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, December 8, 2017

A NON-ROD SPARING ZONE

This blog has made the point that people are wired to think in terms of fairness (see for example “Fair Is Fair,” June 21, 2016).  But, according to George Lakoff,[1] this thinking plays some sort of shell game.  That is, since fairness is a purely human construct – there is no structural object, in reality, that constitutes fairness – the mind has to symbolically represent the notion of fairness.  To do this, it deals in metaphors.
          The metaphor of a ledger is more than likely to be the one employed to give this totally made-up[2] notion some concreteness.  If one person does an unjust harm to another, the metaphor visualizes this as the person owing the victim some pay-back to balance the ledger.  But the utilization of metaphors does not end there. 
Lakoff goes on the provide two other powerful metaphors that further conceptualizes how fairness or rightness is cognitively and emotionally handled by most people.  The great divide in our politics can be understood, in part, by analyzing these two opposing metaphors.  That would be the “strict father morality” metaphor and the “nurturant parent morality” metaphor. 
This posting will briefly describe the strict father metaphor and, in a later posting, will look at the nurturant parent metaphor.  But first a word on how another metaphor has been used in this blog.  That would be the metaphor of a partnership.
As the title of this blog’s promoted construct indicates, federation theory calls on citizens to be federated with each other.  What does that mean?  A simple, but useful, way to conceptualize this notion is to use the metaphor of a partnership.  In this view, the US Constitution is a grand agreement – agreed upon in perpetuity – in which the citizens of this nation have entered into a partnership. 
Concretely, that means that each citizen defines fellow citizens as sharing their interests.  Yes, they can compete against each other, they can set themselves as opponents to each other, but in the long-run, their interests are in common.  What is good for one, in the long-run, is good for all and what is good for all, in the long-run, is good for each.  Can one hear the Three Musketeers?  In the long-run, they cannot be enemies.
But in common parlance, one seldom hears people use this metaphor.  Instead, one is much more likely to hear in public venues – TV or newspapers – the metaphor of a family.  We are told we are the “American family.”  Sorry, this writer does not feel that metaphor.  He has a family, he loves his family, he even likes most members of his extended family.  But the guy who lives down the street is not a member of that family either in fact or metaphorically.
The problem with the family metaphor is that it naturally leads to this notion of authority being based on some natural plan.  People are born into a family – not much choice there – and is subject to authority not of his/her making.  Voila, there is father and mother and they are in charge.  There is no voting them in nor voting them out. 
Fine, in the grand scheme of things all this makes sense, but when such an arrangement is used to define a more encompassing arrangement, a not so good idea is promulgated.  That is, the nation’s leaders are imbued with a basis of authority beyond a citizen’s control.  That is an undemocratic, unrepublican idea.
It is difficult enough to maintain authority under reasonable restraints.  And yet, the metaphor of a family – a homey type of image – makes this even more difficult.  After reviewing the first of the prevailing metaphors, the strict father metaphor, one can further sense how using the family metaphor is counterproductive.
What follows is Lakoff’s take on this strict father metaphor.  And it is an involved one; one with a sort of narrative behind it.  The story begins with setting the stage; that is, people live in a dangerous world.  It has always been dangerous and it will always be dangerous.  To meet this danger, individuals must be disciplined to survive.  They must count on themselves to keep the wolf from the door. 
And that door is both metaphorically out there, but can also be inside the person.  As a matter of fact, the most basic threats emanate from weaknesses in people’s makeups.  The answer to those weaknesses is discipline and no agent can instill that discipline more effectively than a strict parent – usually visualized as the strict father.  Of course, in some families, it is the strict mother that fits the bill.
And the chief tool in this process is punishment when the child falls short in exhibiting the necessary discipline and what he/she should do.  Oh, there’s room for nurturing – visualized as the mother’s role – but, under two provisions that place meaningful parameters around such parenting.
One, nurturing is never coddling and, two, never trumps punishment when an offense is detected.  And whether the punishment or nurturing is being administered, the aim is to instill self-reliance.  Progress is defined as the development of a person who does not have to count on anyone for survival – in reality, an impossible aim.  But the parenting encourages one to opt for this fantasy.
It further encourages a view that failure reflects some personality or otherwise character flaw.  It means that the person did not, in his/her formative years, receive appropriate and sufficient punishment – usually of the corporal variety – and now the real world should administer what was missed in an earlier time.
It is in this light that one can view two recent quotes by prominent politicians.  One was by Senator Chuck Grassley when he commented on the tax bill provision that does away with the estate tax (a tax that is charged against estates of over $5.45 million and levied on the inheritors of the estate).  He said, “I think having the estate tax recognizes the people that are investing as opposed to those that are just spending every darn penny they have, whether it’s on booze or women or movies.”
The other telling quote is by Senator Orrin Hatch, who quite honestly was speaking about the discontinuance of a program – CHIP which helps provide health care for children in low income households – he helped get enacted, but now is willing to vote it out of existence.  He said, “I have a rough time wanting to spend billions and billions of dollars to help people who won’t help themselves, won’t lift a finger and expect the federal government to do everything.”  Both of these quotes reek of a strict father mentality.
The metaphor relies on a view, Lakoff calls, “folk behaviorism.”  That is, it is based on a simple version of the behavioral principles that people will pursue those things that offer rewards and avoid those thing that accrue punishments.  The idea for success is simply to become programed to doing the good, moral thing and programed to avoid those that are bad, evil.  The process entails overcoming inherent drives – like the seven deadly sins:  greed, lust, gluttony, envy, sloth, pride, and anger – by having the fortitude, the discipline to do so.
So, the metaphor is made up of various attributes.  They include, but not limited to, individual responsibility, self-discipline, essentialist morality (lacking any nuance), self-denial, and willingness to face hardships head-on.  Excuses for shortfalls are not well tolerated and people are to accept their fates as a reflection of their own strengths or shortcomings, at least in the main.
One can associate such a moral view with the Calvinist tradition without the aid of that tradition’s reliance on the community.  The view provides a lot of what right-wing politics assumes in their rhetoric.  It might have become impolite – poor politics – to be so forthright and blunt in espousing such a harsh set of ideas, but that should not be taken as them – strict parent biases – being tossed out with modern language.  The biases are still alive and influential.



[1] George Lakoff, Moral Politics:  How Liberals and Conservatives Think (Chicago, IL:  The University of Chicago Press, 2002).

[2] By using the term “made-up,” the writer is not diminishing the importance of fairness or justice.  The point is that nothing in nature can be pointed at and be identified as fairness or justice.  Fairness is an important mental construct.

No comments:

Post a Comment