“NO BUCKETS”

Do these following three words – competition, aggression, violence – denote a regression?  And if stated in opposite order, a progression?  The second question can but does not necessarily reflect a negative air about humans not agreeing.  The first question, undoubtedly, does so and, with that ascription, unquestionably introduces a value or perhaps a moral judgement. 

To see disagreement as inherently bad reflects a childlike understanding of what social intercourse should be, but a mature outlook sees it as not only unrealistic but short sighted.  In addition, it sees it as counterproductive to good governance and politics. This is not only the case with formal governance and politics, but also the governance and politics that ubiquitously characterize daily human contact. 

If one agrees with the view that disagreement is functional, then one would be inclined to understand that civics instruction and civics instructors should be well informed about what causes, promotes, and leads to skillful exercise of these various levels in whatever direction these ideas are considered.  Granted, aggression and violence are upping the stakes, but do they have a place?

          Surely, civics instruction should not condone or advocate criminal or unjustified aggression and violence.  But there are times when even these more extreme forms of disagreement are called for.  Hence, a military, a police force, and self-defense classes have legitimate roles within one’s social life.  And Americans using violent metaphors – e.g., adoption of animals known for their violent behavior as names for favored sports teams including the Tigers and the Bears – reflects this understanding that violence has its place.

          How about the opposite trio – affiliation, reconciliation, and altruism?  Is that another progression/regression at work?  And in counter position to the first threesome, does it deserve equal billing in a civics class asking after their causes, their promoters, and their associated skills?  Robert M. Sapolsky[1] provides one with biological based insights useful in attacking these questions. 

While he admits to being a pessimist, he adds that knowing about the biological/social contexts that relate to these elements of social life helps in advancing what are determined to be of benefit in given situations, and that gives him a source of optimism.  And if one agrees with Sapolsky in pursuing this study, he warns of three provisos.

They are: 

·       one cannot answer these concerns without relevant biological understandings;

·       one cannot answer these concerns with only biological understandings; and

·       one cannot segregate any psychological/cultural understandings from the biological – they are hopelessly interrelated, intertwined.

As for the biology, he writes:  “[I]t is indeed a mess, a subject involving brain chemistry, sensory cues, prenatal environment, early experience, genes, both biological and cultural evolution, and ecological pressures, among other things.”[2]  It is this “mashugana” that puts any attempt at placing related information in categories a hazardous endeavor. 

Categorical thinking – some might say, simplistic thinking – is fraught with dangers.  Its either/or format tends to gloss over the nuances of life.  And yet it is those nuances in which one finds solutions for many of life’s challenges.  That goes from moral thinking to understanding why one might be sympathetic or belligerent.

Civics teachers might do well not to look for “buckets” in which to put related ideas, ideals, or information.  Instead, one should strive to take in and understand whole pictures or situations.  In doing so, one needs to conceptualize the limitations of boundaries and avoid being over reductionist – a critique leveled at overly “scientific” visions of human behavior and cognitive structures and processes.

Several guidelines can be relied upon when thinking and researching human action and human interaction.  Be conscious that such efforts cannot be overly committed to the approach of one discipline of either a natural or social science.  Reality seems to be more akin to the following:  Subject A did X because of the release of hormone Q but was influenced by being raised in environment R that predisposed the secretion of hormone Q in given situations.  Messy?  “You bet.”  And that’s without getting into genes.

Sapolsky states, “There are not different disciplinary buckets.  Instead, each one is the end product of all the biological influences that came before it and will influence all the factors that follow it … No buckets.”[3]  So, perspective civics teachers should pay attention to all the classes he/she takes.  Relevant information can and probably does come from all of them.  This topic will be revisited in future postings.

---

[1] Robert M. Sapolsky, Behave:  The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst (New York, NY:  Penguin Press, 2017).

[2] Ibid., 4-5 (Kindle edition).

[3] Ibid., 7 (Kindle edition).

DEALING WITH OR NEAR A MONOPSONY

As promised in the last posting, this offering addresses the influence critical theory has on federation theory or, probably more accurately stated, it points out the similar arguments the two promote regarding solidarity and equality.  Though both define equality differently – shortly reviewed – both consider that quality as an ultimate value or nearly an ultimate value. 

