To date this blog has, in
its viability statement concerning the construct, liberated federalism,
reviewed four of Eugene Meehan’s criteria by which to determine the usefulness
of social science models or theories.
The four are comprehensiveness, power, precision, and reliability. For readers who want to read those accounts,
they are directed to the online site, http://gravitascivics.blogspot.com/[1] and review the last
three postings.
This posting addresses the next Meehan criterion,
isomorphism. It asks: does a
construct contain a one-to-one correspondence with that portion of reality it
is trying to describe and explain? One
can view the liberated federalism model as a problem-solving, decision-making
model applicable to a political event or situation. In Robert L. Solso’s 1995 edition of his
book, Cognitive Psychology, one finds the following:
Studies
of decision making show that problem solutions are influenced by memory factors
(availability hypothesis), reference frames that affect problem formulation,
failure to consider how similar an event is to its population, and
underestimating the mathematical significance of a possible event …
Cross-cultural
differences have been observed in syllogistic reasoning, with people from
highly industrialized countries proving arguments in terms of representational
propositions, and people from less industrialized countries basing proofs more
on sensory impressions.[2]
As for the liberated federalism model, memory
and other reference frames are accounted for in the model at the individual
(entity) level by reference to knowledge resources. At the arrangement/association level, the deliberative
process refers to a review of held collective ideals and political and other
theoretical knowledge or beliefs. What
scientific inquiry might investigate are the processes of congealing opposing
commitments to diverse ideals and theoretical knowledge or biases by different
entity members, especially among leaders.
It is surely an area that should be of prime
concern when formulating compact-al agreements.
Parties cannot always foresee these types of basic disagreements, but
looking for them in advance can ease their appearance and their resolution in a
productive fashion. A good review of
personality and other distinctive characterizations of themselves and others so
involved can prove to be beneficial in the long run. One can think of this as akin to choosing a
marital partner and is surely highlighted by the liberated federalism model.
In terms of cross-cultural differences – an
issue of vibrant concern in diverse population societies – conscious awareness
of differences in reasoning patterns among minority or immigrant groups can
again ease the accommodations of their differences. One should not underestimate the challenges
such differences cause.[3] Michael Walzer writes about different
pluralistic models which characterize the various nations and empires that have
had to deal with diversity.
The United States began with what Walzer calls
a consociation arrangement among the several states. A consociation is an arrangement of several
communities through negotiations, a constitutional arrangement or union between
or among themselves.
Diversity was based on geographic and economic
factors and the nation’s compact originally was designed to federally unite
this level of diversity. A civil war and
the nationalization that has occurred via common struggles, such as the
development of a national economy, two world wars, a cold war, and a pervasive
national media, have changed the nature of the nation’s diversity.[4]
The current, rising diversity is more a result
of having an array of ethnic representation within the population. This type of pluralist model Walzer calls
immigrant societies. Since this type of
diversity is not segregated to the degree that various areas of the nation
sustained (up to the civil rights movement in the twentieth century), the
nation’s view of how to establish a federalist union needed changing – a
process still in progress.
This does not mean that geographic and even
accompanying cultural distinctions no longer exist in the United States; they
do exist and enjoy a level of multiculturalism which has been culturally
established in recent decades. But to
add to the complexity within the diverse geographic regions of the nation, there
is diversity within and among the nation’s separate ethnic groups, according to
Walzer. For example, there is much
diversity among the Latin groups as immigrants from various Latin countries
have increased.
How this diversity matches up with liberated
federalism’s elements – its isomorphism – will be addressed in the next
posting. Obviously, this question of how
the model matches on a one-to-one basis with the realities of American society
is a bit complex and deserves a more extended treatment.
[1] Use the archives feature. If readers want to read the blog’s
presentation of the liberated federalism model, they should start with the
posting, “From Natural Rights to Liberated Federalism”
(June 2, 2023).
[2] Robert L. Solso, Cognitive Psychology (Boston,
MA: Allyn and Bacon, 1995), 437.
[3] Dwitio Prayoto, “Public Administration and the
Challenges of Managing Diversity,” Linked In (May 1, 2023), accessed
August 16, 2023, https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-administration-challenges-managing-diversity-dwitio-prayoto#:~:text=One%20of%20the%20most%20significant%20challenges%20of%20managing%20diversity%20is,with%20individuals%20from%20different%20cultures AND Michael Walzer, On Toleration (New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press, 1997).
[4] Juliana Menasce Horrowitz, “Americans See Advantages
and Challenges in Country’s Growing Racial and Ethnic Diversity,” Pew Research
Center (May 8, 2019), accessed August 16, 2023, https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2019/05/08/americans-see-advantages-and-challenges-in-countrys-growing-racial-and-ethnic-diversity/.
No comments:
Post a Comment