FAMOUS (OR INFAMOUS)

This is a short holiday read.  It addresses an oft ignored element of federation theory.  That is its support for individualism.  Oh, that’s not the individualism one finds glorified by the natural rights view, but a more, what this blogger considers, substantive view.  It sees individualism as every person self-fulling his/her potentials. 

          Perhaps this shift to this concern is prompted by the nation shifting from what one can a consider a more communal holiday, Christmas, to the more raucous holiday, New Year.  This might be a comparison only held by this blogger, but Christmas always seemed as that day one visits family and even neighbors, sharing gifts and best wishes.  A wholesome emotional state of mind pervades and seems to be, to a great deal, consumed by the American public. 

Heck, people see films like “It’s a Wonderful Life” and donate a lot of money to all sorts of charities – one knows this since it’s one ad for such charities after another on TV.  But now that all those gifts are open and all those gatherings are done, one looks forward to that night of “debauchery” – New Year’s Eve will be here within the week.  Family-“shamily,” it’s time to have a good time and that means favoring what one finds as a good time even if it skirts the outer limits of “appropriate” behavior.  One word of caution:  “be safe out there.”

So, what can one say about individualism that still falls within the more communal sense that federation theory promotes?  Federation theory, as presented in this blog, supports the individual pursuing his/her interests.  What it asks is only that those interests not offend the common good by harming it or hindering it.

Those who hold on to natural rights values, in part, defend their policy choices – minimal government programs, low taxes, and a scarcity of regulations especially on businesses – as claiming such policies intrude on mostly individual economic choices.  This is the part of natural rights one can categorize as its conservative face while it’s aversion to governmental laws restricting personal choices – e.g., alternative lifestyles – is its liberal face.  In short, one should be able to do his/her own thing as he/she defines it if by doing so he/she does not prohibit others the same latitude.

And that might mean – if truly sough after – to be exceptional in some endeavor such as a skill or occupational pursuit.  That is, to seek success in a competitive environment.  One might ask:  what allows one to achieve success in any endeavor that one might consider challenging such as a sport, a technical field of employment, or some area of voluntourism? 

As this blog has stated before, John Rawls, the philosopher, has something to say about this.  Rawls identified his idea of success via his view of equality.  He argues that what leads to success can only be attributed to a person’s effort to a limited degree.  Most of the factors are really beyond a person’s ability to acquire or control.[1]  They are present in one’s life or they are not.  A more recent writer, who picks up on this claim, is Malcolm Gladwell.[2]

Gladwell accepts Rawls’ argument, but he qualifies it by citing his famous (or infamous – for those who see it as a drudgery) 10,000 hours of practice in which one needs engage to become proficient in any demanding skill or endeavor.  And this goes for naturally talented practitioners as well.  Gladwell writes:

The question is this:  is there such a thing as innate talent?  The obvious answer is yes … Achievement is talent plus preparation.  The problem with this view is that the closer psychologists look at the careers of the gifted, the smaller role innate talent seems to play and the bigger the role preparation seems to play.[3]

And this blog has cited the work of Carol S. Dweck whose work has demonstrated that even the common view of intelligence – usually measured by I.Q. testing and seen as each person having a given amount – can improve with the right practice which, in part, convinces a subject that intelligence can be improved.[4]

          But even here, even with an individual putting in the effort and time to achieve those 10,000 hours, community has its role.  One benefits by having the parents who encourage a youngsters putting in a lot of those hours.  The person needs the wealth base to allow time away from non-related employment to be able to practice.  And then there is the program at school or after-school where one can practice under appropriate supervision or coaching or tutoring that point out the mistakes and demonstrate the “correct” ways of motion or thinking.

          And probably to top off what a community can offer is exposure.  That is, exposure to the skill or sport or profession in which the practice occurs.  If one is fortunate and one can run across that activity that spurs the interest that reflects what one is willing to do for those 10,000 hours, then one can count him/herself truly fortunate.  This blogger has not run across a truly successful person who at some level doesn’t enjoy the activity he/she performs.  10,000 hours is a long time.

---

[1] See Chandran Kukathas and Philip Pettit, Rawls:  A Theory of Justice and Its Critics, (Stanford, CA:  Stanford University Press, 1990).

[2] Malcolm Gladwell, Outliers, (New York, NY:  Little, Brown and Company, 2008).

[3] Ibid., 38.

