A CHOSEN VIEW OF EQUALITY

For the same reasons this blog used in reviewing the natural rights construct, the place to begin describing critical theory is with its moral perspective.  That is, moral positioning is what motivates someone to devise or adopt whatever other elements this construct offers.  Stated another way, initially one should see what the theory defines as good and evil. 

Any construct entails standards that reflect values arranged in a hierarchical order.  Atop that arrangement is a trump value.  Natural rights holds liberty as the trump value.  Critical theory sees equality as the trump value.  Critical theorists might hold liberty as important, even highly important, but in situations when one of these values needs to be chosen over the other, critical theorists will choose equality above liberty or any other value when it comes to societal issues. 

By placing equality as the trump value, it will affect how critical theorists will judge other social concerns.  One example is that in their use of the term liberty, critical theorists tend to define it as a quality that, to be meaningful, depends on people being equal, not just in terms of standing “before the law,” but in terms of income and wealth. 

Short of that level of equality, politics becomes something beyond which lower-income citizens have influence in determining what public policy will be.  Therefore, public policy will be skewed against these citizens and, consequently, will offend their liberty. 

  This example indicates that equality means different things to different people.  To those who support the natural rights view, as well as others such as monarchists, liberty means something other than what critical theorists believe equality to be.  As a matter of fact, in the nation’s history, there have been several definitions of equality that different groups have favored.  Five of these definitions deserve one’s attention.

So, to provide some context for how critical theorists view equality, a quick summary of these definitions would be helpful so that one can better measure what they are advocating, especially in political matters.  One might be prone to think that all Americans, no matter how constrained, support equality, if only in the abstract.  Yet that is not the case.

At the beginning of the nation's history, it is safe to say that the founding fathers’ understanding of what equality was is not what most Americans today define equality to be. Their most “equality” prone advocates were probably in favor of what one could call “earned elitism.”

Actually, this societal attribute has changed as the nation evolved into what it is today.  As the years rolled by, certain views concerning equality, some supportive, some not, have sprung up, gathered support, and then lost that support.  One can detect in that history five general orientations concerning equality and all of them are not supportive of what one could reasonably consider equality to be.

Each view or orientation is a way of seeing what the relevant worth of an individual is.  The orientations are genetic elitism, earned elitism, equal condition, regulated condition, and equal result.  These orientations have been reflected in the political culture prevalent during the different eras of our history. 

Generally, the orientations are listed here in the order from the most non-egalitarian view, genetic elitism, to the most egalitarian view, equal results.  Here is a short definition of each:

Genetic elitism believes that nature has determined by the genetic distribution of skills and abilities who should lead.  From this state of affairs, leadership should be reserved for certain families.

Earned elitism believes that nature does determine who is gifted, but that leadership itself, in all realms of life, should be reserved for those who through their efforts demonstrate their skills and exhibit superior performances in their chosen fields.

Equal condition believes that everyone is equal before the law and that economic and other benefits should be distributed to those who perform marketable skills and the amounts of compensation should be determined by competitive processes.

Regulated condition believes that market processes or other competitive processes should determine basic distributive decisions, but that markets and other competitive processes can and do fail.  Therefore, these processes should be regulated so that all citizens are afforded basic opportunities and minimum living standards.  Mainly, the belief goes on to see skills as the result of arbitrary forces and that anyone can find him/herself in a significantly deprived state.

Critical theory promotes equal results.  Below, this bias is more fully explained.  What are the attributes of equal results?  Here is a list of its beliefs: 

1.      Personal abilities are primarily developed from genetic or social conditions not subject to a person’s control.  Therefore, people who secure very high incomes are exploiting conditions they have/had little control over creating or developing.

2.     Such exploitation reflects a randomness in the distribution of skills, opportunities, connections, family reputations, genetic makeup, historical context, and the like with which some might be advantaged to have.  To unequally compensate such advantages is judged to be unjust.

3.     Not only is this unequal reward system unjust at any level, but in advanced, capitalistic economic arrangements, one finds that some can earn in a few days what takes others a lifetime to save.

4.     Marketable skills and other prized assets in capitalist systems have little to do with a person’s merit as a person and, in turn, in allocating the rewards he/she can secure.  Instead, marketable skills or other arbitrary assets have little concern for human qualities and, therefore, the processes by which compensation is determined dehumanizes the affected individuals.

5.      All human labors are intrinsically equal and the compensation received for labor should be within narrow limits.  The only difference among the labors performed is simply that they reflect different roles.  Hard work is expected not only from highly compensated workers or business owners; laborers also engage in hard work. 

Therefore, labor should be seen in terms of equal value.  An example: the movie star who performs in front of a camera should not make so much more than the cameraperson.  Both are equally responsible for the product produced.

True, such beliefs are seen by many in this country as being highly un-American.  Yet these beliefs have been attractive to many Americans, albeit always a minority, at different times in the nation’s history.  As a matter of fact, some who have expressed these beliefs are/were considered as prominent individuals. 

