When speaking of the sociological factors that affect
American education, there are two overarching cultural commitments that serve
as social backdrops to any study of such factors; those two commitments are our
countrymen/women partiality for the work ethic and an equality/liberty balance
which are broadly felt and acted upon.
So say Allan C. Ornstein and Francis P. Hunkins.[1] In their text on curriculum, they highlight
these values. They also claim that,
although there might not be total adherence to them, the American citizenry by
and large lives by and believes in these cultural dispositions and further, that
the implications of such value commitments are found to be strong in all segments
and regions of the nation.
One can safely say that one does not hear of any opposing messages
that attack the core meaning of these values, at least not on public
communication outlets. Oh, there might
be a comedic work or two that pokes fun at the work ethic bias (the films Animal House and Fast Times at Richmond High come to mind). Usually, those efforts are aimed at a youth
audience.
And there is a history of downright bigotry that undermines
the nation’s commitment to equality (as depicted, for example, in the film, Gangs of New York). But current common discourse holds those
incidents to be despicable. Oh, there is
racism and bigotry against ethnic groups, but generally such expressions are
kept to private conversations. At times,
behaviors indicating these feelings come to the surface, but usually those
incidents flare up in times of stress.
Even then, such examples are held by the population as being generally
illegitimate and not being American. That
is, generally, bigotry and unequal treatment are seen as less than stellar
behavior. Therefore, if you ask the vast
majority of Americans whether the work ethic, liberty, or equality is
important, the answer would be unequivocally yes. One point should be remembered: liberty and
equality can be at odds with each other from time to time.
As for the work ethic, Americans like to believe that they
are the hardest working people on the face of the earth. And this is almost true. Compared with European countries, where month
long vacations and shorter work weeks are the norm, yes, Americans do work
harder.
But Malcolm Gladwell’s book tells about the work ethic
exhibited by rice-growing countries such as China and Japan and how they put
everyone else to shame by how hard they work (an interesting account, I can
heartily recommend).[2] But short of them, Americans seem to take the
prize.
The implications of this bias are many. Of course, if you put a hard-working people
on a continent rich in resources, you are bound to have a successful economy. Hence, the US has the richest economy even
with nations like China and India dwarfing its population. Add to this the equality/liberty mixture
Americans enjoy and you have a system where everyone has an individual, vested
interest in doing his/her part to add value to the overall economic riches.
Yes, China is bound to eventually surpass the US in total
numbers, but on a per capita basis, there is no comparison of how much better off
Americans are.
This work ethic manifests itself in many ways. For example, as a people, Ornstein and
Hunkins point out that Americans are very time-conscious and that can be
attributed to this belief in a strong work ethic. “Time is money” and other idioms betray our
obsession with time and work. We are a
punctual people and it is rare that one runs into a person without a
watch.
As for the liberty/equality balance, I have, in this blog,
identified certain perceptions of this balance in our nation’s history. Under the concern for equality, I have
written about five different orientations.
What is prominent today are two orientations: what is generally called equal condition and what
I call regulated condition.
In both of these orientations, Americans express a deep
belief that everyone is entitled to an equal opportunity to succeed and to
develop his/her natural talents. The
difference between these two is the extent to which the government should have
a role in guaranteeing that equality.
The equal condition orientation, with its emphasis on
liberty, sees that role as limited.
Perhaps the government can have a public school system, but with strong
competition being provided by charter schools – both publicly and privately
funded – vouchers, and the like. But
other than that, government should stay out of the competitive markets in which
opportunities are provided and simply make it certain that everyone is equal
before the law.
On the other hand, regulated condition sees a strong role for
government in both regulating markets – so that the large corporations and
other businesses are prohibited from taking unfair advantage due to their
abundance of assets and resources – or providing other laws such as minimum
wage, public health facilities, subsidized insurance programs (Medicare), or
outright individual subsidies (Medicaid).
This view might diminish liberty a bit, but in the eyes of
those who adhere to it, concern over liberty takes on a different angle. The belief here is that if one’s income and
wealth are below certain levels, there are qualitative realities in play that
prohibit that person from having a meaningful, equal opportunity and,
therefore, a truncated liberty.
And besides that, there is the “there but for the Grace of
God go I” view that should give everyone an interest in supporting government
action to provide and support equal opportunity, or so these advocates believe.
But under either of these orientations, equal condition or
regulated condition, one can sense a view that sees life as a “construction”
process that ends only with death. That
is, Americans, by and large, believe that one can always improve one’s
condition in whatever way he/she believes is best.
Almost all Americans have a strong commitment to this notion
that it is we, individually, who determine what our values and life goals
should be and that, in addition, we determine what the best mode or strategy
should be to acquire fulfillment of those goals.
This train of thought is bolstered by the prominent political
orientation the nation adheres to: the
natural rights perspective. But even
when the nation was more in line with the federalist sense of political
thought, there was always a strong commitment to one’s responsibility to
fulfill one’s part in the grand partnership under our national compact, the US Constitution.
No comments:
Post a Comment