This posting is a
continuation of the previous posting. If
the reader missed the last posting, he/she is encouraged to click on to it and
get the context of this posting.
Overall, this and the previous entry looks at regulated condition, a
form of equality. The purpose is to see
how a liberated federalist model is “activated” and depict how an association,
particularly a government, meets a political challenge.
Social Implication – A
commonwealth is faced with a double-edged sword. On the one hand, the inevitable ranking of
individuals leads to an uneven distribution of material values. Such a reality, though, threatens the level
of moral equality in the commonwealth – especially if the unevenness is extreme
or functions to prohibit others from such advantages.
Ranking is not only
pervasive among societies of all kinds – even among those who set out to
abolish such rankings – but it is also readily justified within those societies
either directly or through some rationalization. Calls to end all uneven distributions are
unrealistic and attempts will cause unacceptable costs to other values.[1]
In other words, policies that
seek equal results, as is called for by critical theory, would be too costly in
terms, not only in funding any resulting programs that seeks to accomplish such
equality, but also in other ways as well.
History shows that attempts to even out distributions act to squelch the
motivation of those who would otherwise engage in hard, creative work which
results in advanced technological and other production oriented activities.
Selznick points out that
the experiences of collectivist societies which have made such attempts to end
all uneven distributions have failed miserably due to talent flight or
disengagement. This seems to indicate
that such motivation would be squelched.[2]
The key to resolving the
tension between equal results and regulated condition is the classic liberal
call for equal opportunity. Selznick
describes this value:
No one should be hampered, no door should be closed to anyone,
because of a prejudice against that person’s social origins. Whatever opportunities exist should be open
to all without regard to social class or (as later extended) to race, creed,
ethnicity, or gender. Thus equality of
opportunity has the limited objective of overcoming prejudice while maintaining
the legitimacy of differential rewards.[3]
In short, the focus is on
ending any caste elements within the commonwealth. Affirmative action – proactive government
policy that aims at eliminating arbitrary inequality – under a value of moral
equality, is limited to certain activities.
They are:
·
identifying and providing
appropriate training to those victimized by discrimination;
·
helping members of a
discriminated group, or, if efforts are made to assist such victims, demanding
evidence that public or private agencies providing such assistance have done so
in good faith and have exerted a meaningful effort to rectify past incidents of
discrimination by showing actual accomplishments toward those ends that advance
federalist equality.
What about those who have
not been discriminated against but find themselves unequally treated due to
their lack of success in securing financial or material resources? Selznick calls for helpful efforts be extended
to them also because by doing so it would upgrade the group – the collective. That is, the whole commonwealth is negatively
affected by the reality associated with persistent poverty.
Public agencies, such as
schools, should provide resources to poorer members of the commonwealth to
encourage recipients to be able to compete for the limited material
values. This aim encompasses two
ends: directed assistance to provide the
basic requirements of life (food, shelter, etc.) and access to the educational
resources that are available to improve the competitive status of the
disadvantaged.
The commonwealth would be
based on the meritocracy that allows those who produce or have good fortune to
benefit from their efforts or luck, but it dismisses as illegitimate the ideal
that holds that “winners” are inherently superior. Inequalities in such a value system – one
based on merit – are tolerated because to eliminate them would be costly and
impractical and would be disruptive and counterproductive to the general
creation of wealth in terms of material and other assets.
Chronic inequality that renders
segments of the citizenry to poverty ultimately works to the disinterest of
all, including not only the disadvantaged and the discriminated, but the
advantaged as well. Therefore, the moral
equality that is sought is based on a reciprocal advantage, not on sympathy,
pity, or benevolence. Under such a
system, all should support such “helping” policy because, given an unfortunate
turn of events, anyone in the commonwealth could be at the bottom.
This reciprocal relationship
among citizens calls on a meaningful reality that, one, allows an opportunity
to improve one’s position significantly, and, two, sets up a cooperative mode
of social interaction. It allows for
rational decision-making, maximizing one’s benefits and minimizing one’s costs,
but is more encompassing than the marginal analysis of the systems approach
(which was described earlier in this blog as an element of the natural rights
construct).
Selznick writes that this
reciprocal relationship considers the potential and often real disruption that
the lack of respect and dignity can cause in the social square or arena and the
possibility that anyone or anyone’s loved ones can find themselves in desperate
and deprived conditions. The reciprocal relationship
of the arrangement has strong support within its logic for a fraternal ethos
upon which community can build and a meaningful commonwealth can be maintained.[4]
But there exists under this
logic the temptation to see all inequalities as counter to moral equality. One needs to be clear on the functions of
inequality:
Historically there have been four main justifications for
inequalities as contributing to the common good. It has been claimed that inequalities are
essential for: (1) effective organization for prosperity, education, public safety,
and similar social goals; (2) achievement of excellence and high standards,
especially in the realm of “high culture”; (3) protection of freedom, including
the freedom to become unequal in possessions and personal attainments; and (4)
commitment to ascriptive unities, especially family membership, which depend on
recognition of special benefits and privileges.
None of these objectives can justify unlimited or unrestrained
inequality.[5]
To summarize: some level of
inequality is both practical and moral; i.e., a moral commonwealth should
support an elitist element within its midst.
The elites, who are committed to democratic and republican ideals, are
those the commonwealth depends upon to lead the pursuit of a moral society
under those ideals.
Included in this ideal is
the goal of establishing a community in which the elites and non-elites can
live in a cooperative venture. In short,
that cooperative effort is to seek equality that restrains arbitrary power,
encourages democratic participation, and promotes effective economic
opportunity.
An Equality Aim, A Further Implication – This account of federation theory is
about what should be taught in civics classrooms, not about constitutional
dicta suitable for courtroom argument.
The writer knows his place. In
terms of law, in his humble opinion, the natural rights' manner of defining
individual rights is about right; that is, while some things should be changed,
even in the direction of federalist thought, by and large a system of laws that
supports a more individualistic take on our rights should be sustained.
Legally, one should be able to define
basic values and those courses of action one feels are best for his/her
individually defined goals. But such a
legal system does not preclude the nation from holding “higher” aspirations for
its citizens. And “higher” is in terms
of sustaining the health of the commonwealth.
But, just as those among the citizenry who wish everyone to be
religiously moral, few would impose the power of government to enforce such an
agenda.
One can say the same for a law-enforced
federalist “theocracy.” The call is not
to jam federalism down anyone’s throat, but for everyone to become aware of its
noble history in the development of this nation (including its government and
economic system) and its enticing promises to encourage and enable a more
communal democracy.
And that ends this account
of how federation theory views government and politics. What remains is a review of how its adherents
would see how its adoption would advance the common good through actual
classroom application. That is the topic
that will conclude this presentation of the federation theory construct along
with a summary of the blog’s argument to this point. It will do this by outlining a set of lesson
plans that can serve as an example of how federation theory can be implemented.
No comments:
Post a Comment