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.

Tuesday, April 3, 2018

WHO GOES THERE?


Perhaps one has heard the bit of common wisdom that prejudices are not inherited, they are not inbred, they are learned.  This writer wants to believe this notion without any qualifications.  The problem, though, is that this whole business of “Us-vs.-Them” is a bit more complicated than just attributing it to socializing hateful messages to young people.
          One neuroendocrinologist, Robert Sapolsky, writes on this very issue.  Here is an excerpt:
As it’s been said … “There are two kinds of people in the world:  those who divide the world into two kinds of people and those who don’t.”  There are more of the first.  And it is vastly consequential when people are divided into Us and Them, in-group and out-group, “the people” (i.e., our kind) and the Other … The brain fault lines dividing Us from Them [can be shown through a] discussion of oxytocin ... [T]he hormone prompts trust, generosity, and cooperation toward Us but crappier behavior toward Them – more preemptive aggression in economic play, more advocacy of sacrificing Them (but not Us) for the greater good.  Oxytocin exaggerates Us/Them-ing.[1]
What seems to be going on is that there is an inbred bias toward tribalism.  That parochial bias was probably useful in pre-civilization days when, due to scarcity, protecting one group’s resources was vital to the survival of a tribe.  Those groups so armed with oxytocin were successful, those not so armed were not so successful.
          But a hormone cannot distinguish between people.  The bias might be inbred, but the target is learned.  And, by wishing for more efficiency and, in turn, the efficiency a tribe can attain by trading and cooperating with other tribes – and later, with other peoples, nations, and leagues of nations – an economic motivation was introduced to corral this bias under some control.  That is, because it has proved so profitable, humans marched toward global, economic arrangements.  This march progressed from trading with those nearby toward those far away.
          At times, these arrangements were set up by exploitive relations.  This was probably most clearly done in the age of colonization.  Led by the European powers, 1500s onward, efficiencies were had by stealing the resources of others.  Under such a system, an Us-vs.-Them view was functional to seek that system’s immediate ends.  Unfortunately, though, it sowed the seeds for increasing levels of antagonism between the exploiters and the exploited and, then, among the exploiters.  History is full of wars between and among colonial powers.
          This historical trend became evermore destructive.  Ironically, heavily influenced by the ever-increasing economic viabilities of this global trend, monies were available to “advance” the military capabilities of these exploiting actors.  These capabilities took a prodigious leap with the development of industrial modes of production.  One of the first indication of how destructive industrial weaponry is was the American Civil War.  That war took the fighting from open fields to urban areas.  The death rates rose substantially and included many non-combatants.
          Then, a few years later, there was World War I (18 million deaths) and World War II (50 to 80 million deaths).  In addition, the very economies of the warring nations were being devasted.  World War II practically destroyed the manufacturing facilities of Europe.  In other words, the very motivations that promoted exploitation were being attacked.  Exploitation, via both the rationale of economic advantage and demonizing the Them was undermined.
          Hence, the post-World War II movement toward a globalized economy materialized.  There have also been policies, especially among Western nations, to mature beyond Us-vs.-Them thinking.  This, for a non-prejudicial person, is a welcomed development, but one does need to remember:  there is that natural bias toward Us/Theming. 
The point here is:  it doesn’t help to underestimate this bias.  All that is needed for this ugly aspect of human nature to show itself is to have reverses in a nation’s economic conditions.  To wit, currently, there is an apparent rise in nationalism – a type of Us/Theming.  This writer believes that this is not a trend emanating out of nowhere. 
He sees it resulting from the Great Recession and developments negatively affecting some groups who have suffered from globalization.  Specifically, those groups are former manufacturing workers who have lost their jobs due to cheap, competitive workers in developing countries.  Another group has been miners – particularly of coal – where economic trends and concerns for the environment have lowered the demand for those minerals.
So, while the point that prejudices are learned is correct when it is applied to who gets victimized, it does not apply to people’s predispositions to develop prejudices.  Therefore, and this lesson is important to civics education, an enlightened people needs to be proactive in meeting the challenge of prejudicial thinking.  Not all that is natural is best or even good.


[1] Robert M. Sapolsky, Behave:  The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst (New York, NY:  Penguin Press, 2017), 387-389 (Kindle edition).  Oxytocin is a hormone.  It is produced by the hypothalamus, in the brain, and emitted by the pituitary gland. This is an important hormone during the childbirth process and assists the male reproduction function.

No comments:

Post a Comment