LET’EM ROLL

Previously, this blog reported on the work of Carol S. Dweck[1] – see for example the posting, “Intelligence Is Changeable,” July 8, 2016.  She introduced this writer to two views of intelligence:  the entity and the incremental.  From how they are described, this writer sees this distinction as important when considering what is an appropriate mindset when considering a federalist approach to civic affairs.

The entity view sees intelligence as a fairly static quality of one’s mental capacities – what is known and, more importantly, how one learns is not subject to meaningful change.  You’re either smart or you’re not.  On the other hand, the incremental view is the opposite – it describes intelligence as malleable, willfully changeable, and dynamic.  These are mutually exclusive views.

          That previous posting made the point that the incremental view is a significantly more democratic view.  This blog, in other postings, has further indicated that Dweck’s research has shown that an incremental view is reflective of how the human mind can operate if the person has a belief in this ability to change one’s intelligence. 

This writer has made the judgement that the incremental view is more supportive of a federalist view in that it promotes an active, engaging citizenship within a person or among a population.  It also undergirds the role of consent in the formation or maintenance of a federal union.  Consent presupposes an active, evolving mental capacity to handle the unknown.  Think of all the risk, all the unknowns involved in entering a marriage – a basic federal union.

          This posting picks up on this line of thought.  It attempts to shed light on what apparently is a cultural shift of sorts.  It seems that there is a changing perception on the whole idea of taking chances.  More specifically, on taking chances regarding business activities. 

When taking a chance – as when someone starts a business – he/she is betting that his/her idea will make money.  This type of chance is always involved when one starts a business, tries a new line of work, or accepts a job at a new place.  Such an effort has an experimental or “iffy” character to it.  It might pay off or it might not; it might even cost the person a significant amount.  Hence, it’s a bet one is consenting to take. 

The popular view is that this chance-taking has become more acceptable among the population, though, on closer scrutiny there seems to be a limitation on that trend.  At least, that is what one observes when one compares this type of chancy behavior among those who belong to Generation X and those who are Millennials.  Here is what one journalist has to say about this comparison:

Every year, far more new entrepreneurs fail than succeed.  But if you aren’t one of the lucky few, don’t despair:  Failure has transformed from a source of shame into a badge of honor.  Today’s CEOs and thought leaders glorify mistakes as key stepping stones to success – a sentiment that Generation X has taken to a whole new level.  In a recent essay for the Washington Post, Silicon Valley venture capitalist Geoff Lewis uses the phrase “failure porn” to describe the eager repackaging of people’s lowest moment – the grislier, the better.  Older leaders are urging young people to take risks when they’re most able – but this message is ill-suited for [younger] Millennials, who would much rather get started on the right foot than stumble and start again.[2]

Obviously, in this description, Gen X exhibits a more incremental view and, Millennials tend to exhibit an entity view.  How?  Well, if one sees failure as a stepping stone to success, then failing becomes a learning experience.  That is, one that can be used to derive the needed information about oneself and the involved task – be it a business, a skill, or a job – to be a success.  But before one can learn, one needs to believe one can learn and that a failure is not an indication that one just doesn’t have what it takes to succeed. 

Apparently, from this limited evidence, this distinction in how one views intelligence has a cultural aspect to it.  It seems, from comparing these two generations, that a particular sense for whether these possibilities exist or not are shared among age cohorts.   In turn, there are prevailing, consequential views over how one sees risk. 

So, how one accepts risk reflects on how one views intelligence.  Risk is more acceptable when one believes one can learn and change accordingly.  Another way to say this is to adhere to the old saying:  survive to fight another day.  But further, it also admonishes a failing party to learn from the failure.  After all, one can do so if one has an intelligence that is malleable, willfully changeable, and dynamic. 

The question remains:  how can one encourage the incremental view among the upcoming generation.  How does a nation encourage an incremental view of intelligence?  This issue should be addressed directly and not treated as an assumption one holds one way or another without any possibility of changing it.  The entity view should be actively identified and undermined whenever possible.  The incremental view should also be identified, but, instead, supported whenever possible.

---

[1] Carol S. Dweck, Self-Theories:  Their Role in Motivation, Personality, and Development (Philadelphia, PA:  Psychology Press, 2000)

[2] Neil Howe, “Millennials Don’t Want to ‘Embrace Failure,’” Forbes, February 11, 2015, accessed December 28, 2017, https://www.forbes.com/sites/neilhowe/2015/02/11/millennials-dont-want-to-embrace-failure/#4dfc3ceec19a. 