[4] Carol S. Dweck, Self-Theories:  Their Role in Motivation, Personality, and Development (Philadelphia, PA:  Psychology Press, 2000).  Dweck goes on to even claim that a belief that intelligence is held by individuals at a given amount functions as a negative factors when a person eventually encounters a challenge, he/she cannot readily solve or achieve.

WHEN THINGS GET BEYOND “STICKY”

[Note:  Happy Holidays to All!]

This posting continues the theme of the last posting – entitled “It’s a Rainforrest Out There.”  That is, that posting addressed how a polity needs for its citizens and other residents to share certain motivations to initiate and sustain a general communal society – a society in which people generally cooperate.  Citing Michael Sandel,[1] it identified three types of motivations toward that end; those being reciprocity, sentiment, and self-fulfillment. 

Richard Dagger’s[2] view concerning the function communal modes of behaviors play chooses to concentrate on reciprocity as a baseline motivation that one can count on if the other types fail.  The other types are great, but one can realistically get people to worry about how they will be treated by others whether those acts are reactions to positive or negative experiences when either sentiment is missing or lacking, and self-fulfillment is ill-defined or not appreciated. 

Being able to anticipate an enjoyable treatment or a punitive treatment will get most people’s attention; they will seek the former and avoid the latter.  Therefore, they are apt to behave in ways to solicit the former and stay clear of the latter.  And the last posting reported what the implications of these reactions are even when one is observing a group or individual dealing with conflicting interests.

That is, the last posting delved into what these general dispositions need to confront in what could possibly be challenging interactions between or among individuals or groups.  While these less than optimal situations were looked at, the assumption was that generally the overall social landscape in which they take place is fairly tranquil.  It is one that can be described as cooperative and not experiencing, say, common violence and terror.  But what if that is not the case?  What if that landscape is characterized by turmoil?

First, one needs a comparison.  How is one going to treat a fellow organizational or association-al person – a person one has joined in a common effort like a fellow citizen – as compared to someone else – a person, for example, of another country?  Does one place in priority the needs of a co-participant over a foreign person?  Intuitively, one is disposed to do so.  But is this a blank commitment?  If the needs of one of them is not extreme, but within the normal needs of life, then claims of co-participants will likely be placed in a higher priority.

This comparison is important because societal efforts depend on cooperative relationships especially from co-participants.  Therefore, biased choices in favor of co-participants enhance the probability – on merely reciprocal grounds – of cooperative results.  But that is in normal conditions.  If instead, say, a polity is one experiencing excessive violence, or high levels of terror, or the people live lives that demonstrate little respect for law and order, then one finds it less likely that any intuitive priority toward co-participants – fellow citizens – is felt as a viable motivation. 

This priority to favor co-participants relies on a cooperative social/political landscape.  And when this general sense is challenged or, in the extreme, evaporates, then other means to secure general “cooperation” in carrying on the essential societal requisites – such as cars stopping at red lights – relies, in the main, on exploitation. 

In short, in those cases people do what is necessary out of fear of oppressive police actions.  Of course, this does not only refer to traffic.  It particularly becomes a contentious issue when what is at stake are those policies having to do with the distribution of resources.  Dagger writes:

When access to property or wealth or positions of political power is effectively denied to some members, those without access will have little choice but to labor for the benefit of those who dominate their lives – hardly the hallmark of a cooperative enterprise that gives rise to special rights and obligations among its participants.  There is critical edge to the argument from reciprocity, then, an edge that suggests that fellow citizens in many cases simply have no moral claim to priority.[3]

That is, when the choice arises between choosing the interests of a co-participant and a foreign person, the co-participant has no priority claim when the motivation is to avoid the punishment of an authoritarian power.  And given how basic reciprocity is in motivating cooperative behavior, one can see how uncooperative such social landscapes can become.

          For the sake of placing such an understanding to everyday American experience, consider the workplace where the rules of the game either are insufficient or not respected.  How will the workforce react?  No, it will not usually shift over to violence, but unless a policing regime is put in place, one that can detect deviance and has the resources to impart hurtful punishments, the workers will not act or feel they need to act cooperatively. 

They will instead strike out to either advance only personal interests and/or act in ways that seek revenge for abusive acts of others.  The mindset of each abandons any sense of “we” and only thinks in terms of “I.”  Conditions will definitely devolve beyond sticky or uncomfortable, but reach in what one can, at least, consider exploitive.

