CHANGE IN SUBSTANCE ONLY

[Note:  If the reader has taken up reading this blog with this posting, he/she is helped by knowing that this posting is the next one in a series of postings.  The series begins with the posting, “The Natural Rights’ View of Morality” (February 25, 2020, https://gravitascivics.blogspot.com/2020/02/the-natural-rights-view-of-morality.html).  Overall, the series addresses how the study of political science has affected the civics curriculum of the nation’s secondary schools.]

In previous postings, this blog describes the efforts social studies leadership undertook through what was called the New Social Studies.  By way of a quick reminder, that initiative was timed shortly after the Soviet Union’s launching of Sputnik, the first man made orbital satellite.  Generally, the reaction took many forms including one in which various American institutions promoted a significant push in the nation’s schools to emphasize science. 

In the social studies – including civics courses – that materialized in what was called the New Social Studies.  There, not only was the scientific method highlighted but the various subjects became more objectified and lacking in normative concerns.  This mirrored shifts in various social science disciplines like political science and its adoption of the political systems model (also described in previous postings).

          The leadership in social studies aimed its efforts at convincing teachers to implement an instructional strategy known as inquiry, which in turn heavily relied on the scientific method.  Overall, that leadership failed at getting teachers to adopt scientific modes of study to their teaching.  But that does not mean the effort totally failed.

          In terms of what this current series of postings aims to accomplish, the reader should take into account two areas in which the national concern for science did have large impacts.  One area was how the various social sciences changed.  In political science, this development coincided with what Harold Lasswell started in the 1930s.  That political scientist caused a stir mainly with his proposed definition for politics.  He defined this central concept or factor as follows:  “who gets what, when, how.”[1]

He writes in the preface of his famous book the following:

The interpretation of politics found in this book underlies the working attitude of practicing politicians.  One skill of the politician is calculating probable changes in influence and the influential.

          This version of politics is not novel to all students of social development.  Yet it is constantly in danger of attenuation.[2]

The general thrust of his book portrays an elitist account of politics in general, but with a focus on American politics.  A reader of this work walks away, to the extent Lasswell is successful, with a sobering view of politicians devoid of sentimentality or much hope for a shared sense of communality.  As its title suggests, politics is a no-nonsense business of government that determines the distribution of public assets.

          Initially, Lasswell’s work did not have the influence it would eventually have.  That latter development begins in the 1950s and with the nation’s shift to more scientific concerns in the 1960s.  No political scientist garners more credit for this change than David Easton.[3]  Reviewing Easton’s main contribution, in terms of this series’ aims, his work facilitated political science’s shift toward a more scientific approach of study. 

          Those who deal with this matter identify Easton’s introduction of his model for the study of politics as central.  He introduced the political systems model in the early fifties.  Again, that is reviewed in previous postings, but generally the model describes a system noted for its depiction of a circular process. 

That is, it denotes citizens (individually or through some interest group arrangement) feed demands and supports into the system.  The system then converts those inputs into outputs of public policy usually in the form of laws and regulations.  Once issued, the output is subject to review by the populous that then engage in feedback, that is, communicated judgements that then can be new demands and supports.  This, again, is described in previous postings.

A side note should be emphasized:  if one approaches the typical civics teacher and asks about the political systems model, he or she will probably not know what that is.  Even those who received a degree in political science might not be familiar with the above language.  The political systems model no longer enjoys the dominance it once enjoyed, but among all political science programs, it is still quite influential.  In addition, most civics teachers received a degree in history or took a concentration in history, not in political science. 

The point here is that Easton’s work led to a more “scientific” approach to political science.  And in how this development affected civics, the subject matter became more objectified, less concerned with justice, and less aimed at promoting a civic society.  Instead, it became more of a report about how participants pursue self-interest within structural elements of government.

Initially, political systems approach with its related behavioral studies were meant to imitate the natural sciences in their approaches.  Those engaged with this effort anticipated successes in social sciences that those natural sciences experienced starting in the nineteenth century and straight through the twentieth century.  But alas, no such success was being achieved. 

Consequently, the political systems approach broke down into various derived approaches like cybernetics, public opinion studies, conflict theory studies, political sociology studies, comparative politics studies, political economy studies, etc.  In addition to this diverse, more specific areas of research, older methodologies are currently held in higher regard than they were in the late twentieth century.

They include philosophic and historical methods.  In addition, more recently, one finds hermeneutics studies (interpretive analyses) enjoying respected standing within the discipline.  But all of that has little to no effect on civics instruction.  Instead, that instruction has maintained a structural view of government and this blog in upcoming postings will give the reader an adequate taste of what that subject material looks like.

Through the developments associated with Sputnik and the coincidental influence of Lasswell and Easton, authors of civics textbooks took up the mantle in what they chose to include in their books.  One can make a general observation – and this blog will do so in more detail in the near future. - that by simply reviewing what the currently utilized textbooks contain one gets a good view of what and how civics is taught today. 

