This blog has presented,
explained, and evaluated the natural rights construct – what some might call
the classical liberal perspective. It,
the blog, claimed that this perspective is the dominant view among the American
public in terms of governance and politics.
Also, to a great degree, it assists those citizens in defining,
understanding, and passing judgment over their expectations regarding their
civic selves, that of other citizens, and of the government.
As such, this foundational construct goes to provide the
manner in which the nation’s civics instruction is developed and shared in
American classrooms. In this
presentation, the blog focused on various elements of this view, particularly
its moral element. Also, a good deal of effort
was made to describe how the view affects the quality of interaction between
students and teachers, including how it influences policy and practice
regarding discipline.
The moral element was presented to highlight the way natural
rights argues for individual free choice and behavior – only limited by the
rights of others to the same standing – and that any counter condition to this liberality
constitutes subjugation. As for its link
to academic input, the view was described as having a theoretical attachment to
the political systems approach in the study of politics. In that, the blog specifically highlighted
the models presented by David Easton[1]
and Gabriel Almond and G. Bingham Powell, Jr.[2]
These models were reviewed in relation to Eugene Meehan’s criteria[3]
for viable and reliable constructs. The Meehan-style
review led naturally to a critique which emphasized the perspective’s excessive
promotion of individualism and the detrimental effects such an emphasis has
caused in the teaching of government and civics.
And as with any view, any construct, any dominant
perspective, there will be those among the populace who will not agree. In true dialectic tradition, the natural
rights view is not immune to such challenges.
This blog favors one such opposing view, that being federation
theory. But in truth, currently, the
most prominent view picking up the challenge is critical theory, and this blog
will next turn its attention to this other view.
It is a view with an interesting
history and has spread its appeal among academics in certain socially related fields
– sociology, political science, education, etc.
Unlike natural rights, with a relatively simple basic set of ideas,
critical theory has a varied foundation.
Some of its basic concerns are exploitation, injustice (as it defines
justice), and an imbalance the way power is distributed in society. Many advocates disagree with themselves in a
variety of claims and positions, but all share, to some level, an adherence to
Marxian principles.
A recent development that
reflects the strength of this view is how the Democratic Party seems to be
divided between a moderate wing – noncritical theory partisans – and the
progressive wing – the critical theory contingency. One way to measure how “critical” a
particular politician is, is how apt that policymaker is to favor a governmental
interposition – including ownership – to meet some human problem area such as the
environment, the economy, health, etc.
As with the constructs
already reviewed in this blog – that being the parochial federalist view and
the natural rights view – this account of critical theory will set out to
provide responses to this blog’s list of research questions. To remind readers, the overall concern
is: does critical theory as a view of
governance and politics provide a legitimate and viable way to study government
and politics at the secondary level, i.e., in middle schools and in high
schools? There, the targeted courses would
be civics and American government, respectively.
With this overarching concern,
the review employs subsidiary questions.
They are directed by the dialectic stance projected by the dominant
view, natural rights, and by this challenging view, the fairly leftist stance which
constitutes the critical theory. These
views are in many ways not only at odds with each other, but place in
opposition the role schools should play in American society. Within this context, further questioning is:
1. What role has the history
of critical theory played in the development of civics curriculum?
2. What consequences have
resulted from the efforts of critical theorists in the teaching of civics?
3. Ideally, if critical
theorists were to “get their way,” how would American social arrangements be
affected?
4. And how would those desired
social arrangements – per the percepts of the construct – be achieved?
If critical theory were to attain the
nation’s support, how would Americans proceed as the future unfolds, at least
as the advocates of this view, view it?
Utilizing
a developmental arrangement of competing notions as to how the opposing
perspectives foresee the effects of their claims and policy proposals,
hopefully readers will be able to compare how this antithesis compares with the
thesis, i.e., how critical theory compares to natural rights.
This will be at times be
overshadowed by this blog’s effort to inform readers about how critical theory
came about – through relating some of its history. But guiding the effort will be the
commonplaces of curriculum developed by William Schubert[4] and
include the subject matter, teachers, learners, and milieu. In turn, the commonplaces serve to organize a
good deal of what will follow.
[1] 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).
[2] Gabriel Almond and G. Bingham Powell, Jr., Comparative Politics: A Developmental Approach (Boston: Little, Brown. 1966).
[3] Eugene J. Meehan, Contemporary
Political Thought: A Critical Study
(Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press, 1967).
[4] William H. Schubert, Curriculum: Perspective, Paradigm, and Possibility
(New York, NY: MacMillan Publishing
Company, 1986). The commonplaces 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment