UPDATING CIVILITY, PART II

[Note:  This posting, the previous several postings, and at least the one to follow are a restatement of what has been addressed previously in this blog.  Some of the sentences to come have been provided before but the concern is that other information has been discovered and an update seems appropriate.  The blog has not changed the overall message – that civics education is seriously deficient – but some of the evidence needs updating.]

This blog presently is offering reportage on evidence as to the deficiencies of civics education in the nation’s classrooms.  While early on, the blog shared civics test results by secondary students and college students, the bulk of the evidence refers to those behaviors one associates with good citizenship.  After all, the reason educational policy includes civics and social studies as part the curriculum is to encourage those behaviors and activities citizens expect from their fellow citizens.

          This blog has identified various types of behavior as being those actions that good citizens perform.  They learn and therefore know about their government and about related politics characterizing their government.  They engage in civic activities, including political engagement, and, to be effective, learn and actuate political skills.  They generally behave with civility in their social interactions and they abide by the laws of their nation, state, and/or local jurisdictions. 

This blog claims that one can judge how well civics is doing by observing how well Americans do these things.  To this point, the blog has reported updated information concerning the governmental/political knowledge component and the civic/political engagement component of this responsibility.  This posting picks up what the prior posting began; it further reports on how well Americans behave with civility.

First, a bit of context.  This blog has argued that the nation, as its main view of government and politics, adopted a natural rights view.  That view holds that individuals have the right to determine those values and goals he/she determines to be best for him/her.  This is not only protected legally, but as something to be judged as admirable.  Those who argue for this position, often argue that that view was central to the founding fathers.  They claim it is a basic view held within the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution.  This blog has argued that that ascription is incorrect.

This blog has offered another view of rights or liberty to have been central to the founding fathers; that is, a federal rights/liberty view.  The blog has dedicated a lot of space defining and explaining federal liberty but here let it suffice to say that federal liberty is the right to do what one should do.  This other view reflects a political construct that was prominent in America in the years leading up to World War II.  This blog calls that view federation theory.

But since the natural rights view has “taken over,” there has been in ever increasing levels of a politics that center itself on citizens being solely concerned with their personal interests and dismissing the common interest.  With this priority, any given citizen has less and less reason to be knowledgeable, skillful, or engaged with civic concerns. 

It turns out, he/she is also apt to be less civil.  Unfortunately, given what is reported here, the evidence shows that civics education has not effectively addressed these trends.  The purpose here is to provide that evidence and hopefully have education officials consider more seriously civility as a topic of instruction.

The Georgetown Institute of Politics and Public Service reports a poll it conducted on this very topic.  Its results are revealing.  Apparently, the poll tapped into a high degree of frustration with incivility.  Americans’ frustration seems to be centered on the political landscape and it is felt widely among the citizenry.  “… [N]inety percent (90%) of voters [report] they are concerned about the ‘uncivil and rude behavior of politicians’.”[1]

On its own, this finding might not cause much concern.  Many Americans most of the time find politicians as uncivil.  But this poll goes on.  It reveals a central contradiction within voters.  While 85% of respondents indicate they think politicians should seek and achieve compromise – find the common ground – they, at a 79% rate, also express being tired of those very politicians compromising their values. 

Instead, they want those officials to stand their ground when dealing with their adversaries.  And this finding goes across ideological divides (85% of Republicans, 69% of Independents, and 78% of Democrats).  Upon reflection, how else would a believer in natural rights tend to think? 

He/she would know that the current inability to achieve agreement is blocking the government from meeting needs.  That would tend to include some needs of the respondent.  But the dilemma is:  he/she is not disposed to compromise on those interests.

Governmental action tends not to be characterized as furthering a common good, but for natural rights believers it tends to be equated with any other consumer activity.  He/she wants his/her public wants – which are defined as just other consumer choices – satisfied. 

The GU report further reports the following:

·        83% see what was previously seen as unacceptable behavior is now accepted as normal.

·        Respondents rated their pessimism over political discourse, on a scale from 0 (no political division) to 100 (division verging on civil war), with an average of 70.8 rate and a 75 rate being the most common response.

·        Respondents blame special interests (81%), social media (81%), and Trump (78%) for the uncivil atmosphere of the nation’s politics.

·        Among the actors, respondents place significant blame for this uncivil environment on the following:  GOP leaders among Republicans (62%), Fox News (53%), Trump (54%), Democratic leaders among Democrats (58%), and CNN (50%).

·        57% of millennials blame social media; 43% of respondents over 65 blame social media.

·        Over 60% of respondents state there is a growing incivility in the nation’s politics.  In this, women blame Trump responsible (59% as opposed to 48% for men).