Currently, that would be looking at such best-selling textbooks as Magruder’s American Government or Glencoe United States Government:  Democracy in Action.  But as for the leadership of social studies, there has been a lingering effort among professional, teacher organizations to uphold the New Social Studies’ instructional format as being progressive and interactive.[4]

This is promoted to replace traditional teaching methods that have students receive instruction in a more passive fashion and known as didactic methods.  Inquiry, on the other hand, calls for students to employ interactive modes of study in which they discover information and form conclusions regarding civic problems.  Practically all teachers ignore these calls for change in teaching methods. 

This reluctance to change might be offset with all the new technologies that have befallen the typical classroom, especially in the more affluent school districts.  Easy access to the Internet probably encourages teachers to assign research topics, but in the understanding of this writer, the general process of dispensing information is still through lectures and demonstrations.

An Internet review of the prevalence of didactic teaching practices reveals that there are those who defend and promote the didactic style of teaching.  This blog’s position on this issue is that didactic teaching, while it can be used to solicit from students’ higher levels of thinking, the usual result is that students are expected to recall (a low level skill and highly dependent on an individual’s inherent ability to remember) information. 

While a lot of what is argued in this blog can be said to favor interactive, open, or student-centered instructional approaches, it does not rule out the ability of some teachers to be effective “didactic” teachers.  When this writer taught, didactic style was the prevailing form of teaching.  Since the technology factor is at play, it is difficult to say what prevails today, but from the evidence to which this writer is privy, he believes didactic teaching still dominates.

---

[1] Harold Lasswell, Who Gets What, When, and How (New York, NY:  McGraw-Hill, 1936).  Current distributor of this book is Papamoa Press.  Also access through online site, https://www.google.com/books/edition/Politics_Who_Gets_What_When_How/UlekDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover , accessed April 16, 2020.

[2] Ibid., n.p. (Preface).

[3] David Easton, The Political System (New York, NY:  Alfred A. Knopf, 1953) AND David Easton, A System Analysis of Political Life (New York, NY:  John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1965).

[4] See National Council for the Social Studies, Preparing Students for College, Career, and Civic Life C3.  This writer has a critical review of these standards in recently published book.  See Robert Gutierrez, Toward a Federated Nation:  Implementing National Civics Standards (Tallahassee, FL:  Gravitas/Civics Books, 2020).

FACTORS OF REALISM

[Note:  If the reader has taken up reading this blog with this posting, he/she is helped by knowing that this posting is the next one in a series of postings.  The series begins with the posting, “The Natural Rights’ View of Morality” (February 25, 2020, https://gravitascivics.blogspot.com/2020/02/the-natural-rights-view-of-morality.html).  Overall, the series addresses how the study of political science has affected the civics curriculum of the nation’s secondary schools.]

Secondary civics textbooks capture an essential aspect of their subject matter, i.e., they describe a role that governance and politics play in citizens’ lives.  In their pages, a vision of government emerges as something out there responding to the wishes of the electorate through a political process of competition.  What is noteworthy, it does this by merely describing it in general terms without categorizing what is being described.  Mostly, the text will point out entity X gets Y but without revealing, in sufficiently descriptive language, how that happens.

That is, these books have a deficiency.  While a review of the typical civics textbook consists of chapters or “units” dedicated to the various input entities that engage in feedback on a regular basis, the language it uses does not feature a feedback loop.  These entities can be individuals, interest groups, or political parties.  The textbook depicts these entities not as integral parts of the political system, but as customers in relation to a department store. 

That is, feedback is an information loop communicating people’s reactions to government policy.  One might attribute to that loop, as political systems language does, a self-correcting mechanism for the system.  In short, as those in authority hear and see how people are reacting to past policies and actions, those in government can adjust or correct perceived mistakes; those being mistakes as perceived by those who have requisite power. 

While the image of citizens portrayed in textbooks might be of entities seeking satisfaction, it avoids the language of what that implies.  In line with this instruction, most people out there are not informed or do not care about the great majority of policy decisions.  Their concerns are limited to their personal demands.  This detaches citizens from the operations of government. 

Again, using the above analogy, the textbook image is of customers of a department store, and as such, they are not integral parts of that “store” and, therefore, do not worry to any extent about the general workings of that operation.  Likewise, these customers are not depicted as essential parts of the government and, therefore, they do not worry over the general workings of that institution.

Instead, these entities provide the demands that government is set up to satisfy; without those demands, government has no purpose.  As such, this view expresses a limited role for each entity.  Each is to express only those demands relating to that entity’s affected interests.  

But the assumptions underlying the US Constitution call for an alternate view of this relationship between government and citizen.  Those assumptions place each citizen as a partner with every other entity (citizens and interest groups) and partners concern themselves with the health of the enterprise be it a department store or a government. 

It might be unrealistic to expect each entity to know about what the concerns of every other entity are.  Furthermore, one cannot keep up with the way that each entity expresses those concerns.  But each partner can be expected to conceptualize what the federated expectations from each are.  That includes the standards each entity should meet in making its demands.  And that awareness to any level of formality should begin with appropriate instruction in a civics course of study.

