DISCIPLINARY CONCERNS OF PAROCHIAL FEDERALISM

 

An advocate of parochial federalism continues his/her presentation[1] …

With its review of the subject matter (in terms of its content), this blog begins describing parochial federalism’s position regarding the discipline of American government and civics.  And this segment begins with a question:  What is the state of affairs within the discipline of those subjects that would indicate a legitimate use of parochial federalism as its foundational construct?

In the eighteenth century, politics centered on the establishment of republican government.  James Madison and Alexander Hamilton spoke of a “new science of politics” concerned with the study of how free people can create a constitutional system of government based on popular sovereignty.”[2]

 

Today’s situation – given the polarized landscape that plagues the nation – demands a reconsideration of the forces and concerns associated with the establishment and maintenance of a republic.  Federalism is a theory of government that provides perspective for such a reconsideration.

          For those who follow a traditional/historical approach within the discipline of political science (one that utilizes documents and other written artifacts of past political activity), parochial federalism is a construct that fits their type of research and theorizing (e.g., the works of Daniel Elazar[3] and Donald Lutz[4]).  The professional organization, the Center for the Study of Federalism, conducts and reports on reputable research and teaching projects in the tradition of this construct.[5]

          Parochial federalism, with its historical/cultural basis, gives a more comprehensive view of political activity and behavior in an extended republic than is presently being offered in the typical civics and American government classes (this blog has provided such reviews and will do more, with relevant research, in the future). 

 As opposed to the sterile, neutral fare that characterizes government studies, parochial federalism enquires into the historical foundations of the nation’s political ethos and makes claims as to the current values to which instruction should ascribe.  That value system revolves around good citizenship and social capital that promote a republic commonwealth (akin to how Gordon Wood characterizes the Revolutionary generation which is historically known as those who joined the Whigs or commonwealthmen). 

It takes a more proactive approach in asking and analyzing information regarding justice and the establishment and maintenance of a civil society.  If the concern is to maintain a republic, what conditions must the construct address in order to be legitimate and a viable foundation by which to study government in the nation’s schools? 

Answering this question takes on several dimensions.  Eugene Meehan[6] provides criteria by which social scientists can judge constructs.  While a curriculum developer and/or implementor of curriculum have different concerns from a social scientist, some of Meehan’s concerns can be incorporated in evaluating constructs for the purposes of classroom use.

The following questions suggest themselves from Meehan’s work:

 

•     Comprehension: Does the construct explain as many phenomena related to the area of concern as possible?

•     Power: Does the construct control the explanatory effort by being valid and complete in its component parts and the relations between and among those parts?

•     Precision: Does the construct specifically and precisely treat its concepts, making them clear in their use?

•     Consistency or Reliability: Does the construct explain its components and their relations the same way time after time?

•     Isomorphism: Does the construct contain a one-to-one correspondence with that portion of reality it is trying to explain?

•     Compatibility: Does the construct align with other responsible explanations of the same phenomena?

•     Predictability: Does the construct predict conditions associated with the phenomena in question?

•     Control: Does the construct imply ways of controlling the phenomena in question?

 

In other words, given the general goal of parochial federalism, how does its view of government and politics match up with the realities of government and serve as a vehicle by which to present reality and the values involved?

          A curriculum, to be viable, must have, as one of its sources, a foundation in reputable subject matter from the relevant discipline.[7]  In addition, this blogger – apart but not necessarily distinct from parochial federalism – adds two more concerns that are in line with the demands of a successful application of a construct for classroom use.  They are:

 

·      Abstraction Level: Is the construct of such abstraction that students will be able to comprehend it?

 

·      Motivation: Is the construct and its content motivating to students?

 

This presentation will present evidence regarding the way the construct, parochial federalism, addresses its disciplinary approach in portraying governance and politics to secondary students.

---

[1] This presentation begins with the posting, “A Parochial Subject Matter” (March 11, 2022).

