To continue this blog’s account of William
Schubert’s commonplaces of curriculum[1]
with the last of his concerns, milieu, this posting addresses one of the main
elements of American culture. The nation is deeply entrenched in the
prevailing perspective of the natural rights view. This is mostly demonstrated by how
individualistic the US is. Usually, this
characteristic is identified and described as a highly positive quality. But a more reserved view can be illustrated
by how World Population Review recently described this trait:
[A
respected think tank] ranks the United States as the most individualistic
country in the world. Personal freedoms
are a deeply held conviction for most Americans. Varying opinions exist as to whether American
individualism can go too far at times, such as when many Americans refused to
wear masks or follow recommended contained policies during the COVID-19
pandemic, or whether this self-determination makes Americans more resilient and
even altruistic (because they wish to help one another directly rather than
relying upon the government to do it) than they would be if individualism was
lower.[2]
Readers of this blog know the bias here is to see that the
levels of individualism the nation holds are highly negative in regard to the
health of the nation.
Probably a
good example of how a respected sociologist expressed concern over this trait
was Amitai Etzioni (who died this past May).
He documented in 1996 the social trends of deviance and the
deterioration of many of the nation’s social institutions as a result of such a
view.[3] Earlier in this blog, it documents how these
deteriorating conditions have affected schools.
But Etzioni also sensed the beginnings of a “curl back” period.
That is, he saw signs that the general
population is becoming more sensitive to the lack of values and the
consequences such a condition causes. He
cited several movements that are reacting and are based on conservative
ideology, such as the religious right.[4] But he also saw more moderate to liberal
responses. He included in this latter
group the current communitarian movement, for which he was one of its main
spokespersons.
The more liberal reaction is not a call for
revitalizing a time when Americans were more homogeneous in their thinking, but
to a social condition where equality is sustained by meaningful allocation of
responsibility and duties and the firm expectation that such an allocation be
based on rational and reflected determinations of individual abilities. Etzioni wrote:
Communitarians called for a shoring up of the
moral, social, and political foundations.
Objecting to a liberal notion that the family was dysfunctional,
defunct, or unnecessary, but not advocating a return to the traditional family,
communitarians have favored a peer marriage in which father and mother have the
same rights and responsibilities and both are more dedicated to their
children. Communitarians favored relying
on moral dialogues, education, and suasion to win people to their ideals,
rather than imposing their values by force of law. They showed faith in faith.[5]
To what extent the current “curl back” movement
is a viable one, time will tell. And the
time since 1996 has not seen meaningful turns toward a more communal nation.
Supporting this general judgment have been
various journalistic reports. For
example, Time magazine recently portrays a fairly self-centered cultural
bent in America. After agreeing with the
judgment that the bulk of American history could be described as Americans balancing
the demands of community with self-ambition, its account reports:
But something has changed. We all feel this. In
America today, far too many of us are disconnected from each other, lonely,
self-protective, or at each other’s throats. Sacrifice for the common good
feels anachronistic. Everything not nailed down has been commoditized or turned
into a source of personal enrichment. The daily “shout” shows [sic] and nonstop
social media hostility push[es] us into corners and reward balkanization.
Sacrificing personal gain for the common good or treating people with different
views respectfully or prioritizing collective success over individual
success—it’s all for the suckers.
Much has been written about why we tipped
toward ourselves over the last several decades. The villains in this story include declines in religious participation and social outings and
clubs, fueled in part by television, which keeps us at home. Workplaces also
became more focused on profit than on employee well-being and solidarity, and
we started lionizing those who stepped over others to get ahead. While those
people always existed in society, they were usually identified and treated as
outliers that needed to be constrained, not as examples of American greatness.[6]
This account highly echoes what this blog has
claimed. But the judgment of this blog
is that Etzioni is right when he argued that a shift toward communal concerns was
needed not only on a social basis, but also at the individual level.
How
does the communitarian view agree with the proposed approach of liberated
federalism? The judgment is that it is a
very congruent argument with the stated view of the communitarians in terms of
goals. To the extent that communitarians
can convince people of their position, such development would be helpful in
getting the proposed change in curricular approach, to federation theory,
adopted. But the challenges ahead should
not be underestimated.
One
such challenge is the singular expectation that schools are built and maintained
to only further the job preparedness of students.[7] That expectation generally coincides with the
anti-intellectualism that characterizes American culture. But the picture is not so one-sided. Insofar as curricular documents are political
products, they reflect what Americans want.
One can generally find the expectation
expressed in those curricula that schools should encourage students to be
concerned with basic American political values, encourage them to participate
in political processes, and understand the complex interrelationships of
complex organizations.
These are central concerns of the proposed
liberated federalism approach. One can
argue that these are more rhetorical than substantive beliefs, but at least one
can find among some Americans that, idealistically, believe they should be central. To indulge in some hopeful thinking, if
Etzioni was right in thinking that Americans are becoming more concerned with
the lack of moral conduct, perhaps this is an ideal time to meet a growing
expectation.
With what?
For one, with a curriculum reform that fits so congruently with what
Americans were able to accomplish some time ago – a balance between
self-ambition and communal allegiance.
Liberated federalism is a view that in its elements addresses this
seemingly contradictory value scheme.
Within that view, one can realize it is not contradictory if one
realizes an assumed truth.
That is that one views reality from a more long-term
perspective – as earlier Americans were able to do. In that perspective, one realizes oneself interest
is best served in a federated social environment. That is the aim of implementing a liberated
federalist curricular approach, especially in the nation’s civics educational
efforts.
[1] William H. Schubert, Curriculum: Perspective, Paradigm, and Possibility
(New York, NY: MacMillan Publishing
Company, 1986). The commonplaces can be
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 in a
particular curriculum.
·
Milieu refers to the general cultural setting
and ambiance within the varied social settings found at the school site.
Upon reflection, these
commonplaces prove to be helpful in asking insightful questions.
[2] “Individualistic Countries 2023,” World Population
Review (2023), accessed October 25, 2023, https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/individualistic-countries.
[3] Amitai Etzioni, The Golden Rule: Community and Morality in a Democratic
Society (New York, NY: Basic Books,
1996).
[4] For example, see David A. Palmer, “Spiritual
Individualism, Is the Spiritual Consumer a God?” Medium (April 19, 2021)
accessed October 25, 2023, https://medium.com/the-new-mindscape/spiritual-individualism-274361ee74f4.
[5] Etzioni, The Golden Rule, 74.
[6] Richard Weissbourd and Chris Murphy, “We Have Put
Individualism Ahead of the Common Good for Too Long,” Time (April 11,
2023), accessed October 25, 2023, https://time.com/6269091/individualism-ahead-of-the-common-good-for-too-long/.
[7] A good deal of the current literature bemoans how schools
are not doing a good enough job in preparing young people for the work-a-day world
and, only as an afterthought, express concern for civic life. For example, “Are High Schools Preparing
Students for the Future,” XQ Institute (n.d.), accessed October 27, 2023,
URL: https://xqsuperschool.org/reports/are-high-schools-preparing-students-for-the-future/#:~:text=Again%2C%20these%20results%20reflect%20what,characterized%20by%20technology%20and%20automation.
