With this posting, this blog begins an extended description,
explanation, and justification for the natural rights construct as would be presented
by an advocate of that view. Each of the
following postings will make a note of this attempt to give an advocated review
of this perspective. This is in the tradition of presenting a dialectic
argument.
If readers are new to
this blog, a short word on how that argument has historically progressed. In the late 1940s, after years of challenging
the dominant view, parochial/traditional federalism, the natural rights view
was vibrant enough to overtake it. Since
then, the natural rights view has become stronger and solidified in its
position of dominance. One can get a
sense of this by watching old films on TMC and comparing them to today’s films.
Before the 1940s, those
films tended to have plots in which the storyline would have characters either
promoting or abusing the common good.
This wasn’t always the case, but a definite trend can be detected. Not all films agreed about what the common
good was, but one can see the concern.
Two films from 1939 can be cited: Gone with the Wind and Let Freedom
Ring. Each one tells a tale in which
a self-centered ambitious character or entity leads to unhappy results. In the first case, it is the self-centered ambitions
of a Southern belle and in the second it is the ambitions of a corporate entity
(the railroads).[1]
Today, such plots would be considered unrealistic,
and characters or entities are much more likely to be portrayed as naturally
seeking self-defined goals with little to no concern for the common good. Hopefully, readers agree. In any event, one can search and cite other
evidence, but for the purposes here, this will do.
The last posting left readers with a reminder
that, as with the parochial federalist treatment, this judgment will employ the
commonplaces of curriculum – identified by William Schubert[2] – to categorize its different elements. The commonplaces of curriculum are the
subject matter, teachers, learners, and milieu.[3] Each of these divisional categories will be
first introduced and generally explained and then further divided into
subcategories.
In the case of subject matter, the
subcategories are the morality of liberalism, the discipline of political
science, the political systems approach, the structural-functional model, the viability
of the systems construct, and its methodology.
The category, the student, will be divided into the subcategories of
personal student interests, student social interests, student economic
interests, political student interests, and pedagogic student interests. This “student” review will attempt to cast
light on how this view affects these aspects of students’ lives.
The category, teacher, will be divided into the
subcategories, teacher effectiveness and teacher knowledge. And the category, milieu, will be divided
into the subcategories, expectation of schools, school’s socioeconomic base,
and youth culture.
Each of these subcategories is identified by
employing an analyzing process derived from Aristotle’s categories of causation
suggested by Joseph Schwab.[4] These Aristotelean categories will be used to
suggest specific questions of inquiry.
They include the state of affairs, interactions, situational insights,
and the capacity to act morally.
That is,
·
The state
of affairs refers to the actual conditions found in schools, as opposed to
abstracted or hypothesized relations between factors or variables. Of particular concern will be dilemmas caused
by adherence to one construct as opposed to another.
·
Interactions
refer to social encounters affected by the respective constructs.
·
Situational
insights are interpretations of encounters gleaned from analyses of practice.
·
Capacity to
act morally will be assessments of practices judged according to good
citizenship and social capital.
These categories will be used freely to suggest questions for the
analysis of this presentation. The next
posting will proceed with this blog’s positive presentation of the natural
rights/liberalism construct. Again, that
presentation is through the opted “eyes” of one who would support that
construct.
[1] Readers are reminded that the popularity of films is
a very good indicator of how the American public feels about various topics
since their success is dependent on regular people spending their money to
watch them. So, if a film garners a
viewership, that film is very likely to reflect public sentiment in some
fashion.
[2]
William H. Schubert, Curriculum: Perspective, Paradigm, and Possibility
(New York, NY: MacMillan Publishing
Company, 1986).
[3]
They
can be defined as follows:
·
The subject matter refers to the academic
content presented in the curriculum.
·
The teacher is the professional instructor
authorized to present and supervise curricular activities within the classroom
setting.
·
Learners are defined as those individuals attending
school for the purpose of acquiring the education entailed with a particular
curriculum.
· Milieu refers to the general cultural setting and ambiance within the varied social settings found at the school site.
[4]
Schubert, Curriculum: Perspective, Paradigm, and Possibility.