·        Men blame Democrats for incivility at a 43% rate; women blame Democrats at a 30% rate.[2]

          The GU report summarizes its findings:

“While voters consistently complain about the lack of civility in our politics, in reality they appear to be far more conflicted,” said Mo Elleithee, Executive Director of the Georgetown Institute of Politics and Public Service.  “They overwhelmingly say they value leaders who seek common ground and compromise, but at the same time say they are tired of leaders compromising their values and want them to stand up to the other side.  It’s clear that voters bear some responsibility for this tension, and that voters are going to have to play a role in sorting it out.”[3]

Whether one agrees that there are pervasive levels of incivility in politics or in other aspects of social life will probably be based on one’s experience.  Earlier, it was alluded to that many have expressed concern about the lack of civility in our society.  It was further mentioned in this blog that due to this concern and other practical realities associated with this alleged deficiency, civics education should, to a much greater degree, address the manifestations of incivility. 

But perhaps the reader is skeptical about the extent of the problem.  Are Americans suffering from an undue level of incivility?  To analyze this question, this account will utilize a concept; i.e., social capital.  The problem of incivility can be defined as a lack of social capital and this blog, in the next posting, will pick up on Robert D. Putnam’s use of this term. [4]

---

[1] “New Survey:  Overwhelming in Politics, But Conflicted on Desire for ‘Compromise and Common Ground’,” GU Politics, Georgetown Institute of Politics and Public Service, April 24, 2019, accessed April 25, 2019, http://politics.georgetown.edu/press-releases/civility-poll-pr-1/ .

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Robert D. Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (New York, NY:  Simon & Schuster, 2000).

UPDATING CIVILITY, PART I

[Note:  This posting, the previous several postings, and at least the one to follow are a restatement of what has been addressed previously in this blog.  Some of the sentences to come have been provided before but the concern is that other information has been discovered and an update seems appropriate.  The blog has not changed the overall message – that civics education is seriously deficient – but some of the evidence needs updating.]

Civics education professionals – teachers, administrators, academics – and other interested parties should not limit their concerns to just how much governmental/political knowledge students are attaining in their civics classrooms.  This blog has already claimed that students engaging in civic activities and the skills they demonstrate in such engagement are also legitimate concerns.  In addition, this blog argues that civics education should dedicate itself to encourage civility and law-abiding behavior.

On a practical level, parents and teachers should be and are concerned with the extent the citizenry maintains a civil society.  After all, should not civics education and social studies in general be about giving the nation’s youth the knowledge and skills to be pleasant and constructive citizens and to promote a citizenry disposed to helping fellow citizens?  Upon reflection, different people might have differing views on this question.

A look back is helpful.  Many television pundits, early in the financial crisis which began in 2008, speculated that the burdens associated with this downturn would result in great changes in social behavior.  Americans would be less materialistic, less consuming, less narcissistic, and more inclined to save, or so they said. 

Initially, media reported that savings rates by Americans increased, although the level of debt is still very high and saving rates cannot be considered high (circa 6 to 8%).[1]  Perhaps, the pundits went on, these changes will lead the nation to become more empathetic and, in turn, a more civic minded people.  Time will tell, but ten years later, one can describe Americans as not being empathetic and tolerant of diverse ideas.  Instead, what one reads currently is a rise in tribalism.[2]

Unfortunately, economic challenges oftentimes lead to divisiveness and extreme politics.  One can judge whether the current level of political discourse is more civil or not.  And to add to the mix, the US economy has improved greatly in the last few years, and people are now seemingly reverting to the more self-centered mode of economic behavior that characterized the American public prior to the financial collapse. 

Yes, there are still lingering consequences of that economic downturn – some like the maldistribution of income and wealth which predated the collapse – but the times are getting better, albeit incrementally.  The unemployment rate is low, and the stock market is in record territory.  Perhaps, what one sees currently in terms civic and law-abiding behavior is returning to historic trends.

Starting in the 1990s, there was a sense that social behavior was becoming too uncivil.  This sense was reflected in the writings of social commentators across the political spectrum.  Citizens in general seemed concerned over the low levels of civility being manifested in contemporary American life, ranging from the lack of social etiquette to outright criminal behavior. 

Commentators ranging from Hillary Clinton, on the left, to Michael Novak, on the right, expressed such sentiments.[3]  It stood to reason that if teachers and parents were charged with promoting among their students or children a disposition for civil behavior,[4] a broad based concern among these adults would have developed and they would have called for action that addressed this lack of civility. 

In addition, academics from the field of social education would also have voiced focused commentary over this situation.  Instead, there seemed among these practitioners, scholars, and even parents to be little written or discussed that indicates any central consideration for these conditions.[5] 

Of course, incidents such as the Columbine and other school shootings caused a great deal of concern over the short term, but there does not seem to be a sustained professional response from educators to the lack of civility that many in the rest of the scholarly community saw as plaguing the nation. 

Recently, this writer had a conversation with a prominent government official of a major American urban area.  He asked the official how things were in his jurisdiction.  The official said crime was drastically down, but the big problem was traffic.  Having a bit of knowledge of that area, this writer said that that urban area’s major problem is a lack of civility, but this is not an issue that would even be considered as a governmental problem. 

This fact reflects a great deal about how Americans see government and, in turn, civics education.[6]  Areas of concern that should interest people should include:  how should normative questions of citizenship be handled in our classrooms?  Is the whole notion of imparting a view of civility a legitimate role for civics teachers to play?  If so, what is the best method of presenting such lessons given concerns over indoctrination and the like? 