          Therefore, if one wants to advance the motivation of co-participants toward modes of behavior that allow for a cooperative organizational or association-al arrangement, then a viable rule-based structure and related processes need to be established and maintained.  That entity’s workforce – or citizenry – also needs to be nurtured so it recognizes the reciprocal relationships that exist. 

And that calls for appropriate – what sociologists might call – system maintenance.  That consists of functional socializing and successful recruitment of personnel that, at least, populate the arrangement with people harboring a fundamental understanding of what reciprocal relationships are.  Of course, this all depends on norms within the arrangement and can be carried on too far stifling original thought and innovated proposals.  A balance is called for.

          With that basic level of understanding, a leader can work toward encouraging the other motivations; that is, encouraging positive sentiments and general understanding that legitimate participation in the arrangement can advance individual capacities.  These “higher” aims can be considered and acted upon when the foundation is well entrenched within the realm of the arrangement.

          If the arrangement is a polity and the above aims are met, then it approaches what Dagger refers to as a polity that operates under the auspices of republican liberalism.  This blog considers such a polity being guided by liberated federalism as it implements the elements of federation theory.

---

[1] As reported by Richard Dagger.  Richard Dagger, Civic Virtue:  Rights, Citizenship, and Republican Liberalism (New York, NY:  Oxford, 1997).

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid., 60.

IT’S A “RAINFORREST” OUT THERE

Many determining factors that affect the ability of a society or, more specifically, a polity to meet its challenges need to be balanced.  Some, if not many, of a polity’s elements or attributes are often in conflict.  For example, should citizens support the aims of one neighbor or that of another when those aims are in conflict?  Should the use of one of their properties be used in a way that bothers or more seriously infringes on the aesthetics of another is just one possible conflict.

In a related notion, this blog has reported what are the motivations that lead people to be communal despite these conflicts.  Michael Sandel offers three types or sources of motivations:  reciprocity, sentiment, and personal self-fulfillment.[1] How they function in a landscape of turmoil – at times in the extreme – is worth knowing and worth teaching civics students.

          The question becomes relevant as a polity goes about its business.  Those situations will arise when commitments and other determining conditions will be in contention.  Richard Dagger offers the following:  in one’s concern over reciprocity and sentiment there can be an issue or development when one needs to choose between the interests of neighbors and those of people in some foreign land. 

How should one choose?  Intuitively, one will side with those whom one has an association – such as fellow citizens.  Of course, considerations over the issue in question are important.  For example, is the survival of a foreign population at odds with some convenience or inconvenience of a more local population?  Then perhaps the moral and prudent choice is to side with the foreigner.  One can only ascribe weights to such factors and not look for hard and fast rules of thumb that say, for example, “citizens of my country always come first.”[2]

This posting aims to further Dagger’s analysis.  In his review of Sandel’s “motivations,” Dagger points out some very important practicalities.  Yes, when one joins in a social arrangement, be it a social group, a legal, or a political arrangement, one usually does so to advance personal interests.  This is legitimate if, once joined, one is true to the provisions of the agreement that sets up the arrangement.  If the arrangement reflects the attributes of a true partnership, then the arrangement is an association.

But in general, whether the arrangement is a partnership or not, one has a legitimate bias for parochial relationships.  This is not only wise in pursuing mutual aims, but natural.  One has a natural affinity for the familiar[3] and that strongly pertains to political concerns.  But does that not pose a challenge for the liberated version of federalism?

To remind the reader, this blog has argued against an earlier version of federalism to which this nation ascribed; that being parochial/traditional federalism.  As Andrew Marantz points out, this nation was created by white men for white men.[4]  But even they seemed to think at some idealistic level that this was not right either morally or practically.  In any event, their written covenants and compacts – at least, at the national level – did not proclaim such ownership for that group.

Instead, those documents proclaim the opposite.  They proclaim an equality among the populous.  This blogger has been taught that even the gender discrepancies in law were justified – or more accurately, rationalized – as not being instances of inequality, but of attempts to maintain the cohesion of families. 

That lesson is considered with a jaundiced eye, but the thinking was that the father spoke for the family or household in his voting, in his ownership of property, and in his position in the community.  Of course, this did not satisfy the provisions of federalism unless one defined women as deficient or equivalent to children.  This could not stand, given the overall rationale of federalism and its provisions for equality.

