After accounting for
William Schubert’s[1]
first commonplace of curriculum development, subject matter, this blog will
begin its account of the second commonplace, the student. It will do so by looking at personal student
interests and how they relate to liberal federalism. The purpose is to review how productive the
use of this construct, liberated federalism, is in guiding the development of a
civics curriculum.[2]
The student, while attending secondary school, is generally
preoccupied with the concerns of adolescence.
Here, the current literature dedicated to those years with its
challenges reflects the earlier theorizing by Erik Erickson.[3] His theory identifies a central crisis in
each stage of a person’s development.
The crises of youth serve as challenges which the individual must work
through to arrive at being a well-defined adult.
In terms of the years that correspond to secondary school,
there are two crises: identity versus
identity confusion (adolescence) and intimacy versus isolation (young
adult). The first of these crises is
characterized by the questioning of socialized beliefs, attitudes, and values
which have been previously accepted by the individual youth and usually come
from significant others, such as parents and teachers.
The questioning leads to confusion which can potentially
lead to blind, irrational acceptance of those or other beliefs, attitudes, and
values or a state of disillusionment.
The youths go through a period of asking what their identities are in
terms of ideas, gender, and status.
Courses in government civics, based on a liberated federalism construct,
that place an emphasis on local political efforts, would provide lessons in
which students could more easily place in context their identity within
community settings.
Such experiences could expose youngsters to beliefs,
attitudes, and values that are held by neighbors and other community
agents. They can experience the results
of actions that are based on such dispositions.
The less abstract quality of this type of exchange can assist the youths
in gaining insights as to who they are and what worth they are to the
community. Prevalent today are civics
education efforts guided by the natural rights view that places heavy emphasis
on national governance and politics – far situated from students’ realities.
The liberated federalism perspective allows a course or way
toward letting the founding values and beliefs of the republic come alive in
the context of current political challenges.
As students become involved in the resolutions of these challenges,
students will be exposed to a justified American identity, i.e., an identity
based on core republican values.[4]
The students’ identities can be first legitimized as an
extension of their personhood, one that has their own bases of moral worth.[5] Second, the identities are tied to the ongoing
dramas of creating the American experience.
Michael Walzer identifies this process of engaging in the political
processes of conflict and consensus-making as the most effective assimilator to
core American political ideals and beliefs.[6] Of course, this whole area of concern has, in
recent years, gained notice as promoters of diverse cultural traditions have attained
attention.
Here, the position is that at a basic level,
“Americanization” of youth is limited to identifying with basic constitutional
principles – the basic ground rules – that protect the very claims and social
arrangements that multi-culturalists wish to sustain. Yet, at the individual level, this basic
grounding can go a long way in easing the identity crisis that American youth
exhibit.
Moving on, in the late adolescent or young adult years,
Erickson identifies the intimacy versus isolation crisis. For many youths, this crisis begins before
graduation from high school. In terms of
personal interest, as an area of concern, this period is a time for individuals
to form healthy intimate relationships.
From generation to
generation, this starts at various ages, with the current trend to delay its commencement.[7] Whenever it starts, Erickson claims that for the
sake of personal interest, it is for young people to form healthy intimate
relationships, i.e., relations characterized by feelings of trust and
independence, intimate and accomplished sought-after goals, and a meaningful
understanding of what these young people desire from life.
The liberated federalism perspective, with its emphasis on
interactions and partnerships – a fraternal ethos and a sense of equality – is
a positive message for young ones who are dealing with questions about how to
relate with others and how to establish lasting relationships. Of course, the model presented in this blog
does not claim that American social or political life is any more characterized
by these qualities than is found in the economic arena of fierce competition, a
central element of the nation’s ethos.
As Jean Twenge points out, economic and social opportunities
vary as the decades go by.[8] Students’ lives are highly affected by the
number of opportunities these cohorts are offered. Parents are generally pushing their children
to compete more vigorously for higher grades and other accolades. This, in turn, in the common era of today, is
causing parents to feel guilty and to befriend their children, rather than what
they once did – back in the real good old days – to be more apt to employ a “strict
father” approach.[9]
The liberated federalist perspective, in its content
concerning federalist unions or arrangements, would address the traditional
roles that members of such unions should and often did hold. This includes families. The proposed model would assist in
establishing an ideal standard by which students can analyze their own
situations at home and perhaps generate ways to improve them. Next, this blog will look at social student
interests.
[1] William H. Schubert, Curriculum: Perspective, Paradigm, and Possibility (New
York, NY: MacMillan Publishing Company,
1986).
[2] For
readers who wish to review this blog’s presentation of the liberated federalism
model, they are guided to this blog’s posting, “From Natural Rights to
Liberated Federalism” (June 2, 2023), at the URL, https://gravitascivics.blogspot.com/. This site is where this series begins.
[3] Erik Erickson, Identity: Youth and Crisis (New York, NY: Norton, 1968). For a review of more contemporary literature,
readers are directed to this blogger’s book: Robert Gutierrez, From Immaturity to
Polarized Politics: Obstacles in
Achieving a Federated Nation (Tallahassee, FL: Gravitas Civics Books, 2022).
[4] As described by Gordon Wood. See Gordon S. Wood, Creation of the American Republic 1776-1787 (Chapel Hill, NC:
University of North Carolina Press, 1969/1968).
[5] Philip Selznick, The
Moral Commonwealth: Social Theory and
the Promise of Community (Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press, 1992).
[6] Michael Walzer, On Toleration (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1997).
[7] Jean M. Twenge, Generations: The Real Differences between Gen Z, Millennials,
Gen X, Boomers, and Silents – and What They Mean for America’s Future (New
York, NY: Atria Books, 2023.
[8] Ibid.
[9] See George Lakoff, Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think
(Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago
Press, 2002).
No comments:
Post a Comment