A recurring pair of concepts this blog has utilized is
theory-in-use and espoused theory. This
writer finds the accompanying distinction between these two ideas to be very
useful. The first is the working sense
or visualization one has about what one is doing. The other, an espoused theory, is what one
ideally believes and feels about what one is doing. Ideally, the two should be in sync, but, if
not, at least be congruent or accommodating one another. The writers responsible for this
conceptualization are Chris Argyris
and Donald A. Shon.[1]
This
distinction can be quite complex in particular cases since ideals, though not
espoused at times, can be subconscious.
Despite this, these biases pop up when it’s time to decide to act in a
situation. For example, one can have
buried, within one’s senses, prejudicial ideals and, when certain situations
arise, such a bias can lead one to judge a person, an animal, or a thing as
being responsible for some event. That biased
person jumps to that conclusion possibly unaware of what prejudice is at work –
the prejudice affects how that person sees the event.
To varying
degrees of seriousness, all people fall prey to such a thing. When it happens, it is usually prudent to
attempt to identify it, engage in appropriate introspection, and either combat
the prejudice or, if one finds it positive, formualate reasoned reasons to
harbor such a judgement – not all prejudices are negative, unjust in their
content, or counterproductive. All of
them, though, are felt without sufficient reflection; they are more like
intuitive beliefs.
But that is at
the individual level. This writer
believes that this couple of concepts are so powerful one can extend them to a
societal level. That is, a people can
have a common theory-in-use and a common espoused theory. A simple example is when a people believe in
equal opportunity – like one can argue Americans generally do – and yet sustain
economic conditions that cannot be described as providing equal
opportunity.
The theory-in-use or one these hidden
espoused theories, to some degree, diverges from this equal opportunity, espoused
theory. A lot of the nation’s history
has been to seek equal opportunity, but one would be hard pressed to say the
nation has arrived at that ideal. Along
the way, the nation has supported policies that have hindered achieving
meaningful, equal opportunity in too many cases or among certain segments of
the population.
As with an
individual, there can be reasons for that shortfall. Some can be legitimate, others not so
much. But that is not the point being
made here. What is being pointed out is
that a society’s espoused theory concerning government and politics is
important to know and, if seen as legitimate and worthy of allegiance,
supported. If not, it should be
combatted.
This blog has made the claim that
what he has called traditional federalism was the dominant view of government
and politics from the earliest colonial days all the way to the years
immediately following World War II.
While not all historians agree with that assessment – some only extend
it till the time of the ratification of the constitution and some feel it is
still the dominant view today – what is exactly held is not that the nation’s
theory-in-use was a federalist theory, but that its espoused theory was and
among some, still is.
By extension, this blog’s argument is
that civics education should adopt a newer version of federation theory –
liberated federalism. In so doing, its
advocates do not need to measure their success in promoting it by how many people
accept it as a theory-in-use, but as a generally held espoused theory. With that in mind, how can one further
conceptualize federation theory to assist such an adoption?
One of the scholars that argues that
federalism is still the dominant, espoused theory, is Daniel Elazar. He provides an analogous language to help his
readers get a more concrete sense of what the function of such a theory
provides. For example, there is the
following:
The Bible reminds us that every tenth
generation [100 years], a new epoch begins.
During the first epoch of American history, the American people forged a
unique synthesis of constitutionalism, republicanism, and democracy. As we reflect back from the vantage point of
the newly begun twelfth generation [1990s], two generations into the second
epoch of American history, we are well advised to consider the character and
meaning of the first. Federalism is the
glue that has tied constitutionalism, republicanism, and democracy together
during the first eleven generations of American history. Like all glue, it has the properties of
flexibility and hardness in turn and, once set, tends to be invisible or at
least unnoticed in the midst of the materials which it has joined together, but
without the glue the materials fall apart.
Contemporary Americans have shown that they have no less concern for
constitutionalism, republicanism and democracy than their forefathers. But it often seems as if they are neglecting
the glue. If the second epoch of
American history is to reflect the fulfillment of the American promise, then we
will have to be as concerned with the glue as we are with the materials
themselves.[2]
This writer
does not agree with this venerable scholar – a person he had the honor to meet
and share a lunch. This writer believes
that the espoused theory prevalent today is natural rights. He also attributes a lot of what seems to be
unravelling in the nation’s current political environment is due to this
shift.
To be honest, the nation had in its
past times unravelling conditions that took on a more strident character –
probably the Civil War era makes today look like a kumbaya period. But one is safe to say that those times were
noted for the nation’s theory-in-use defying its espoused theory. Slavery was an affront to federalism.
What makes development potentially
more serious today is that current political developments are not so foreign
from a natural rights construct, the current espoused theory. So, therefore, the problem is not
incongruence, but congruence. Congruence
between a theory-in-use – one that legitimizes extreme self-centered-ness[3] – and an
espoused theory that turns a blind eye to the current state of affairs.
[1] Chris Argyris and Donald A. Shon, “Evaluating Theories in
Action,” in The Planning of Change,
Fourth Edition, eds. Warren G. Bennis, Kenneth D. Benne, and Robert Chin
(New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1985).
[2] Daniel J.
Elazar, “How Federal Is the Constitution?
Thoroughly” Readings for Classes
Taught by Professor Elazar (presentation materials, prepared for a National
Endowment for the Humanities Institute, Steamboat Springs, Colorado, 1994), 30.
[3] Jean M. Twenge & W. Keith Campbell, W. K. The Narcissism Epidemic: Living in the Age
of Entitlement (New York, NY: Free
Press, 2009).
No comments:
Post a Comment