But this goes a bit astray.  The concern here is the function the above motivations play in maintaining and advancing a polity – a society.  Reciprocity – even where there is no sentiment or understanding of the needs of self-fulfillment – calls for one to cooperate and make nice with those close by.  Afterall, one depends on those people most immediately to derive the advantages one enjoys by being a member of an arrangement.  But the concern becomes that when things don’t go swimmingly with these cohorts, what sustains the bonds?

The first basic response to this possibility – occurring from time to time in everyone’s life – is the self-awareness that in one’s modes of behavior the inevitable contention needs a strategy.  “This is how I handle a debate with my neighbor, my partner, my customer, my fellow city dweller, my fellow state resident, my fellow countryperson, or my fellow inhabitant of the planet.”  At each level the bonds vary, and this is no small matter.  It affects what specific strategy is employed.  But when one realizes that a strategy is needed that is a big step.

Short of a strategy – which, by the way, can adjust given the factors involved – one is apt to react without thought and be short-sighted.  Emotions will hold sway and resulting behaviors are apt to be regrettable.  And this can be consequential in furthering relationships; after all, at the reciprocal stage, reciprocities are bound to be aimed back at a person who acts impulsively.

Also, strategies allow one to take into account the nature of a relationship.  Is it with a neighbor or a professional cohort?  Is it with a fellow worker, an anonymous person, or with a known person?  Is it with a superior or an underling?  Is it in person or over the phone or through a letter exchange?  These and other factors might affect what leads to effective intercourse.

And, according to Dagger, each reflects decisions over the priority one places on the issue or on the other party.  And here, still holding to the basic level of reciprocity, one places different levels of priority on who the other party is and what the issue is.  This can become complex and unstable given the elements of not only the other parties and situations, but on what is happening in one’s life.

All of this falls within the assumption that conditions within the polity are sufficiently stable and peaceful.  The next posting will look at the issues Dagger points out when this assumption does not hold.  This is more than an academic concern.  As this blog has mentioned – without taking a position as to who is right or wrong or who is responsible or victimized – the current mood of the nation has, of late, shifted.  Today one cannot make assumptions of stability as to the general political landscape under which such contentions might and do occur.

---

[1] Richard Dagger, Civic Virtue:  Rights, Citizenship, and Republican Liberalism (New York, NY:  Oxford, 1997).

[2] For a more developed description of this line of thought, see Robert Gutierrez, “Balancing Act over Us/Theming, Gravitas:  A Voice for Civics – a blog, April 10, 2018, accessed December 19, 2019, https://gravitascivics.blogspot.com/2018/04/balancing-act-over-ustheming.html .

[3] Robert M. Sapolsky, Behave:  The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst (New York, NY:  Penguin Press, 2017.

[4] Andrew Marantz, Anti-social:  Online Extremists, Techno-Utopians, and the Hijacking of the American Conversation (New York, NY:  Penguin Random House, 2019).

LONG-TERM CONTROL

How do Americans view American politics?  Do they see it as a process by which politicians put into effect the wishes of the American people?  Or do they see it as a process by which politicians put into effect the wishes of well-heeled organizations like global corporations, highly esteemed professional groups, or well-aligned labor groups that push for a given policy.  Political science literature does not side unequivocally with one of these positions or the other.

          One thing is sure:  organized political advocacy beats-out unorganized efforts every time.  This writer years ago was introduced to the work of E. E. Schattschneider and his book, The Semi-Sovereign People:  A Realist’s View of Democracy in America.[1]  In that book, that political scientist offered a model or overview of American politics.  The model describes what the political arena looks like when a “rich” political actor faces a “not so rich” political actor. 

To be rich in this context means an actor has a significant amount of money, control of votes, and/or expertise – these are listed here in their relative amounts of power or “richness;” i.e., money seems to be the most “powerful” asset.  In general, according to the Schattschneider model, each type of actor – rich or not rich – strategizes. 

Rich actors attempt to limit participants in a contest over whether an authoritative decision is made one way or another.  Of course, they want a favorable decision, one that advances their interests.  Not so rich actors, understanding their relative weakness, seek out others to join the fight.  Why should these other actors join?  This is negotiated among the not so rich, but generally the deal has a reciprocal element – “next time you need help, we will help if you help us now.” 

These alliances can lead to long standing relationships in which this mutual help becomes characteristic of various national and even international political/economic confrontations.  For example, organized labor has long supported civil rights groups and vice versa.  But one would be surprised if US Steel would be found helping General Motors or the car industry, in general, in their labor negotiations. 