But as this blog has made clear, federation theory does not guide current civics efforts in schools.  The natural rights view does.[1]  And it can be said that that view does hold reality as a necessary quality in whatever political concern is at hand.  So, with that in mind, one can hold certain requisites as needed in any review of the political landscape – even in terms of a natural rights view. 

It is, therefore, obvious and more realistic that a depiction of governance should describe feedback as those activities that inform the system of sought-after corrective policy changes.  Those are changes more in line with the desires of influential members of the citizenry – or stated more descriptively, to those who have more power.  But that is a realistic depiction of what goes on and, unfortunately, it is not currently captured by what those textbooks describe or explain despite the fact they are guided by the natural rights view.

Those with power are those in the environment who can administer either meaningful rewards (for example, campaign funds) or meaningful punishments (for example, the withholding of campaign funds).  To have power, one needs either ownership or control of one or more motivating resources that are effective in the political arena. 

It can be access to reward, punishment, legitimacy, expertise, or referent resources.[2]  But the language and the description of typical textbook accounts avoid such revealing information.  As a matter of fact, the model, as presented in those textbooks, says little about whose inputs have meaningful influence.[3] 

On the surface, one is easily led to believe that all participants are equal, not in a theoretical sense, but in reality.[4]  The closest those accounts come to describing how influence works is the way they describe the effect that numbers of votes have on a politician.  While having the ability to deliver votes counts, it is but one source of either reward or punishment.  Limiting the description of this important aspect of politics in this fashion is, of course, to be inaccurate and misleading.

For a more telling account of how the government responds to different constituents, one can see E. E. Schattschneider’s book, The Semi-Sovereign People:  A Realist’s View of Democracy in America.[5]  In that account, Schattschneider reviews how different constituents of varying levels of power go about planning to win political competitions.  While this source has out of date descriptions of particular entities, its basic description and explanation of how the mechanisms of government operate still holds up fairly accurately. 

Another influential book that addresses the relative strength of constituents is Theodore J. Lowi’s book, The End of Liberalism:  The Second Republic of the United States.[6]  Lowi makes a convincing argument about how well-funded entities and interest groups have taken over the competition for government allocated benefits.  One can observe a constant stream of commentators on TV today making the same point – a particularly virulent issue today as the federal government has set about to dole out funds during the current Covid 19 emergency.

To interject a quick point and possibly mix the metaphor, a casual review of the civics textbooks used in our schools will give the reader more of a mechanistic view than an organic explanation – the one that includes a feedback loop.  What begins as a highly objectified approach, thanks to the political systems model’s effect, it becomes even more so and therefore less about what really affects average citizens.  They are accounts of politics and government devoid of passion and, one may judge, interest.

Before this posting leaves this topic, one last point should be made, or better stated, remade.  Most teachers depend on textbooks to basically make their curricular choices.[7]  The ironic part of this is how few pages of a textbook the average student actually reads.  Perhaps, the most expensive purchase that the public treasury makes is what school districts spend for those pages.  These books only serve to tell teachers what to teach.[8]  This blog will further develop this theme in future postings.

---

[1] In this regard, the difference between a natural rights and federation theory is that natural rights view merely reports the reality involved while federation theory would have students consider how that reality affects the equality of those involved.  The former avoids normative questioning and latter engages in them.

[2] John R. P. French, Jr. and Bertram Raven, “The Bases of Power,” in Current Perspectives in Social Psychology, ed. Edwin P. Hollander and Raymond G. Hunt (New York, NY:  Oxford University Press, 1967), 504-512.

[3] A good political question is:  why is this lack of candor the case?  This, one can suppose, is a political question.  Applying the message of this posting, one can further wonder, who’s political power is at play insuring this editorial decision.

[4] To interject a federalist message:  Government, according to the messaging of these books, is thereby a service rendered to entities with governmental demands, not to entities that are extensions of the system or the community that has a governing body – which reflects a federalist ideation of the governing process.

[5] E. E. Schattschneider, The Semi-Sovereign People:  A Realist’s View of Democracy in America (New York:  Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1960).

[6] Theodore J. Lowi, The End of Liberalism: The Second Republic of the United States (New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company, 1979).

[7] Stephen J. Thornton, S. J. (1991).  Teacher as curricular-instructional gatekeeper in social studies.  In J. P. Shaver (Ed.), Handbook of research on social studies teaching and learning (pp. 237-248).  New York, NY:  MacMillan Publishing Company.  While this citation is dated, there is no reason to believe the point made is not as true today as it was in 1991.

[8] A promising development is offered by the professional organization of social studies teachers, the National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS).  It has issued a set of standards that through their implementation would question this depicted role of textbooks.  For further description of this possibility see Robert Gutierrez, Toward a Federated Nation:  Implementation of National Standards (Tallahassee, FL:  Gravitas/Civics Books, 2020) – available through Amazon.  Chapter 1 of that book critically reviews the NCSS’ effort.