An advocate of parochial federalism continues his/her presentation[1] …
In this blog’s presentation of a critical review of
parochial/traditional federalism by an advocate of that construct, the
attention turns to the next commonplace, the student. What is known about the nature of students in
relation to the principles of parochial federalism? This posting begins a review of evidence
regarding that nature and the conclusions that can be derived from it that
support the use of that construct as the foundational basis for a civics
curriculum.
Some of the issues
addressed below will directly pertain to the individual interests of students;
others will deal with long term interests that affect young people within the
wider society. This presentation will
address the following areas of concern:
student interests, student problems, and student educational requisites.
More specifically, it
will answer the following questions:
·
What
personal student interests are benefited by using the parochial federalist construct
in the teaching of government and politics at the secondary level?
·
What social
student interests are benefited by using that construct?
·
What
economic student interests are benefited by using that construct?
·
What
political student interests are benefited by using that construct?
·
And what
pedagogic student interests are benefited by using that construct?
What follows is not an extensive inquiry into these issues (each can be the
topic of extensive study), but a general review which sufficiently helps
justify the adoption of this construct.
Personal Student Interest
At the individual level,
when attending a secondary school, students can be generally described as being
in the adolescent period of their lives.
This blogger, in his upcoming book, treats this period in a young
person’s life extensively.[2] In that treatment, he employs a relatively
simple model of maturation offered by Georg Wilhelm Fredrich
Hegel. Here, a more complex model is
cited. To further describe this period
of life, Erik Erikson’s[3] psychological stage model
is useful in depicting the personal needs of adolescents.
For each stage of development, Erikson identifies a central
crisis the individual must work through in order to mature into the next stage
that ultimately leads to a well-defined adult individual. Corresponding to the years of secondary
school years (for most young people), they are the central conditions or crises
as identity versus identity confusion (during adolescence) and intimacy versus
isolation (during young adulthood).
The former crisis is characterized by adolescents beginning
to question previously internalized attitudes, values, and beliefs. These elements have been accepted in previous
stages of development without much thought or evaluation. As the young person meets and interacts with
a greater variety of people who hold and espouse a diversity of ideas, a
natural questioning of held beliefs, values, and attitudes ensues.
At the same time, the adolescent takes note of inconsistencies
between professed beliefs and actions by significant socializing agents in
their lives, such as parents and teachers.
This also leads to questioning emotional states of disillusionment or a
romantic, irrational commitment to these values, attitudes, and beliefs,
leaving the person with a “true believer” idealism.
This questioning, if it happens, is central to the
individual addressing such central questions as Who am I? What sort of person should I be? What gender, occupational, or social roles
should I play? It behooves youngsters to
solve these issues with the least amount of turmoil as is possible in order to become
well-adjusted adults.
Political ideals, both as they pertain to formal political
settings and to informal, day-to-day situations, are sources of values,
attitudes, and beliefs. To avoid an inordinate
sense of duplicity that would accompany simplistic observance of political realities,
the adolescence period would be the appropriate time to learn how and why one’s
political institutions were formed or developed as they are.
By actually reviewing and analyzing the works of political
actors from the past, students can test and realistically judge and theorize as
to the conditions and contexts which prevailed as those actors, including the founding
fathers, made their decisions. Parochial
federalism facilitates this sort of analysis in a highly dramatic and
challenging manner. How? By encouraging the sort of questions that get
at how and why America fell upon a republican polity apart from a monarchial
basis that it carried here from the British Isles.
Stated in other words, a justified American identity was/is
promoted, i.e., an identity based on core republican values[4] which encouraged/encourage
civic virtue. The story of sacrifices
and sincerity of the founding generation served/serve as healthy standards of
honor and integrity. These are stories
not falsely embellished, but true accounts of the founding and succeeding
generations as they met and dealt with the realistic political challenges of
their days.
The student’s identity can be tied into the on-going story
of the American experiment in which every generation has and will continue to
play important developmental roles. The
argument here is that the inheritance of this tradition gives the individual a
psychological place defining an identity steeped in integrity.
Erikson’s next
developmental stage is intimacy versus isolation. This crisis usually faces the late adolescent
or young adult. American government is often
taught in the twelfth grade (the course titled civics is usually offered at a
lower grade during middle school years).
In high school, that would make students seventeen or eighteen when most
are facing the above-described crisis.
Usually, such concerns
are experienced as these students are attempting to form healthy intimate
relations. Healthy relations are
characterized by being able to trust others, feelings of sufficient
independence or autonomy, the capacity to take initiatives to accomplish goals,
a healthy self-assuredness or esteem that promotes a realistic confidence, and a
good sense of what the individual wants out of life.[5]
All of these
characteristics should be enhanced by believing that a person’s political
environment and tradition promulgate a sense of partnership that the parochial
federalist construct emphasizes.[6] Here, one needs to distinguish between the
ideals of parochial federalism as explained in this blog and the realities of
American political life.
Obviously, teenagers can tell the difference
between a course at school saying that there exists a set of ideals expected of
citizens and a society which is quite different.[7] On the one hand, there are the ideals of the
republican foundation of this nation, and, on the other hand, there are the
realities of a nation generally adhering to the values and attitudes associated
with the natural rights perspective (the opposing dialectic view).
Such a course of study, in itself, cannot
engender such personal qualities of trust and a sense of partnership with
fellow citizens. Instruction under the
guise of parochial federalism must be sensitive to this duality, be able to
discuss it, analyze it, and present to the student the challenge of dealing
with it, just as the founding generation dealt with their incongruities. This is the civic challenge of their
times. The challenge not only relates to
the issues regarding what benefits the nation provides, but also to the
interests of their personal development.
In a few words, therefore, the aim of a
parochial federalist civics course (including American government) is to have
students reflect on those issues that present themselves as one considers – in
meaningful ways – the challenge of being a partner in the grand partnership of
a federated nation. The rewards are not
only aimed at the welfare of the partnership but also in assisting the
maturation of students during adolescent years.
The next posting will look at student social
interests.
[1] This presentation begins with the posting, “A Parochial Subject Matter” (March 11, 2022). The reader is reminded that the claims made
in this posting do not necessarily reflect the beliefs or knowledge of this
blogger. Instead, the posting is a
representation of what an advocate of parochial federalism might
present. This is done to present a
dialectic position of that construct.
[2] That book is still in the development phase, but this
blog will prominently announce its availability when the time has come.
[3] Erik Erikson, Identity: Youth and Crisis (New York, NY: Norton, 1968).
[4]
Gordon S. Wood, Creation of the American Republic 1776-1787 (Chapel Hill, NC:
University of North Carolina Press, 1969/1968).
[5]
Erikson, Identity.
[6]
Daniel J. Elazar, “Federal Models of (Civil)
Authority,” Journal of Church and State, 33 (Spring, 1991), 231-254.
[7] What change theorists call an espoused theory and a
theory-in-use. See Kenneth D.
Benne, “The Current State of Planned Changing in Persons, Groups, Communities,
and Societies” in Planning of Change,
eds. Warren G. Bennis, Kenneth D. Benne, and Robert Chin (New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1985), 68-82.