Why?  Because these rich actors don’t need the help and therefore, they do not need to form agreements that add to their obligations or possibly share information that a rich actor wants to remain private.  This form of information can be corporate market strategies, technological information, or any proprietary information a corporation wishes to keep secret.

To the degree Schattschneider got that right, one can glean what goes into one of the above options that states politics is a game organizations exclusively play.  If so, this view of politics represents organizations energetically going at it.  But what of the other option, the one that sees politics as just an expression of what people want?  Here a different dynamic can be detected. 

Actually, the term dynamic is a bit too energetic.  When one looks how typical Americans interact with the political process – those aimed at influencing public policy – one sees mostly inaction.  Why?  Paul Burnstein writes:

[Regular citizens] aren’t likely to create organizations because of the collective action problem … [O]rganizations attempting to affect policy seek a collective good that will benefit every member. Because everyone will benefit, whether or not they have done anything to win the collective good, it is rational for everyone to let others do the necessary work.  The result will be little or no collective action.  The same argument holds for individuals:  why try to influence policy when letting others do the work will produce the same benefit?[2]

This is a form of the “free rider” problem and it unfortunately characterizes most Americans and their level of involvement.

          So, if most citizens don’t express or otherwise provide input, then a system cannot reflect what they want.  Now, one needs to add more context to this general description.  Most Americans are unaware of what most policy debates are and if they know of a contested issue, they don’t know enough of its pertinent factors.  So, does that mean they have no voice in the political arena?

          One thing they do know is whether policies in general are helping them or not.  They know how their welfare is doing – is it getting better or not?  And history shows, they are not shy about voting in accordance to what they perceive the system is doing.  They have certain targets to vote for or against, such as the President, their representative in Congress, their senators, their governor, their mayor, even their city council member.  But as one goes down this list, from national to local, the likelihood of a citizen voting diminishes.

          Consequently, politicians who hold office want the populous to be happy so that they do not start looking for which “bum” to throw out of office.  And Burnstein suggests that across the board globally, and that goes for systems not nearly as democratic as the American system, the public holds a long-term control over policy. 

Yes, such controls might not be evident in the give and take of everyday politics and governance, but over the long haul, it does provide a controlling factor – things can’t get too out of hand before the populous start voting, start marching, start writing, or even start participating in disruptive politics.  This is not good for anyone and surely not for targeted politicians.

---

[1] E. E. Schattschneider, The Semi-Sovereign People:  A Realist’s View of Democracy in America (New York, NY:  Hole, Rinehart and Winston, 1960).

[2] Paul Burnstein, American Public Opinion, Advocacy, and Policy in Congress:  What the Public Wants and What It Gets, (New York, NY:  Cambridge University Press, 2014), location 206 (Kindle edition).  This quote was cited in a previous posting.  See Robert Gutierrez, “An Involved Life,” Gravitas:  A Voice for Civics – a blog.  Posted October 18, 2016.

ENCOURAGING REASONED THINKING

This blog has from time to time addressed the function the subconscious plays in thinking and, more specifically, in political thinking.  Generally, the subconscious can and does play an automatic pilot role.  The mind perceives what the senses take in and if the information does not stir the emotions or is perceived as an out of an expected encounter, the subconscious automatically drums up a response to the condition perceived.  This is what Daniel Kahneman[1] calls System 1 thinking, and it accounts for about 98 percent of the type of thinking people do.

          Therefore, people do not usually engage in reasoned thinking or even reflective thinking.  Most of their thinking can be best described as reflexive thinking.  What’s comforting about reflexive thinking is that it expends little energy.  What expends a good deal of energy is reasoned thinking, the kind this nation’s founding fathers relied upon in their writing of the Constitution.  When one goes about handing the ultimate power of governance to the people, one is not only counting on the ability of the people to think reasonably, but to do so.

          And as this blog has indicated in a prior posting, George Lakoff[2] provides a list of attributes characterizing this more energetic thinking – what Kahneman calls System 2 thinking.  These attributes are:

[I]t is consciously done; universally applies to all people; disembodied in that it is free from perceptions or actions; follows classical logic; is applied unemotionally; reflects neutral-values (i.e., a person can rise above one’s values); is derived from one’s interests; and views reality as logical.[3]

Such thinking can tire a person just thinking about it.  Yet, that is what the nation’s system of governance calls on people to do.

