There is a
general descriptive statement one can make concerning scholarly, scientific work
that attempts to record, describe, and explain what is real. Scholars seek unifying theories or constructs
that provide them a holistic view of what they study. This is more readily attainable in the
natural sciences – there is a unifying theory in biology and chemistry, for
example. Physics is searching for such a
theory that accommodates what is known about both relativity and quantum
mechanics.
On the other hand, the social sciences have been unable to even
approach developing unified theories.
Take political science; as with the other social sciences, it is easily
affected by notions of right and wrong – normative considerations – which interfere
with the ability of political scientists to objectify political behavior. Therefore, various approaches to the subject,
in the form of various models, are bound to be developed.
Consequently, among political scientists, choices are made as to
what model will be utilized. Naturally,
this does affect civics education since this subject matter in the curriculum demands
an overarching theoretical approach to the study of government and politics – if
for no other reason, it helps in producing and selling textbooks for a national
market.
For a variety of reasons, mostly historical, civics educators have
chosen the political systems model as their theoretical foundation. This perspective is logically derived from
the natural rights construct. But more
fundamentally, one should not see such a choice as inevitable – as it tends to
be – but rather a product of a choice over other options.
The average classroom teacher is not conscious of this choice; the
option is simply in place. It’s what
the textbook reflects and is the theoretical foundation of a state defined
curriculum and state standards. Of
course, this choice has consequences in that it determines, to a great degree,
the resulting content that the teacher presents in his/her lessons. That includes what is emphasized, what is
asked about, and what desired outcomes are sought.
To provide an overview, a political systems model, as it reflects natural
rights perspective, is to guide educators to see politics as a grand procedure
in which a compromise is sought over competing ambitions. Generally, the studied procedure is deemed to
be a legitimate, competitive process.
The model does this by defining citizenship, government, and
politics in terms that are conducive to this competitive imagery. It indicates or seeks explanations about how,
in generic terms, these elements coordinate to arrive at distributive decisions
– who gets what, when, and where – and how those decisions are
implemented.
One could ask: what other
options are there? Well, the choice
could be a construct in which more communal concerns are highlighted (as with
efforts to promote social capital as described in this blog). Instead, the choice of the natural
rights/political systems option is one that promotes a more individualist and
consumerist approach to the study of government and politics.
This blog has identified the origins of the natural rights view in
the writings of John Locke. In terms of
political systems, it philosophically can be traced to two sources: the Enlightenment and the ideas of Niccolo
Machiavelli.
The effect of the Enlightenment is to promote three
qualities: a bias for rational thought, the
use of logical analysis, and a genuine appreciation for what is natural. These biases have been expressed through a
call for and a reliance on science and scientific research methodologies.
In terms of Machiavelli’s influence, the Italian theorist’s writings
have the effect of encouraging political scholars to dismiss their concerns over
whether governmental policies are moral and, instead, to view politics as
amoral. That is, they are to study the
selfish ambitions of political actors and this, in turn, reflects an
objectified search for how these actors attain and implement power.[1]
Overall, such a search will uncover certain claimed truisms
concerning politics. That is, politics is
merely part of our human nature, as it is and not in as it should be. Ironically, though, normative elements cannot
be totally ignored in that such a view of politics dictates how governmental
officials – Machiavelli focuses on the prince – should conduct their
responsibilities. He summarizes this
mode of governing as a leader being both a lion and fox.
How? For example, concerns by
a leader for the welfare of constituents are misplaced. Consequently, he/she should not provide
resources to the poor. To do so would make the ruler seem weak because he or
she would apparently be motivated by sentimentality and inevitably hated when
he or she cannot afford to provide the assistance.
The leader sees his/her interests in relation to citizens as being
limited to policies that advance his/her power.
As such, this “allows” a political actor – who is not sentimental – to seek
his/her political ambitions with few restraints other than those imposed by
actors who have more power. In its
purest form, it is known as being “Machiavellian.”
This is not to say that either the ideas of the Enlightenment or
of Machiavelli dictate what constitutes a study or a lesson plan that utilizes
natural rights/political systems perspective; instead, these sources provide
philosophical underpinnings to the perspective.
But, having pointed that out, one should see these sources as two guiding
influences on how the perspective guides either political science research or
lesson planning in civics.
In
addition, it also reflects how most citizens view government and politics. While most do not hold this bias in its
purest form – see the previous posting – there is among the citizenry a leaning
toward believing everyone is about taking care of his/her own interests with
little concern for the common benefit.
While
most would not describe politics as amoral, they do tend to objectify its study
– assuming the issue in question does not directly affect the person being
asked. It is quite amazing how many of
the most ardent proponents of natural rights views seem to be more in favor of
government action being “sympathetic” to their needs when their interests are
threatened – often using communal language to further those interests. But short of that, being sensitive to
communal concerns is generally seen as being naively idealistic.[2]
[1] By stating that the concern is over a citizen’s
interests, a citizen is free to define those interests in terms of promoting
the welfare of others. He/she is free to
be as selfish or altruistic as he/she deems is best for him/herself. That is, “selfish ambitions” could be defined
as being concerned with others. Yet,
this is not seen as a very likely expression of an actor’s ambitions.
[2] Norman Ornstein, “American Democracy and the Common
Good,” The Huffington Post, accessed
September 22, 2016, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/norman-ornstein/american-democracy-and-th_b_3354628.html.
No comments:
Post a Comment