Of note along this line of thinking, one can cite an incident early in President Obama’s presidency.   He offered a “beginning of the school year” message to be made available to schools around the country.  A clamor arose.  Was this an attempt by the government to impose a political message on our youngsters? 

Of course, such developments must be judged against the political climate of a given time – a similar outrage would probably arise if Trump provided such an offer.  But the underlying concern of undue governmental influence on the political and civic beliefs of its citizens is a real and ongoing concern.

The question of whether civility is a legitimate topic for civics education in public schools or publicly funded schools might be a touchy one for some. When one gets into issues of civility, one roams into normative questions:  what is proper and improper behavior?  Do public schools have the responsibility to impart appropriate values? 

This whole question of values education deserves a lengthy treatment and this blog occasionally addresses it, but here, it just makes the general comment that schools, even public schools, do have a responsibility to deal with the normative questions related to civility.  They definitely have a role even if they do not see themselves as having one.

Back in the 1960s (and the decade or so to follow), a set of scholars who attempted to influence what is taught in schools had the notion that the schools’ role was not to totally ignore values questions in the classroom, but to present them in the form of dilemmas.  These dilemmas were to be jumping off points, or springboards (using curricular jargon), to classroom discussions in which students would investigate options to the dilemmas and arrive at personal decisions that could be evaluated using reasonable standards. 

The student was to take ownership for his or her decision regarding a given dilemma.  For example, a dilemma might concern:  whether or not an indigent person should steal medication for an equally indigent dying relative?[7]  Educators that opted for this type of approach did not aim to instill a value, but to have students reflect on their values and be called upon to explain and defend them.

Or there was the jurisprudential approach advanced by Donald W. Oliver and James P. Shaver who used the value statement known as the American Creed and offered by Gunnar Myrdal in his famous, 1944, book, The American Dilemma.[8] 

Unfortunately, such a strategy reflected in both of these efforts and known as values clarification, in practice led to unwanted consequences.  Students oftentimes did not care about the dilemma before them, even if the issue was highly important.  Instead, a sense of relativism developed, resulting in students becoming indifferent. 

This was especially true of the materials emanating from Louis E. Raths and Sidney B. Simon’s work.  Since the dilemmas were presented as case studies describing either real or fictional characters, too often students would simply adopt the attitude that the issue was the business of only those involved and did not deserve their efforts to “solve” the problem.[9] 

Then there were teachers, ill-trained in implementing this strategy, who would not refrain from communicating their own opinions, making these offerings the “right” answers.  Or there were teachers who would shy away from the whole idea of presenting dilemmas either because they felt unqualified or found the whole notion of open-ended values instruction ill-advised.  All in all, the strategy did not meet with much success and it has generally, through the years, been abandoned.

What remained was an almost total abandonment of handling value issues in the classroom, at least in a thought-out fashion.  This left a vacuum that was filled by two sources.  One has been the all-pervasive media and its implied values.[10]  The other has been the young people themselves.  This latter source was often played out in the context of a youth culture becoming ever more pervasive, especially in large urban comprehensive high schools.  The result:  a highly narcissistic and self-absorbed youth population.[11]

This posting shares a historical view.  The next posting will take up a more current reportage of this issue of civility without disregarding that history.  Unfortunately, in terms of civility, things seem to be getting worse and the inability of civics education to address this challenge can be seen as a contributing factor in itself.

---

[1] “United States Personal Savings Rate,” Trading Economics, n. d., accessed April 21, 2019, https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/personal-savings .

[2] Jonah Goldberg, Suicide of the West:  How the Rebirth of Tribalism, Populism, Nationalism, and Identity Politics Is Destroying American Democracy (New York, NY:  Crown Forum, 2018).

[3] Don E. Eberly, “Introduction: The Quest for a Civil Society,” in Building a Community of Citizens: Civil Society in the 21st Century, ed. Don E. Eberly (Lanham, Md.:  University Press of America, Inc. 1994).

[4] Michael B. Lybarger, “The Historiography of Social Studies: Retrospect, Circumspect, and Prospect,” in Handbook of Research on Social Studies Teaching and Learning, ed. James P. Shaver (New York, NY: MacMillan Publishing Company, 1991), 3-15.

[5] Jean M. Twenge and W. K. Campbell, The Narcissism Epidemic: Living in the Age of Entitlement (New York, NY:  Free Press, 2009).

[6] The urban area in question has been lately reported to be ranked as the rudest urban area in the nation.  This finding was reported by the magazine Leisure and Travel.

[7] Louis E. Raths, Merrill Harmin, and Sidney B. Simon, Values and Teaching (Columbus, OH:  Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co., 1966).

[8] Donald W. Oliver and James P. Shaver, Teaching Public Issues in the High School (Boston, MA:  Houghton Mifflin Company, 1966).

[9] See for example James D. Hunter, The Death of Character:  Moral Education in an Age without Good and Evil (New York, NY:  Basic Books, 2000).

[10] Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death:  Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business, (New York:  Penguin Books, 1986).

[11] Jean M. Twenge and W. K. Campbell, The Narcissism Epidemic: Living in the Age of Entitlement.