One such American was Eugene V. Debs, a prominent labor leader and presidential candidate in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.  Admittedly, his views were never that popular, but his positions reflected a tradition of thought that dates to political writers from the more obscure John Ruskin to, at least to some degree, Henry David Thoreau.

Yes, the above beliefs are Marxian-socialist ideals, but they are not unique to Marx.  They can also be found in the works of Leo Tolstoy and Mahatma Gandhi.  In America, such beliefs or ideals have been given more positive endorsement among the populous during times in which extreme exploitation of laborers was prevalent. 

Such times include the industrial revolution of the late 1800s or the Great Depression.  In the last election cycle, socialist Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign attracted a significant number of followers.  All socialists, at least to some level, espouse Marxian principles.[1]  It should be added that during those same times, there is also an uptick in nationalist sentiments – one can see that happening right now as displaced laborers in advanced countries feel threatened.[2]

While this Marxian source is common among critical pedagogues, its theoretical origins vary.  They can be from such sources as Tolstoy’s Christianity to Marx’s sense of science and scientific thinking which was influenced by Thomas Hobbes.  Marx claimed that the eventuality of a socialist state – one in which productive property would be owned in common – was an inevitable result of how productive forces would develop.[3]  Yet in all this scientific thinking, one can easily detect a moral claim lying below the surface.

---

[1] For a dramatization of such advocacy in an American setting, see the film, Reds (Beatty), starring Warren Beatty, who was also the film's producer and director.

[2] One can cite the Marxian scenario in which laborers are displaced by labor saving machines – automation.  Add to that the competition from low wage countries (emerging countries) and one has the makings of a disgruntled labor class.  Many attribute these conditions for the election of Donald Trump.

[3] In Marx’s view, the development of society is simply the product of deterministic laws in which people, following their nature of being hedonistic egoists – a la Hobbes – and are simply pursuing their selfish interests. 

A CRITICAL TURN

A description of the natural rights construct and its effect on civics education would not be complete without reviewing the main critique of it:  the critical theory construct which is primarily supported by academics.  In the postings leading to this one, this writer has been reviewing the natural rights construct.  That review was completed with the last posting.  To use, advisedly, the language of its origins, critical theory is the antithesis of the natural rights view.

          What this and following postings will do is answer three questions:  what view of morality motivates an adherent to harbor critical theory beliefs? What view of government and politics does the construct describe and explain?  And how do the construct’s adherents view their contributions toward the common good?

But before beginning this brief view, here is a word of “warning.”  Unlike the natural rights construct, this construct has very little influence or presence in American classrooms.  Why?  A simple reason for this is that its ideas and ideals do not have much support among the American people.

For those who do find this construct appealing, there is a wide variance of support from being merely sympathetic with its concerns to a life-defining commitment to its tenets.  While any set of ideas will not garner complete support among those who are attracted to it – that includes the natural rights construct – this is even truer for critical theory. 

The fact that the construct is based on Marxian ideas – a set of ideas Americans have been historically antagonistic toward – goes a long way to explain this lack of support among the general population or lack of consistent support among its adherents. 

For most teachers and other establishment educators (administrators and workers at educational bureaucracies), Marxian positions tend to be considered un-American.  As such, those who support part or all of it might be seen by many or most Americans as less legitimate than what is warranted. 

To fully appreciate the natural rights view, one needs to understand what the view engenders in opposition.  So, here is, hopefully, a legitimate and respectful presentation of this other view, albeit a short one, for a reader who might harbor antagonistic biases.

If only a few teachers and school administrators support critical theory, also known as critical pedagogy, one can ask:  why bother with this view at all?  In the various schools of education on the nation’s college and university campuses, critical theory has become the dominant perspective and that is what, frankly, keeps it an active force in education. 

These educators run the teacher education programs at the nation’s universities and colleges.  While this is true, their lasting effect on incoming teachers is highly limited.  In most cases, students who are exposed to ideas that run counter to what has become accepted truth will tend to dismiss such messages.  They have little influence. 

Upon finishing these few years away from home at a higher educational facility, students return to accept teaching jobs either in their hometowns or in towns or areas nearby.  In their assigned schools, they reemerge among the milieu of other teachers and school personnel who hold beliefs and attitudes that are more familiar.  These beliefs tend to be antithetical to the beliefs espoused by critical pedagogues.  It turns out that these other co-workers have much more influence on these newly credentialed teachers.

But it is important to present this critical theory construct to the reader because parents and teachers should have general knowledge of what these scholars behind the ivy-covered walls are presenting.  While this writer is not a critical pedagogue, those who are have important ideas to offer.  They offer legitimate concerns and challenging ideas.  Their recommended approaches to curriculum should be given respectful consideration. 

They are sources of information about which typical citizens are not conscious.  They shed light on tilted policies that favor advantaged, economic groups.  These conditions are verifiable and they seriously question the levels of justice the nation extends to lower income segments of the population.  As such, critical pedagogues deserve the attention of any citizen who is serious about social capital.  Hopefully, the following postings will stir an increased level of interest among the readership.