          But they don’t.  And what does that lead to?  Here is what Lakoff regards are the consequences.  Reflexive thinking affects one’s morality, one’s political reality, and how the two intermix.  Those who choose professions that can benefit from such a state – politicians and marketeers – are apt to be aware of it.  They formulate their messaging to cater to the subconscious and accompanying ignorance.  After all, they either want to sell policies or products and their aim is for their listeners to choose them subconsciously.

          In case the politician or marketeer holds to a higher standard, one that counts on the voter or customer to make a reasoned choice in choosing what they are “selling,” they seem to be unaware of the more common practice or deem appeals to the subconscious as beneath them or immoral in some way.  Such conniving they judge to be dishonest.

One can see the work of many ethical politicians, social activists, and journalists as exhibiting a higher approach and federation theory promotes this latter type of politics.  As an aside, while many of the more astute, principled “salespersons” understand this obstacle to their aims, to date there does not seem to be a clear strategy to overcome it.  Oh, there is here and there one who has inordinate charisma who can rally support, but in the main, this does not happen.

          A second consequence is that this reasoned approach tends to commit its practitioners to certain patterns of thought.  Standards and criteria by which to judge behavior and policy become important and not easily discarded.  This stands counter to appealing to reflexive thinking where the immediate rewards and punishments are mostly what are considered, unreflectively, in making decisions.

          And a third consequence, according to Lakoff, is that reasoned thinking understands and feels fulfilled by the inevitable reality of how interconnected people are.  Reflexive thinking simply considers the “me” and his/her immediate interests in any encounters or situations that have a social element attached to them.

          With that bit of insight into how the brain works, what is the responsibility of civics educators?  After all, and it is assumed here, the aim of civics is to promote civic responsibility and such responsibility calls for reasoned thought.  So, as Lakoff puts it, the aim should not be to only to change minds, but to change brains; that is, to change the degree to which an individual relies on reflexive thinking and to more readily opt for reasoned thinking.

          Here is how Lakoff puts it:

But “changing minds” in any deep way always requires changing brains.  Once you understand a bit more about how brains work, you will understand that politics is very much about changing brains – and that it can he highly moral and not the least bit sinister or underhanded …

          We will need to embrace a deep rationality that can take account of, and advantage of, a mind that is largely unconscious, embodied, emotional, empathetic, metaphorical, and only partly universal.  A New Enlightenment would not abandon reason, but rather understand that we are using real reason – embodied reason, reason shaped by our bodies and brains and interactions in the real world, reason incorporating emotion, structured by frames and metaphors and images and symbols, with conscious thought shaped by the vast invisible realm of neural circuitry not accessible to consciousness.[4]

All this needs a more explaining and all that will be provided at some future point.  But what one, who cares about civics education, should draw from this is that the job of an effective civics’ teacher is not just reviewing what the three branches of government are.  He/she needs to delve into how people think.  At some level, this blogger believes, this can be done by that teacher and his/her secondary students.

---

[1] Daniel Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow (New York, NY:  Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2011).

[2] George Lakoff, The Political Mind:  Why You Can’t Understand 21^st-Century American Politics with an 18^th-Century Brain (New York, NY:  Viking, 2008).

[3] Robert Gutierrez, “Hidden Considerations,” Gravitas:  A Voice for Civics – a blog, January 12, 2018, accessed December 12, 2019, https://gravitascivics.blogspot.com/2018/01/hidden-considerations.html .

[4] George Lakoff, The Political Mind:  Why You Can’t Understand 21^st-Century American Politics with an 18^th-Century Brain, 12-14.

CHANGE CONTEXTUAL ELEMENTS

Change in social landscapes can be studied from different perspectives, from different contexts.  One angle to this topic is the human interactions between those engaged in either promoting change, those opposed to it, and between the two camps in a given contested change effort. 

Here the relevant information that provides insight into those dealings can be derived from psychological and sociological studies.  But when one wants to see these encounters from a national or statewide level, political studies seem to be most fruitful.

          One study that takes on this more political perspective is provided by Leslie R. Crutchfield.[1]  “What [she] does is convey qualitative research findings – emanating from her team of researchers – on what has been effective in terms of grass roots activities.  She also indicates what has not been effective.”[2]  Since this blog promotes transformative change for civics education, any reliable knowledge affecting change efforts in large arenas, such as a national effort to change civics curricula, is highly welcomed.