For critical theory, this blog has argued that equality is the trump value.  For federation theory, perhaps it falls short of having the status societal welfare has, but it probably can be considered a prime or co-prime (along with federal liberty) second rung value; i.e., an important instrumental value.  The moral code this blog has offered has three descending levels of values:  trump value, instrumental values, and operational values.  Equality, for federation theory, is near the top.

So how is equality defined by each construct?  In terms of critical theory, this blog has suggested that it be viewed as meaning equal results.  Or stated another way, critical theory promotes that society should strive toward equal distribution of a society’s income and wealth and that should be valued above all other concerns.

This calls for a struggle against agents who seek to protect inequality; that is, those who have and enjoy higher shares of those assets.  To this point, that is a condition in all societies to some degree.  That theory uses the terms oppressors – the haves – and the oppressed – the have nots.

Given the dialectic nature of existing inequality, that view determines there are those who have reached true liberation – they “understand” and find intolerable the unjust nature of inequality.  Further, they – the liberated – should unite with a sense of solidarity to pursue the implementation of those policies that first ameliorates the consequences of inequality and then pursue those strategies that eliminates it. 

Their overall aim would be to change the exploitive arrangements that deny the oppressed from acquiring their fair share.  In the language of struggle, the liberated form a comradeship – a collective force that work within the institutions of a society and strive toward a just society and world.  As the last posting pointed out, that would be led by a liberated oppressed and joined by liberated, former oppressors.

For federation theory, the concern for inequality is present, even virulent, but the extent of it is not seen by its advocates from a radical point of view.  Instead, they see justice residing in minimum requirements being met and that, in turn, is guided by a concern for the dignity and integrity of each person making up the polity.  But that aim, as it tends to happen with critical theory, does not abandon the free market economy.

For them, the means of production and distribution should be run by the competitive arrangements of capitalist markets, albeit under a regime of regulations.  This blog, under this proviso, gives a definitional term for federation theory’s view of equality; that is, regulated equality.

As with critical theorists, though, federation theory claims that the prime agent to secure the aim of equality is government – only that institution can summon the assets and authority to accomplish meaningful equality.  History demonstrates that solely relying on markets – given the vying goals of its participants – will not secure equality of either the critical theory variety or of the kind federation theory promotes. 

But, under federation theory the role of government policy calls for the enactment and administration of the necessary regulatory laws ensuring that employers and government agents distribute the assets necessary to secure dignity and integrity for all.  Usually, that would be regulations in the form of social insurance, minimum wages, or laws increasing competition in markets, such as labor markets, that are not purely competitive. 

For example, when there is a high level of concentration within an industry with one or few competitors, it forms a monopsony or close to a monopsony in which the single or few employers (technically, buyers of labor) can set wages below what productivity levels call for – those workers are paid below the marginal contributions of their labor.  Workers are stuck receiving these low wages because there is a lack of sufficient employers competing for or buying their labor.[1] 

Government could regulate that market to institute a minimum wage or a program that would increase the number of competitors.  In either case, workers would then receive a wage closer to that wage they would receive if the industry had a purely competitive market.  If that still would not satisfactorily increase wages so that workers’ integrity and dignity are secured, then a form of welfare could be provided to supplement what is needed to reach that level.

Federation theory allows for “conditions” to be attached to any handout; after all, every person who is part of a federation does have responsibilities and duties to the partnership and that includes, as best they can, to “carry their weight.”  But the reciprocal sense is that aid is offered when the need arises because everyone can be subject to the downturns of life. 

And sometimes those downturns are the product of past injustices that have befallen a person or group within the polity.  For example, the effects of structural segregation or other injustices that have been widespread among segments of the US population.  And this becomes complicated and not subject to simplistic notions. 

But one needs to remember that whatever is devised, policy cannot ignore the factors that allow for or secure a viable economy and that includes sustaining incentives necessary for economic growth.  And in that, one can surmise the type of compromises federation theory represents.  Yes, it is centrally concerned with meaningful equality, but not as a trump value.  Whatever policies are devised, the welfare of the society cannot be significantly sacrificed and that includes respecting other values such as federal liberty, economic fulfillment, and ambition.

---

[1] For a more authoritative description of a monopsony, see Linda Yech, What Would the Great Economists Do?:  How Twelve Brilliant Minds Would Solve Today’s Biggest Problems (New York, NY:  Picador, 2018).  Of particular interest regarding wages, see Chapter 9.  That chapter reviews the work of Joan Robinson.