FROM NATURAL RIGHTS TO LIBERATED FEDERALISM

 

[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).

CRITIQUE OF CRITICAL THEORY, VI

 

This posting will be the last dedicated to critiquing critical theory.  Overall, this blogger believes that this construct and its accompanying critical pedagogy have contributed a number of positive effects to the field of civics education and social studies in general.  Mostly, those contributions have been in relation to its focus on the needs of the disadvantaged, particularly considering how the advantaged have used their resources to further their economic interests, often at the expense of the lower classes.

            Demonstrating this last claim, there are ample cases in which the U. S. Chamber of Commerce and big business in general can take advantage of their ability to hire top rated attorneys.  This representation, in turn, can protect them against lawsuits and other legal efforts to compensate harm that average people might suffer at the hands of these entities.[1] 

Along with favoring these “big shots” in tort litigation, they favor contractual agreements and other provisions of the law that hinder regular people’s rights to gain access to the courts or, if access is achieved, have favorable decisions rendered.  This type of information is what would be highlighted in a critical education curriculum. 

Not only would this alleged unjust behavior be shared with students, but critical leaning lessons would analyze what individuals and communities can do about righting these wrongs.  And if done according to instructional strategies that that construct promulgates, it would be done in an open discussion format.

This would not only enhance the knowledge of students but also be useful in developing their intellectual capabilities.  And lest one forgets, such instruction helps the communal interests of those less advantaged students since part of the lesson is to teach and encourage students to actively engage in political action – praxis – which targets those who can authoritatively right the wrongs of any exploitive conditions.

But this blogger does see that the approach suffers from certain shortcomings.  For one, the construct is situated upon an array of assumptions that its adherents apply to the debate over curricular issues including its instructional methodology.  For example, he once debated a critical pedagogue over whether the US Constitution is a slave document or not.

Admittedly, it was mostly a semantic argument, but words are important.  To give readers the summary substance of that argument, the critical pedagogue claimed that by permitting slavery to not only exist but flourish and, by doing so, it promoted the enslavement of African descendants.   This blogger argued that the Constitution did accommodate slavery – in some very meaningful ways – but it did not mandate it and, with the structure and values it promoted, it helped establish the stage for its eventual demise.

Irrespective of how readers judge this back and forth – if it were limited to two people having a disagreement, no big deal.  But if there is a corps of teachers believing the nation’s constitution is an exploitive legal document, this can be a very hurtful assumption or belief.  Such conclusions can logically lead to de-legitimizing arguments or claims being presented to unsophisticated populations of students and some might reasonably consider that dangerous.

Hopefully, readers do not believe this type of concern links this blogger with the rhetoric and policies of Governor Ron DeSantis and his favoring the disallowing of leftist or critical content in Florida classrooms.  This blogger believes that true liberty is not achieved through educational censorship, but through the inclusion of as many messages as is reasonably possible. 

This blogger’s concern with critical pedagogy is that through its questioning – how they, the questions, are reflective of their ideological beliefs – steer their approach toward those ideological beliefs and do stack the deck against truly open inquiry.  Of course, with such unfettered bias in how the material is presented or under what context it stands, the accusation of indoctrination seems justified.

He is not trying to overstate the case, but he feels, having known critical pedagogues, that in some cases – i.e., in terms of some educators – the net effect will be to unduly promote a political agenda which happens to undermine the legitimacy of the nation’s political system.  That would be bad enough, but when couched in the language of an issue-centered curriculum, the influence would be tacit and even more insidious.

How?  This approach, critical pedagogy – has a definite political agenda backing its efforts.  It highly relies on Marxist biases.  While many do not consider themselves Marxists – and often with good and honest reasons – it is in danger of precluding the legitimate concerns and constructive contributions conservatives add to the related debates.  In other words, the approach is too committed to leftist positions as expressed in the information they tend to provide or in the questioning they employ.

If the reader wishes to read more of what critical pedagogues have to say, let this blogger suggest some names. He believes these writers and their works would be a good start in delving into critical literature. This list includes, of course, Paulo Freire, but also Michael Apple, Henry Giroux, Jonathan Kozol, Ivan Illich, John Holt, Peter McLaren, bell hooks, and Ira Shor (who actually bases his writings on his own classroom experiences). And there are many others.

---

[1] See for example, Michelle Conlin, Dan Levine, and Lisa Giron, “Special Report:  Why Big Business Can Count on Courts to Keep Its Deadly Secrets,” Reuters (December 19, 2019), accessed May 27, 2023, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-courts-secrecy-lobbyist-specialre/special-report-why-big-business-can-count-on-courts-to-keep-its-deadly-secrets-idUSKBN1YN1GF.