          One of the first claims that Crutchfield reports has to do with the contexts under which more recent efforts have been attempted.  And the first element of those contexts she lists is historical.  That is, various efforts in the latter half of the twentieth century have had their effects. 

That would include civil rights, labor, environment, and feminist movements.  They seemed to have been most virulent during the 1960s and 1970s.  But while the influence of those efforts still has its effects, it must be highly qualified since the current environment has been heavily altered by technological developments.

          With the turn of the century, agents engaged in change have had to accommodate their strategies to the advent and quick application of the digital revolution through the Internet.

Technological innovation ushered Western society into a post-industrial Digital Age and catalyzed the supply chain revolution.  With innovations in sourcing and logistics, suddenly businesses were freed up to purchase inputs from and create their products in almost any nation on earth.  As supply chains opened up, the world turned flat once again, and globalization brought a new world trade order.[3]

Practically, those involved in change – especially if the parties targeted by such efforts are business interests – their concerns can potentially go global.  But even if the most directly affected are private enterprises, the public institutions are not immune and at times become the prime affected parties.  One need only look at the current headlines and be informed of foreign powers influencing domestic elections.

            On a more substantive level, current change efforts need to take into account the “nuts and bolts” issues of the day.  Nationally, an about face took place from a highly progressive thrust that existed in the 1960s and 1970s to a reactionary one of the 1980s and 1990s.  One area of concern provides an overall sense of how this reversed course materialized and continues to do so in everyday politics.

            That would be in the area of incarceration.  In the last four decades there has been an increase of 500 percent in the number of people being sent to some form of imprisonment.  Yet, there has not been that sort of increase in the number of crimes being committed. 

Ironically, for unrelated reasons, both liberal – left of center citizens – and conservatives – right of center citizens – have been cast together fighting this policy.  Of note on this issue, the usually opposing groups Black Lives Matter activists and the Koch brothers have become allies when it comes to the incarceration issue. 

The first group is motivated by their concern over race relations and the inordinate number of African Americans making up that prison population; the second group is motivated by its concern for over-governmental interference in American lives.  This uneasy alliance has brought attention to this national issue. 

And the conservative side of this joint effort brings up another contextual element.  Through the Koch brothers’ and other conservative groups’ actions, a highly organized, national conservative movement has evolved since the year 2000.  Summarily, this movement was given the title Tea Party. 

Their most meaningful accomplishment has been their successful acquisition of a significant number of Congressional seats.  When Republicans control the House of Representatives (as they did from 2011 to 2017), this Tea Party element presents a meaningful factor in being able to secure national or regional change.

This rise of conservatism, which has also been called the alt-right or populist movement, has been combined with the technological advancements mentioned above.  The result has been a potent political force that promises to affect national politics for many years to come.  This force will be addressed in upcoming postings.  But through social media, the alt-right has captured the attention of a significant number of Americans with a virulent conservative message.[4]

Of course, the political atmosphere in a given time will affect not only change processes, but what should be legitimately changed in the first place. 

… [I]t’s important to note that Trump didn’t create the populist movement that ultimately ushered him into office; rather, he shrewdly tapped the anger and disaffection of white working-class voters in coal country and other parts of the United States who felt left behind by a vanishing industrial economy and increasing cultural diversity.[5]

And with that explanatory note, one can find the circular reality of how the current environmental elements are meaningfully interrelated one with the other. 

Political movements – whether they are elements of the political context of change efforts or not – demonstrate that they are indicators of how the polity is divided or polarized at any given time.  They function as the fuel upon which change occurs – whether it is planned or not, whether it is wanted or not, or whether it is beneficial or not.

---

[1] Leslie R. Crutchfield, How Change Happens:  Why Some Social Movements Succeed While Others Don’t (Hoboken, NJ:  John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2018).

[2] Robert Gutierrez, “Introducing the ‘Grass Root’ Approach,” Gravitas:  A Voice for Civics, April 2, 2019, accessed December 9, 2019, https://gravitascivics.blogspot.com/2019/04/introducing-grass-root-approach.html .

[3] Leslie R. Crutchfield, How Change Happens:  Why Some Social Movements Succeed While Others Don’t, 5 (Kindle edition).

[4] See Andrew Marantz, Anti-social:  Online Extremists, Techno-Utopians, and the Hijacking of the American Conversation (New York, NY:  Penguin Random House, 2019).

[5] Leslie R. Crutchfield, How Change Happens:  Why Some Social Movements Succeed While Others Don’t, 7 (Kindle edition).