[2] Stephen L. Schechter and Jonathan S. Weil, “Studying and Teaching Political Science,” in Teaching the Social Sciences and History in Secondary Schools:  A Method Book, edited by James C. Schott and Laurel R. Singleton (Belmont, CA:  Wadsworth Publishing Company), 138.

[3] For example, Daniel J. Elazar, American Federalism:  A View from the States, Third Edition (New York, NY:  Harper and Row, Publishers, 1984).

[4] For example, Donald S. Lutz, “The Mayflower Compact, 1620” (17-23), “The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, 1639” (24-35), “The Declaration of Independence, 1776” (138-145), “The Virginia Declaration of Rights and Constitution, 1776” (150-165), “The Articles of Confederation, 1781” (227-248) in Roots of the Republic: American Founding Documents Interpreted, edited by Stephen L. Schechter (Madison, WI:  Madison House, 1990).

[5] An offshoot of the Center for the Study of Federalism is an academic journal, Publius:  The Journal of Federalism.  This journal is associated with Temple University in Philadelphia.

[6] Eugene J. Meehan, Explanation in Social Science:  A System Paradigm (Homewood, IL:  The Dorsey Press, 1968).

[7] Ralph W. Tyler, Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction (Chicago, IL:  The University of Chicago Press, 1949).

A PAROCHIAL SUBJECT MATTER CONTINUED

 

An advocate of parochial federalism continues his/her presentation …

In addition to the sum total of American history, in which parochial federalism held – up to the late 1940s – the dominant position among the various espoused political constructs, it has to be analyzed within the context of that whole experience:

 

Since the beginning of the 17^th century, the Americans have found and refounded [sic] their political societies, from small settlements and colonies to a large nation, by “reflection and choice” more than by “accident” or the natural growth and development of communities.  American foundings reflect at least five profound influences:  the colonial mission of a “covenantal people;” the Enlightenment ideal of rational choice; the republican principles of popular consent and limited government; the principle of the rule of law derived from Anglo-American common-law tradition; and the federal principle of organizing polities by distributing and sharing power between general and constituent governments.[1]

 

The parochial federalist construct would contain this rich historical foundation as essential subject matter in the study of American government and civics and thus add the needed context to make sense of the American governmental structure.

          In terms of the foundation of the nation and the principles that are derived from that experience, students would benefit from the spirit and values that initiated the national development.  Parochial federalism was not a stagnant force.  At different times, its basic ideals were more or less prominent among the popular culture. 

T. H. Breen describes that even during a boycott of British goods during the years leading up to the Revolutionary War – a commercial form of political engagement but with a highly social flavor – a constant reference to the common good seemed to be about what the colonists ultimately were concerned.[2]  For example, here is how Breen describes women’s role in this organized rejection of imported goods – all of which legally came from Britain.

 

Although colonial males may have hoped to contain the expansion of political participation – both in the streets and in print – it was clear that some women intended to make themselves heard, forcefully articulating what one historian has recently called “communal consciousness.”[3]

 

While Breen doesn’t attribute this sort of thinking to federalist values, parochial federalist thinking (in the opinion of this blogger) does.

On this matter, Daniel Elazar writes,

 

In order to understand American federalism in the broadest sense of the term – not as inter-governmental relations, as federalism has come to be interpreted from managerial perspectives of the 20^th century, not as a matter of the constitutional distribution of powers between the general and state governments, as the constitutional lawyers are wont to see it; not even as the grand political struggle between the Union and the states which covered the canvas of the 19^th century historians; but as something close to what the French term “integral federalism,” that is to say, as the animating and informing principle of the American political system flowing from a covenantal approach to human relationships.[4]

 

Parochial federalism, as defined here, refers to an “integral federalism”:  a comprehensive paradigm of explanation and prescription of federalist ideals, ideas, and values.

