This blog has been about answering a
question. That is: does a federalist perspective, in the form of
liberated federalism, provide a legitimate and viable construct for the study
of governance and politics in both middle schools (civics) and high schools
(U.S. government)? Federalism, in its
more theoretical plain, is concerned with a lot more than structural
arrangement among entities such as the US’ central and state governments. In fact, it offers a whole way of viewing
governance and politics.
It is an approach that reflects a
congregational style in which the individual entities making up a polity take
on a partnership role with the other entities in the arrangement. With that, each entity has understood duties,
responsibilities, and obligations – not necessarily mandated by law – aimed at
initiating or sustaining the interests of the federated union. In short, each is to behave in ways that
support those interests even if it means sacrificing self-interests.
To answer the above central question, there are
subsidiary questions. As this and those
postings that immediately follow are summary entries, these questions suggested
themselves from the concerns of the analysis this blog has presented. They
are: How have the constructs guiding the
teaching of American government and civics – since the beginning of the nation
– evolved? What have been the salient
consequences of that development? To
what state should the development of a construct lead? And how can the desirable state come about?
The first two questions reflect the historical
aspects of the analysis this blog has, since late 2021, been presenting. That is an analysis of American governance
and politics emanating from the central mental constructs that have guided
those activities from the origin of the nation.
That history was summarized through the blog’s postings since that first
one of this series, “Dealing with Ideals,” which was posted on December 14,
2021.[1] It, the historical account, described and
explained the evolution of the parochial/traditional federalist perspective and
how it morphed into the natural rights perspective.
Included, though, were descriptions of
political science theories or models that are associated with each historical
period. The theory of federalism, with a
strong component of republican thought, was described utilizing the ideas of
Daniel Elazar, Gordon Wood, and Donald Lutz, among others. Their contributions helped present the
general tenets of the federalist/republican view.[2]
When the analysis turned to the natural rights
view, the blog shifted in its reliance on political science contributions, to the
political systems model – mostly from the work of David Easton – and the structural-functional
approach – the work of Gabriel Almond and G. Bingham Powell. The two models were reviewed as basic
disciplinary constructs which have served, under the natural rights era, as
foundation for the current teaching of civics in the nation’s schools.
Challenging this dominant view, since the
1960s, has been the Marxian view, critical theory. That view has softened the Marx influence
with what has generally been the ideas of postmodernism. Here, writings of Paulo Freire, Cleo
Cherryholmes, Henry Giroux, and Michael Apple were utilized. The central message of this approach has been
to further a view of equality that it, the construct, holds as a trump value
and advocates achieving equal results.
In essence, it argues that levels of wealth and
income should drastically approach equality across the workforce; that there
should not be a “have,” as opposed to a “have not,” class of people. Since no modern society has come close to
this ideal, its actual realization – what that would look like – is a
mystery. Consequently, most content
inspired by this approach seems to be lodged in describing how unequal or
exploitive conditions are, especially in capitalist nations such as the US.
The synthesis, the adoption of liberated
federalism to guide civics, contains the compromised position between natural
rights and critical theory. It advocates
the re-emergence of federalism as the dominant view but is especially sensitive
to the liberty and equality issues that natural rights and critical theory
views stress in either their dominance or in their challenge.
Here, the ideas of Philip Selznick, Amitai
Etzioni, and Robert Bellah were central, as well as the cited writers of the
federalist view. As such, ideas and
ideals of these contributors had a profound influence in the development of the
proposed model, the liberated federalism model.
Stated as a simple assertion: civics
education should be guided by the liberated federalist mental construct.
[1] Interested readers who wish to look up the postings
that present the dialectic argument from its beginning, see Robert Gutierrez, “Dealing
with Ideals,” Gravitas: A Voice for
Civics,” December 14, 2021, accessed November 14, 2023, URL: https://gravitascivics.blogspot.com/2021_12_12_archive.html.
[2] These writers should not be considered advocates of
parochial/traditional federalism, but of the more generic view of federalism or
its ideals.
No comments:
Post a Comment