An advocate of parochial federalism continues his/her presentation[1] …
So, with a review (from the last posting) of parochial federalist
inspired subject matter – as a commonplace of curriculum development[2] –
completed, one is ready to consider the implications such a review suggests. In other words, what conclusions can be drawn
regarding the suitability of the construct – parochial federalism – in terms of
civics’ subject matter? Using Eugene
Meehan’s concerns,[3] several conclusions can be
proposed.
By way of reminding usual
readers (and introducing them for those who are not), the conclusions Meehan
offers are comprehension, power, precision, reliability, isomorphism,
compatibility, predictability, and control.
That is, how well does a construct meet the demands of these attributes? This blogger, in the spirit of applying this
evaluative scheme to pedagogic use, adds abstraction level and motivation. This posting will share this presentation’s
judgements concerning comprehension.
But before starting, a
word on the motivation educators might have when concerned with elements of a useful
construct. Educators are helped if they
have a clear sense of why they should utilize a reputable construct to guide
any choice of content that they have students study. Here, guidance from Daniel Elazar[4] is
considered to provide educators with such guidance.
He identifies three
reasons to study governance and politics.
They are the striving for justice, the discovery of insights as to why
politics is what it is, and to assist in the establishment and maintenance of a
civil society. Surely, if asked, any social
studies educator would find little fault with these reasons, but what they
implement in current civics courses falls short of actualizing these reasons. One reason for this lack is how the field of
study, to increasing levels, has abandoned parochial federalism since the late
1940s.
With that proviso, this posting turns to the
first of these concerns, comprehension. In
addressing comprehension, to be totally complete, one would have to provide an untold
number of issues and explain how parochial federalism leads one to gain
attention and insight into each of those issues. That would not be doable – given the
countless number of issues – but the reader can get a notion of how the
construct handles a sample of issues. So,
what follows are some general comments as to this construct’s comprehensiveness, vis-a-vis this sample.
The first is that parochial
federalism provides a comprehensive view of how policies are considered and
formed by a polity’s citizenry which is central to the concerns of a
republic. The construct leads one to
consider the factors that will affect the success of that enterprise and the
values, structure, and process elements required to make them workable. The evidence described earlier in this blog
reviews those elements, but this posting will give a sense of that functionality.
From the definitions of liberty, equality, and
public virtue to the structural prescription of representative government, the
construct provides solutions for the basic needs associated with human dignity. Here are the thoughts of a highly regarded historian,
J.
G. A. Pocock, who reflects on the advantages of republics in the manner of
federalism[5] from a more traditional
perspective:
Republics [of the late fifteenth
century] existed to mobilize the intelligence and virtue of all citizens; their
stability was dependent on their doing so and if they failed [sic] they became
governments of a few, whose intelligence and virtue were doomed to decline by their
finite and insufficient character. A
hidden oligarchy behind a republican façade must lack rationality, because it
did not direct the intelligence of all to the good of all; it must lack virtue,
because it subjected the good of all to the good as seen by a limited number;
it must lack virtu, because it did not mobilize the ragione [reason]
and constanza [constancy] of all to deal with the happenings by which it was
surrounded. It must prove insufficient
in both integrity and durability … [6]
Expressing the ideas of Guido Cavalcanti (poet of the 1200s), Pocock
captures the practicality of federalist ideals – across the
political/governance analogous board – by comparing it to oligarchy and through
that practicality, one can surmise how comprehensive the view must be.
By defining, as a basic
requisite, the treatment of each member in terms of equal status (as federalism
does), a certain logic is placed in motion.
In the development of the United States, this principle was
demonstrated, initially, by the locally exclusive, segregated arrangements or
communities which were the norm and the central element of parochial federalism
(hence its name). Due to the internal
logic of federalist republicanism, the nation became more and more inclusive
within its communities.[7]
For example, one can
argue that the Civil War, as a reflection of the debate over slavery, was
inevitable. That is, under the federalist
paradigm there were only three logical options in handling the slavery
issue: the voluntary incorporation of
the African American slaves into society, the forcible emancipation of the
slaves, or the emigration of slaves. Of
course, the option to forcibly free the slaves was chosen.
By extension, the civil
rights movement can also be seen as a natural, albeit too slow,
development. With the same logic, the
inclusion of all groups is seen as eventually coming about. With the resulting, growing interest derived
from participation and its accompanying rewards of the polity’s accomplishments,
all groups have a vested interest in the continuance of the federalist
republic.
The level of inclusion might be thwarted by the
aims of those within separate groups, particularly ethnic groups, but not from
the evolution of the federalist values. There
is currently a radical response to the general assimilation view described
above and that also falls comfortably within the concerns of parochial federalism.