          Historian Gordon Wood[5] makes a compelling argument that during the years immediately preceding and following the adoption of the Declaration of Independence, there was an especially strong and pervasive support for the ideals of federalism as defined in this blog.  Under the general political movement known as the Whig tradition (adherents called Whigs or Commonwealthmen), an unprecedented support for the ideals of federal republicanism was genuinely felt among the general population.

          For the sake of presenting a working configuration of the parochial federalist perspective, the ideals of the Whig tradition are used to demonstrate that construct.  Whig ideals, as will be described in this blog, emphasize the federalist elements of community, citizen participation, localism, representative government, equality, liberty, and public virtue.  The Whigs incorporated the religious and enlightened (reasoned) traditions of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries into an ideology.

            That ideology, Wood emphasizes, promoted a moral wholeness for society.  These same elements are seen to counter the prevailing nihilistic, excessively individualistic pathologies plaguing this nation’s society of late[6] and are presented in this blog as a current, viable alternative system of ideas. 

These detrimental conditions include incivility,[7] anti-social behavior,[8] and a lack of educational achievement[9] in relation to current needs of the economy.  And with this context, the next posting will look at American government and civics as a discipline.  But the takeaway here is that with these notions, the subject matter has a definite direction, one which, if adopted, can help lead to a federated nation.

---

[1] Stephen L. Schechter, “Introduction,” in Roots of the Republic:  American Founding Documents Interpreted, edited by Stephen L. Schechter (Madison, WI:  Madison House, 1990), 4.  This citation does not necessarily consider Schechter as an advocate of parochial federalism.

[2] T. H. Breen, The Marketplace of Revolution:  How Consumer Politics Shaped American Independence (New York, NY:  The Oxford University Press, 2004).

[3] Breen, The Marketplace of Revolution, 279.

[4] Daniel J. Elazar, “How federal is the Constitution? Thoroughly,” in a booklet of readings, Readings for Classes Taught by Professor Elazar (1994), prepared for a National Endowment for the Humanities Institute. Conducted in Steamboat Springs, Colorado, 1-30, 4.

[5] Gordon S. Wood, The Creation of the American Republic 1776-1787 (New York, NY:  W. W. Norton and Company, 1969).

[6] There is a whole literature to support this claim.  One can begin reviewing that literature with Robert N. Bellah, Richard Madsen, William M. Sullivan, Ann Swidler, and Steven M. Tipton, Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life (New York, NY:  Harper and Row, Publishers, 1985/2007).

[7] For example, Ray Williams, “The COVID-19 Pandemic and Rising Incivility,” Medium (September 12, 2021), accessed March 14, 2022, https://raybwilliams.medium.com/the-covid-19-pandemic-and-rising-incivility-679c151ede3 .

[8] For example, “Prevalence of Personality Disorders in Adults,” National Institute of Mental Health (n.d.), accessed March 14, 2022, https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/personality-disorders .

[9] Drew Desilver, “U. S. Students’ Academic Achievement Still Lags That Their Peers in Many other Countries,” Pew Research Center (February 15, 2017), accessed March 14, 2022, https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/15/u-s-students-internationally-math-science/ .

A PAROCHIAL SUBJECT MATTER

 

This blog, with a review of the methodology it will use to analyze the dialectic struggle between traditional/parochial federalism and natural rights view – described in the last two postings – will proceed with that analysis.  To be clear, the thesis of this struggle is traditional/parochial federalism (referred to as parochial federalism below).  This posting will begin a presentation in positive terms about what that construct is.  Later, this blog will do the same for the antithesis, the natural rights view.

          But before initiating this presentation, a word on the importance of having a clear understanding of what is at stake.  To ruin the drama of the struggle, parochial federalism will be overtaken by a synthesis mostly based on natural rights’ ideals that through its application – in the years since World War II – has had profound effects on the American political, economic, and social landscapes.  What the nation has experienced is an ever more intense form of that construct.