SOME REFLECTIONS

This blog has been going on for some time.  And it has had a central purpose – to promote federation theory.  For what?  To guide educators in their choice of content in the subject matter, civics.  Such an effort, to whatever influence it might have, causes its author reason to reflect.  This posting reports on such a reflection.

          Actually, there are two reflections.  One, it occurs to the writer that all this talk of encouraging an ideal-based view of government and politics might be considered “pie in the sky” talk (or writing).  This is despite the fact this writer has been very straight forward in describing this construct as idealistic.

This is not, exclusively, in terms of what exists, not even of what might exist, but as an espoused aspiration of what, in terms of government and politics, perfection might look like.  After all, the Constitution uses that sort of language:  “… to form a more perfect union.”  Federation theory, which this blog has argued had a lot to do with the Constitution’s purposes, is not meant to guide political science research; and not to be a basis for legalistic argument – although in another context it could be used for either of these purposes.

No, here instead it is used to assist in socializing students in the political culture of the nation as it is and in how it should be.  In turn, these purposes are considered as being very important.  The blog dedicates a lot of space to indicating what happens or is enabled to happen when school instruction is deficient in these endeavors. 

This blog has provided evidence that there exists among the populous a deficient level of political knowledge, of skills in acquiring political knowledge, a general disinterest in government and in being engaged in politics, uncivil behavior, and high levels of criminality as compared to other nations.  All this points to a deficient civics education program.  And within this deficiency, the blog has further identified an element of that instruction that is central to the problem.  That is, the adoption of the natural rights perspective in choosing content for civics courses of study.

          And this leads the writer to the second reflection:  can’t a curriculum that adopts the natural rights construct be equally idealistic?  By its very nature, natural rights diminishes being idealistic.  Its closest approach to being so is that it tends to romanticize the individual – the John Wayne image out there attempting – and in the movies, succeeding – taming the environment.  The environment, be it the natural one or the social one, is depicted as hostile in various ways and degrees.

          Natural environments can be extreme in terms of weather, geological features, or distances one needs to transverse.  Social environments are often pictured as prejudicial, backward, ignorant, or enemies of change.  On a more recent bent, the social also includes unreasonable and oppressive bureaucracies, especially those housed in government departments either within state capitals or within the national government. 

Of course, federation theory shares a concern over governmental control when it comes to local matters.  Yet, liberated federalism tempers this concern with the realization there is a need to face global forces, often run by officials, ironically well-ensconced in natural rights views.  Yes, they believe in a form of corporatism, but they rail against government intrusion.  These can be officials of global organizations such as transnational corporations. 

The truth is, more and more of a citizen’s daily concerns are affected by these mega entities.  But it is argued here that federation theory, with its concern emanating from its view of regulated equality, is more able to address it than a view that acts as if all entities enjoy equal condition, equal standing before the law.  And in that distinction between how the two constructs treats this issue of equality, federation theory is in a more “real” space.

So then, is federation theory too idealistic?  One in which a student population would be left adrift in a view of government and politics that simply does not exist and in one leaving them without enough of the truth for them to be able to function in what is real.  This writer, of course, does not agree with this characterization. 

He sees it as an avenue to take a cold look at the truth and judge it against a life-sustaining view of what that truth should be.  It understands that in too many cases the truth isn’t what it should be, but it holds out hope that it can be made right in the way ideals do for those who hold them.

Is the reader beyond such a view; too enveloped in what is and unable to waste time in such fancy sentiments?  Here is a way to tell, by asking:  does the film, It’s a Wonderful Life,[1] seem to be too schmaltzy?  To the degree the reader sees that movie as a bunch of niceties that one thinks about at Christmas time – because “tis the season” – but has little to say about everyday life, then, yes, federation theory is probably a waste of time.[2]  Unless, that reader has at least a smudge of doubt over such a judgement, then this blog is of little use.

But, if there is that doubt or if that movie has something to say on July 4^th, then the reader is in fact open to considering federation theory as a more useful way to define civics education.  It is for them that this blog is meant to affect.  This writer doesn’t know what more needs to happen – or is he scarred to consider what more needs to happen? – for one to see what is deficient in this very important process.

The process is:  how schools teach what the nation’s government is and how its politics is practiced.  He sees that, in addition to these concerns, an educator, a parent, or the community needs to ask:  what its government should be and how its politics should be practiced.

---

[1] Frank Capra (director/producer), It’s a Wonderful Life (Liberty Films, 1946).

[2] Perhaps an account of American life as is portrayed on the HBO production, The Sopranos as analyzed on the documentary study, America in Primetime, viewed December 24, 2017, on MSNBC, is seen as more useful.