Back in the 1960s, two often cited social studies educators were Maurice
P. Hunt and Lawrence E. Metcalf. Here is
a quote from their work: “education is
regarded as the transmission from one generation to another of that part of the
culture which is considered of ongoing value.”[1]. If one accepts this truism, then the study of
American government and politics should encompass the educational transmission
of those political and civic values and knowledge which are central to the
nation’s basic conception of its democratic life.
That charge should be
carried out in such a way that the current relevant needs of the society are
addressed. This blog sets out to present
a theory from political science to serve as the preferred, unifying construct
for that study in secondary social studies so as to bolster the probability of
a continued and even heightened civil society.
Regular readers of this blog are well aware of this aim, but what
follows might take on a different angle.
The choice of this blog’s
preferred view is of course made from “what’s available” in political science
literature. In turn, at this theoretical
level, one can trace the different types of constructs to the classical
divisions that Aristotle bequeathed to the generations that have followed. According to that Greek philosopher, there
exists three possible constitutions.[2] They are the rule of the one, the rule of the
few, and the rule of the many.
Each, in order to be successful, must be
supported by belief systems that are shared by sufficient numbers of citizens
living under the authority established by these constitutions. In the case of
the rule of the many, there are two supportive perspectives. They are the federalist perspective and a
natural rights perspective.
A federalist perspective, which will be more
fully developed below, refers to a view that a legitimate government is one in
which the constituency (be it individuals or previously existing entities such
as clans) has bonded to create a polity to achieve mutually defined goals in a
perpetual union. This union imposes on
the creators and its posterity moral obligations for the maintenance and
success of the resulting union.
A natural rights perspective, on the other
hand, is a view that a legitimate government has the limited responsibility to
insure the protection of the citizens’ rights.
Those resulting polities define rights on an individual basis. An individual citizen’s responsibilities are
limited to not interfering with the rights of others.
Since the US’ constitution is of the “rule of
the many” category, the choice for it is either the natural rights or
federalist perspective. In order to be
successfully sustained, that is, for the constitution to be maintained and
enjoyed at least to minimal levels of domestic harmony, the citizens of the US
must favor, in the main, either a natural rights or federalist perspective.
Why?
Perspectives have their own internal logic. While a nation might have within its borders
more than one perspective among its citizenry, one will dominate since its
assumptions and expectations can, and oftentimes do, contradict each other. For the system to work, the general populous
needs to assume that one view prevails as it goes about its political and even its
social intercourse.
The United States today has the natural rights
perspective as the dominant view. Here,
Elazar shares more descriptive information of what that means,
The
United States as a whole shares a general political culture. This American political culture is rooted in
two contrasting conceptions of American political order, both of which can be
traced back to the earliest settlement of the country. In the first [referred to here as the natural
rights view], the political order is conceived as a marketplace in which the
primary public relationships are products of bargaining among individuals and
groups acting out of self-interest. In
the second [referred to here as the federalist view], the political order is
conceived to be a commonweal – a state in which the whole people have an
undivided interest – in which the citizens cooperate in an effort to create and
maintain the best government in order to implement certain shared moral principles. These two conceptions have exercised an
influence on government and politics throughout American history, sometimes in
conflict and sometimes by complementing one another.[3]
In order to socialize
young American students to the prevailing political culture, American schools,
in their government and civics instruction, should be based on one of these two
perspectives. Yes, both can be
identified and explained, but one should guide the efforts of what happens
within the curriculum that a school adopts.
The position advocated in
this blog is that the federalist perspective should be adopted. That theory, federalism, is the more
substantive normative option.[4] Elliot Eisner makes the distinction between
normative and descriptive theory.
Descriptive theory, usually associated with the sciences, attempts to
explain some phenomena to the point of allowing one to predict what will happen
if certain conditions exist. On the
other hand, normative theory expresses values and states what should happen or
be the condition in place.[5]
In this blog, the theory
proposed is of the latter type. That
theory is value-laden in that it presupposes certain societal expectations
about the kind of society – in fairly substantive ways – that is desired. “In an abstract sense, an appropriate
education depends upon what kind of society is desired in the future.”[6] Therefore, this blog is based on the
incorporation of a political science theory which has a significant normative
component.
This posting ends with
the ideas of Elazar,
Politics
has two faces. One is the face of power,
the other is the face of justice.
Politics, as the pursuit and organization of power, is concerned (in the
words of Harold Lasswell) with “who gets what, when, and how.” However, politics is equally a matter of
justice, or the determination of who should get what, when, and how –
and why. Power is the means by which
people organize themselves and shape their environment in order to live. Justice offers the guidelines for using power
in order to live well.[7]
With that sense of direction, this blog will continue, in the next
posting, to further describe its theoretical base.
[1] Maurice P. Hunt and Lawrence E. Metcalf, Teaching High
School Social Studies: Problems in
Reflective Thinking and Social Understanding (New York, NY: Harper and Row, 1968), 95.
[2] Daniel J. Elazar, “Federal Models of (Civil)
Authority,” Journal of Church and State, 33 (Spring, 1991), 231-254.
[3] Daniel J. Elazar, American
Federalism: A View from the States, (New York, NY: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1966),
85-86.
[4] Proponents of the natural rights view claim their
perspective is normative. And
technically it is. To say all people have
the right to choose their moral position and to further hold that the state –
either directly or through the instructional efforts of the state’s schools –
has no role in promoting any moral position; that is a moral position.
[5] Elliot W. Eisner, The Educational Imagination: On the Design and Evaluation of School
Programs (New York, NY: MacMillan
Publishing Company, 1985).
[6] Hunt and Metcalf, Teaching High School Social
Studies, 23.
[7] Elazar, “Federal Models of (Civil) Authority,” Journal of Church and State, 231 (emphases
in the original).
No comments:
Post a Comment