          In 2010, Chris Hedges did an admirable job of capturing the consequences of that dominance.  He writes,

 

Anger and a sense of betrayal:  These are what … tens of millions of … disenfranchised workers express.  These emotions spring from the failure of the liberal class over the past three decades to protect the minimal interests of the working and middle class as corporations dismantled the democratic state, decimated the manufacturing sector, looted the U.S. Treasury, waged imperial wars that can neither be afforded nor won, and gutted the basic laws that protected the interests of ordinary citizens.  Yet the liberal class continues to speak in the prim and obsolete language of policies and issues.  It refuses to defy the corporate assault.  A virulent right wing, for this reason, captures and expresses the legitimate rage articulated by the disenfranchised.  And the liberal class has become obsolete even as it clings to its positions of privilege within liberal institutions.[1]

 

While this blogger sees a good deal of truth in the above quote, he does not agree to the extent that Hedges takes his argument.  But to the degree he is accurate, Hedges goes on to point out that since John Stuart Mill, liberalism opted to include within its claims the obligation to reasonably redistribute wealth and to establish a welfare state.  Yet, as the natural rights view took dominance and reinforced its basic beliefs, these more “liberal” tenets have fallen by the wayside.

          This blog has cited the years after World War II as the years in which that synthesis took hold.  Hedges believes that the date should be at the turn of the twentieth century.  The confusion or disagreement stems from the effects of the New Deal, in which America institutionalized a whole agenda of liberal reforms.  Due to those reforms, one can observe a continued dominance by the parochial federalist view until the end of the 1940s.

          Of course, these transitions are not clear cut, but reflect complex social / political / economic changes.  For example, America’s foreign policy played a role in which its reaction first to Nazism and then Communism, led in the 1950s to policies of containment and even engagement in wars (Korea and Vietnam) and this, in turn, affected central government spending to inordinate amounts. 

But overall, in a bizarre mix of laws, policies, and practices, the US government, to increasing levels, shed its responsibilities to meet the needs and demands of its lower classes.  In all of this, what of parochial federalism?  That is, what was the dominant perspective among Americans going into this transitionary period? 

Here, in the way dialectic arguments are expressed, the argument will be proposed that it, parochial federalism, should be the dominant view within the American citizenry.  Generally, the reasons for this argument are varied, but they direct one to see this perspective legitimately and viably as promoting the interests of good citizenship and social capital.[2] 

The perspective, in terms of how it would influence civics education, demonstrates its functional qualities in its treatment and handling of the subject matter of government and politics, its expectations of teachers and students, and its influences on the milieu of the instructional setting at the school site.[3]

In terms of the subject matter, parochial federalism would have civics education accomplish the following:

 

·      Teach the constitutional foundations of the American people as defined by the founding generation

·      Teach the philosophical basis of the government’s existing structural arrangements (especially emphasizing the functions and roles of local elements)

·      Legitimize the expectations of a citizen’s duties to the commonweal

·      Establish and justify a political morality

·      Extol the exclusive virtues of the governed people

·      Emphasize the integrity of the individual in liberty and equity within a compact-al arrangement

·      Point out a preference for local unsophisticated decision-making to detached professional expertise.

 

By accomplishing these elements, parochial federalist argument views that the subject matter of governance and politics will be presented in such a way as to advance the above cited good citizenship and social capital.

          In terms of the foundational tradition of the nation when it began, the prevalent political perspective was parochial federalism.  This view of politics traces its presence in America to colonial days with the arrival of the Puritans at Massachusetts Bay.[4]  The perspective has several defining characteristics as indicated earlier in this blog.  They include a covenantal/compact-al founding, a genuine concern for equality, and a respect for federal liberty (the right to do what one should do).

          The Puritans began this traditional view and through their activities had an enormous influence on the foundational philosophy of American democracy.[5]  The tradition affected all institutions of the emerging colonial and then independent nation, starting with the subsequent constitutions and charters that were drawn up during the colonial period and throughout the early histories of the thirteen original states.[6]

          That is, this view of government held dominance in the US through the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries.  Toward the end of the 19^th century, it began to be seriously challenged, mostly by the laissez-faire view associated with the corporate entities that emerged toward the end of that century.  The takeover by the natural rights view was accomplished by the end of the 1940s.

