[Note: To be more accurate, this posting should be entitled, "From Natural Rights (Via Critical Theory) to Liberated Federalism."]
It’s time for this blog
to make its final turn in reviewing what this blogger judges to be the nation’s
dialectic struggles through its years of existence. That would be the succession of foundational
constructs that guide Americans in how they think and feel about their governance
and politics. At a general level, that
has been a progression from parochial/traditional federalism to natural rights
(which is being challenged today by critical theory) and to hopefully, in the
future, liberated federalism.
By way of these influences,
the two constructs that have been dominant in American political culture – parochial
federalism and natural rights – one was prominent from the beginning of the
nation to the outbreak of World War II and the other from that latter period to
the present. There have been other views
that have had various levels of influence, but in terms of being the “taken for
granted” view, those two views have had that distinction at different times.
This blog has dedicated a
good number of postings to describing and critiquing each of these views,
including the view that currently most vibrantly challenges the natural rights
view, that being critical theory. The
upcoming effort will be, in parallel fashion, presenting a proposed synthesis
between the current thesis, natural rights, and the current antithesis, critical
theory. This newer view revisits – to a
degree – what initiated this nation, but not in the form to which the founders
believed and ascribed.
That is, instead of
parochial federalism, this blog promotes liberated federalism and with this
posting begins its argument for instituting it as the next prominent view. In other words, the synthesis of the
dialectic analysis presented in this blog is that the liberated federalism
perspective should replace natural rights for it best amalgams the ideas of natural
rights and critical theory.
In that vein, for
example, it should be the foundational construct upon which the teaching of
American government and civics in the nation’s secondary schools be based. Generally, among the reasons for this
argument will be that this perspective legitimately and viably promotes the
interests of good citizenship and social capital.[1]
This perspective
demonstrates its functional qualities in various ways. That includes its potential treatment and
handling of the subject matter of government and civics, its expectations of
teachers and students, and its influences on the milieu of the instructional
setting at the school site. By way of
review, this upcoming analysis will be guided by the subsidiary questions this
blog employed in describing and explaining the other constructs it has addressed
as to how they relate to the commonplaces of curriculum.
These commonplaces were
developed by William Schubert and include the subject matter, teachers,
learners, and milieu.[2] While upon reflection these seem to be
intuitively appropriate topics, here they are 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.
·
And milieu refers to
the general cultural setting and ambiance within the varied social settings
found at the school site.
Each of these
commonplaces will have its own elements and concerns. They will serve as the divisional categories for
this presentation of liberated federalism.
The overall concerns
identified above lead to subsidiary questions.
They include queries concerning those issues associated with instituting
a liberated federalist view in a society that sustains the natural rights view as
dominant. These views, in many ways, are
at odds not only with how governments should be described and explained and on how
politics should be conducted, but on how people should behave within the
existing governance, especially in their political interactions with others.
With
that, therefore, the following subsidiary questions are offered:
1. How can the construct guide and evolve in the
teaching of American government and civics?
2. What are the anticipated salient consequences
of that development?
3. To what social/political arrangements should
the development of this construct lead?
4. And how can desirable social arrangements – a
la the precepts of the construct – come about?
In addition, these questions steer one’s attention to how Americans
should proceed into the upcoming years.
Through a description of the historical
development – the dialectic process – of the effects of the two current opposing
perspectives – natural rights and critical theory – a clear comparison will be
attempted. This analysis will be guided
by the above subsidiary questions as they relate to the cited commonplaces of
curriculum. The next posting will share
the protocol this blog will follow in describing and explaining the liberated federalist
perspective.
[1] As defined by Robert Putnam. See Robert D. Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (New
York, NY: Simon & Schuster,
2000). Reminder: social capital, as a societal quality,
is characterized by having an active, public-spirited citizenry, egalitarian
political relations, and a social environment of trust and cooperation.
[2] William H. Schubert, Curriculum: Perspective, Paradigm, and Possibility
(New York, NY: MacMillan Publishing
Company, 1986).
No comments:
Post a Comment