Writers of the multiculturalist approach argue
that a view that all ethnic and gender designated people are desirous of
melting their perspectives into the dominant view of the Anglo-Saxon base
majority is false. As parochial
federalism’s concern for individual dignity is considered, this concern also
falls under the purview of this construct.
They, the multiculturalists, further argue that diversity should not be
stymied by such movement toward universality.[8]
An advocate of parochial
federalism would first recognize the legitimacy of this concern but respond
that the ends of republican government are such that a certain level of agreement
on the basic tenets of citizen interaction, equality, liberty, and public
virtue are prerequisites for the survival of any republic and any moves away
from those values are proving to be detrimental to the health of the nation’s
republic.[9]
With equality as one of
its key instrumental values, the parochial federalist construct can explain the
workings of a republic in relation to realistic demands emanating from dynamic
growth and profound changes the nation experienced by being anchored to a
universal, human need: all men and women
seek human dignity.
The exact operational definition of dignity
varies among cultures and social settings, but its constant attribute is the
desire to feel important and meaningful.
Within the Western tradition, democratic institutions have evolved as an
expression of that desire. And since
parochial federalism places such importance on it, one can further appreciate
how this bolsters its comprehensiveness.
The primary dependent
variable is the workings and successes of republican government in which the
person can be treated as an equal and viable member of the community in which
he or she finds him/herself. This gathers
in a multitude of issues that are not limited to social concerns but transpires
into political and economic concerns as well.
Parochial federalism identifies those principles that lead to the
successful maintenance of a republican government.
But in a diverse social environment, one tests
the basic values of federalism and questions how faithful the republic is to
its basic principles. Advocates of this
construct can claim that to the degree the nation has betrayed its republican
principles (a heighten and growing fear since World War II), it has had to
suffer the anti-social, nihilistic, crime ridden realities and a lack of
economic competitiveness (as argued earlier in this blog). And social media has intensified this trend.
Given that the republic remained strong – apart
from the Civil War – leads to the judgement that the federalist union of the US
through World War II thrived under the dominance of parochial federalism. Yes, the years leading to the Civil War were challenging
in maintaining federal values. One can
also cite the 1960s and the current polarized politics as challenging, but
these last two examples have not occurred with a nation under the dominant
influence of parochial federalism – the natural rights view prevailed or
currently prevails in those cases.
These are the type of questions and points of
interest that the utilization of parochial federalism leads both political
scientists and civics teachers to explore.
As pointed out above, to completely address comprehensiveness, one would
have to visit each major issue that contemporary America is facing. That would be impractical, but with the above
representative issues, this blogger believes, they give the reader a good sense
of this construct’s comprehensiveness.
[1] This presentation begins with the posting, “A Parochial Subject Matter” (March 11, 2022).
[2]
William H. Schubert, Curriculum: Perspective, Paradigm, and Possibility (New
York, NY: MacMillan Publishing Company,
1986). The commonplaces according to
Joseph Schwab are subject matter, teacher, student, and milieu.
[3]
Eugene J. Meehan, Explanation in Social
Science: A System Paradigm
(Homewood, IL: The Dorsey Press, 1968).
[4]
Daniel J.
Elazar, Exploring Federalism
(Tuscaloosa, AL: The University of
Alabama Press, 1987).
[5] Pocock does not use the term, federalism, but his
descriptions – as illustrated in the quote provided – demonstrates.
[6]
J. G. A. Pocock, The Machiavellian
Moment: Florentine Political Thought and
the Atlantic Republican Tradition (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1975), 93
(emphasis in the original).
[7]
Michael Lind, The Next American Nation: The New Nationalism and the Fourth American
Revolution (New York, NY: The Free
Press, 1995).
[8]
Rod A. Janzen, “The Social Studies Conceptual Dilemma: Six Contemporary Approaches,” The Social
Studies (May/June 1995), 134-140.
[9] Gordon S. Wood, The
Creation of the American Republic 1776-1787 (New York, NY: W. W. Norton and Company, 1998/1969) AND in
Robert Gutierrez, From Immaturity to Polarized Politics: Obstacles in Achieving a Federated Nation
(Tallahassee, FL: Gravitas Civics Books,
2022), reviews the debate between the prudence and/or justice of
multiculturalism and centered pluralism.
There, the author grants the legitimacy of immigrant groups holding onto
their traditional ways and customs short of ascribing to American legal and
constitutional ideas, ideals, and principles.
That review relies on the argument offered by Arthur M.
Schlesinger, Jr. See Arthur M.
Schlesinger, Jr., The Disuniting of America:
Reflections on a Multicultural Society (New York, NY: W. W. Norton and Company, 1992).