          During its reign of dominance, parochial federalism provided, more than any other view, the fundamental political assumptions of the nation’s institutions.[7]  These institutions included the family, the church, and the school.  A parochial federalist reemergence today would have to consider fundamental changes that have occurred within the nation since the early days of the republic and their effect on these institutions.  The following argument will attempt to describe those changed conditions.

          Children who come to school and progress through the years within a school system, by and large have very little knowledge or understanding of the historical events and developments that formulated the basic ideas and ideals of the American constitution.[8]  In order for the population to appreciate the legitimate claim of the polity and the society from whence the government came, its citizenry must be knowledgeable about the professed values and beliefs and their origins.

          Therefore, as part of a civics curriculum, the content should include a historical study of the origins of those ideals.  Current political conditions and shared beliefs might be counterproductive in imparting an accurate understanding of those origins in that they might motivate a particular segment of the population to distort original beliefs.  By doing so, they might justify various counter acts from the past by the biases of today.

          Surely, the socialization of any cultural belief system entails imparting some myths.[9]  But excessive distortions would result in incorrect understandings of the current conditions and an erroneous view of human behavior within the context of those misunderstandings.  Believing George Washington owned up to cutting down a cherry tree might have its beneficial effects on young children, but older students need to have a more realistic view of politicians in order to pragmatically deal with the real political world.

          That total history must be analyzed within the context of the historical American experience to be beneficial.  What follows in subsequent postings will attempt to do that. The reader should be reminded that what this posting and the ones that follow are presenting are the arguments of each of the constructs forming the dialectic history of American politics as their defenders see things and not the political beliefs of this blogger.  One should read these postings as being written by the advocates of the various constructs.

---

[1] Chris Hedges, Death of the Liberal Class (New York, NY:  Nation Books, 2010), 6.

[2] As defined by Robert Putnam, i.e., having an active, public-spirited citizenry, egalitarian political relations, and a social environment of trust and cooperation.

[3] The previous two postings review the methodology this analysis will employ including definitions for such terms as the “commonplaces of curriculum.”

[4] “The Mayflower Compact, 1620,” in Roots of the Republic: American Founding Documents Interpreted,” ed. Stephen L. Schechter (Madison, WI: Madison House, 1990), 17-23. 

[5] For example, “The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, 1639” (24-35), “The Declaration of Independence, 1776” (138-145), and “The Articles of Confederation, 1781” (227-248), in Roots of the Republic: American Founding Documents Interpreted,” ed. Stephen L. Schechter (Madison, WI: Madison House, 1990).

[6] And as a foundational force, it should be remembered by the reader that what one is concerned with here is the espoused values – as opposed to operational values – of the people.

[7] Daniel J. Elazar, “How federal is the Constitution? Thoroughly,” in a booklet of readings, Readings for Classes Taught by Professor Elazar (1994), prepared for a National Endowment for the Humanities Institute. Conducted in Steamboat Springs, Colorado, 1-30 AND Michael J. Sandel, Democracy’s Discontent:  America in Search of a Public Philosophy (Cambridge, MA:  The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1996.

[8] John J. Patrick and John D. Hoge, “Teaching Government, Civics, and Law,” in Handbook of Research on Social Studies Teaching and Learning ed. James P. Shaver (New York, NY:  MacMillan Publishing Company, 1991), 427-436.

[9] Joseph Campbell, The Power of Myth (New York, NY:  Anchor Books, 1988).

LOOKING INTO IT, PART II

 

This blog’s attempt to analyze the dialectic struggles between parochial federalism and the natural rights view and then the natural rights view and critical theory continues with a further description of the methodology it will use.  To date, the last posting identified the contributions of G. W. F. Hegel and Joseph Schwab.  If not read, the reader is encouraged to do so.  This posting moves on.

