that avoid humanistic relations and interactions with students.  This, I would submit, is not accurate in the main.  Are there over-oppressive teachers?  Surely, but overall my experience has been that most of the teachers I encountered were reasonable, caring people who seek positive relationships with their students.  While most teachers are not adherents to humanistic psychology – they tend to be behaviorists – they can still care for their students and want the best for them.

One can attribute many positive results from the influence humanist/phenomenological psychology has had.  And many of these results can be found in our nation’s schools.  But there have been detrimental effects as well.

One of these negative results has been a language by which a selfish and self-centered youth culture has been justified and promoted.  Perhaps what is worrisome is not so much the message this psychology communicates, but the degree to which this message is carried out by a good many teachers, a good many school officials, and in some cases, a good many school policies.  Balance is the key to achieving and maintaining sound educational practice.



[1] Abraham Maslow, Toward a Psychology of Being, 2nd ed. (New York, NY:  Van Norstrand Reinhold, 1968).

[2] As stated in the last posting:  As I described in the posting, “Formal Critique of Critical Theory,” what I named reconceptualism is a branch of critical theory, the leftist, to varying degrees, Marxist construct.  Most educators who ascribe to critical theory today adhere to this line of thought.  A quip that I believe summarizes this view is to just marry Marxian thought to natural rights biases that idolize the individual, and you have reconceptualism.  With reconceptualism and its reliance on postmodernism and post structuralism, there is a call for self-referentiality and a rejection of any grand narratives or ideologies.  It is subjectivism on “steroids.”  Adherents call for a serious approach to seeking the truth through historical interpretation that relies heavily on contextualizing the information gathered and delving into subjective forces about historical characters and the researchers themselves.

[3] A la, Robert Putnam.  See Robert D. Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 2000.

No comments:

Post a Comment