          And it should be initially mentioned here that parochial federalism, while a voice from the past, is not totally extinguished from current political concerns and discussions.  The more recent forms of this tradition include the arguments of the religious right, advocacy for an academic rationalist curriculum[1] in schools, and support for the “choice” position in schooling.

These last expressions of this view will be further addressed in an upcoming evaluation of this construct.  There, this blog will ask:  what would be the consequences of readopting the parochial federalism view?  Perhaps, a prior question can be:  is this possible, and if so, at all likely?

          Once the parochial federalism perspective is presented and evaluated, the natural rights perspective will be described, analyzed, and evaluated.  This will consist of a review of the current political culture and the effects of the dominance of the natural rights view on society and the nation’s schools.  Again, the subsidiary questions[2] that were used to analyze parochial federalism will be used to study the natural rights view.  The presentation will emphasize the opposition this antithesis posed in the late 1940s against the thesis, parochial federalism.

          That presentation will conclude with an evaluative statement that describes modern forms of the natural rights perspective.  Currently, this perspective can be found in such advocacy as that favoring self-esteem curriculum and consumerist views of governmental services including education.

          The dialectic analysis of the struggle between the two constructs will conclude with the development of a synthesis which will abstract from the thesis and antithesis those elements that resolve the struggle.  It will do so by reflecting on the favorable position that the individualistic cultural bent has had on the nation since World War II.  Yes, the nation maintained its federal structural arrangement, a definite, tangible remnant of federalism, but its heart was and still is elsewhere.

          Today, that synthesis is being challenged by yet another perspective, critical theory.  But this dialectic struggle, to date, has not captured a national stage.  It has of late gained some recognition by the arguments concerning critical race theory – which not all advocates of critical theory recognize as being a form of their perspective.[3] 

With this struggle, one does not have the advantage of looking back to its twists and turns but faces the challenge of making sense of an ongoing struggle.  What is hoped by this blogger is that it is enough of a struggle to motivate the populace to consider yet another perspective, a newer version of federalism.

If this be the case – and this blogger will assume that it is – and a liberated federalism emerges as the new synthesis, as this blogger hopes that it does, it will combine the communal elements of parochial federalism and the integrity afforded to the individual which is central to the natural rights view.[4]  The synthesis must overcome the inherent consequence attached to parochial federalism, i.e., its exclusion of minority groups – those people of non-European descendancy – in the partnership it promotes.  Also of concern is the excessive individualism one associates with the natural rights view.

As for critical theory, this blogger sees it fondly, but at bottom, considers it a counterproductive view in that it promotes an unrealistic view about how wealth is created and increased.  Since this blog has not commented much on critical theory, it will keep its powder dry regarding this view for now.

In addition, the use of Schwab’s commonplaces (subject matter, teacher, learners, and milieu) allows the inquiry to analyze historically the effects of the opposing constructs.  By identifying foci of educational practice, this blogger can take a more expansive view than that which is allowed according to social science  modes of inquiry. 

“Everything that happens [in school], everything that could influence a student, is assumed to fall within the four commonplaces.”[5]  And the commonplaces are broad elements of what transpires in schools.  Therefore, operationalizing Schwab’s commonplaces does not rely on what is usually utilized in social research - that being distinct variables or factors and how they relate to each other (usually in correlational relationships).

The commonplaces are more holistic and probably more nuanced than what are usually highlighted in most social research approaches.  Actually, the four commonplaces interact with each other and among themselves; for example, teachers interact with teachers.  The commonplaces can be defined as follows: 

 

·      Subject matter refers to the academic content presented in the curriculum. 

·      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.

 

These foci will be the conceptual targets or points of comparison these commonplaces highlight. 

Throughout these points, Aristotle’s categories of causation – state of affairs, interactions, situational insights, and capacity to act morally – will also be used to engender specific questions of inquiry.  More specifically,

 

·      The state of affairs refers to the actual conditions found at schools, as opposed to abstracted or hypothesized relations between factors or variables.  Of particular concern will be dilemmas caused by adherence to one construct as opposed to another.

·      Interactions refers to social encounters affected by respective constructs.

·      Situational insights are interpretations of encounters gleaned from analysis(es) of practice. 

·      Capacity to act morally will be assessments of practices as judged according to good citizenship and social capital.[6] 

 

These categories will be used freely to suggest questions for the analysis of the various elements that make up the struggles under study.

          The above indicates various sets of concerns that reflect deeper analysis as the study progresses.  The reader should not look for each set he/she progresses through the analysis that follows, but informed that this blogger is applying them as he sees fit.  It is his responsibility to present the analysis in a logical and cogent manner.  Hopefully, the reader will judge the presentation as being so.

And with that, enough for the methods to be used.  As one goes through what follows, one should keep in mind that each construct will be given its due without much criticism, at least initially.  There will be an evaluation of each, and this blogger might not be able to remind the reader that he is holding off on that critique as each is being reviewed.  But make no mistake; this blogger supports what he hopes will be the last synthesis, liberated federalism.

---

[1] Academic rationalism is an approach or orientation to curricular plans that relies on traditional sources and their contribution to formulating rational human minds.  It emphasizes content that has endured or stood the test of time.  See “Academic Rationalism,” Encyclopedia of Curriculum Studies, ed. Craig Kridel (Sage reference, n.d.), accessed March 8, 2022, https://sk.sagepub.com/reference/curriculumstudies/n2.xml#:~:text=Academic%20Rationalism,-In%3A%20Encyclopedia%20of&text=Academic%20rationalism%20is%20an%20orientation,of%20the%20rational%20human%20mind. 

[2] Presented in the last posting, they are:  1. How has the construct that guided the teaching of American government and civics evolved? 2. What have been the salient consequences of that development? 3. To what social arrangement, according to its tenets, should the development of a construct lead? 4. How can that desirable social arrangement come about?

[3] Given that critical theory – which has taken various forms and has relied on a variety of scholarly constructs – is generally in all its forms an evaluative approach to culture.  Politically, it has centered on Marxian claims of institutional practices of exploitation.  What follows is a general description of critical race theory:

Critical race theories combine progressive political struggles for racial justice with critiques of the conventional legal and scholarly norms which are themselves viewed as part of the illegitimate hierarchies that need to be changed. Scholars … challenge the ways that race and racial power are constructed by law and culture. One key focus of critical race theorists is a regime of white supremacy and privilege maintained despite the rule of law and the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws. Agreeing with critical theorists and many feminists that law itself is not a neutral tool but instead part of the problem, critical race scholars identify inadequacies of conventional civil rights litigation.

Taken from “Legal Theory:  Critical Theory/Critical Race Theory,” The Bridge (Cyber Harvard Education, n.d.), accessed March 8, 2022, https://cyber.harvard.edu/bridge/CriticalTheory/critical4.htm .

[4] See Jeffrey Reiman, “Liberalism and Its Critics,” in The Liberalism-Communitarianism Debate, ed. C. F. Delaney (Lanhan, MD:  Rowman and Litttlefield Publishers, Inc., 1994), 19-37 AND of interest as to the more responsible view of individualism see “Jung’s Individuation Process,” Soul Therapy Now:  Know Yourself, Heal Yourself (n.d.), accessed March 6, 2022, http://soultherapynow.com/articles/individuation.html .

[5] William H. Schubert, Curriculum:  Perspective, Paradigm, and Possibility (New York, NY:  MacMillan Publishing Company, 1986), 301.

[6] Robert Putnam characterizes social capital as having an active, public-spirited citizenry, egalitarian political relations, and a social environment of trust and cooperation.  Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 2000).