A CHOSEN VIEW OF EQUALITY

For the same reasons this blog used in reviewing the natural rights construct, the place to begin describing critical theory is with its moral perspective.  That is, moral positioning is what motivates someone to devise or adopt whatever other elements this construct offers.  Stated another way, initially one should see what the theory defines as good and evil. 

Any construct entails standards that reflect values arranged in a hierarchical order.  Atop that arrangement is a trump value.  Natural rights holds liberty as the trump value.  Critical theory sees equality as the trump value.  Critical theorists might hold liberty as important, even highly important, but in situations when one of these values needs to be chosen over the other, critical theorists will choose equality above liberty or any other value when it comes to societal issues. 

By placing equality as the trump value, it will affect how critical theorists will judge other social concerns.  One example is that in their use of the term liberty, critical theorists tend to define it as a quality that, to be meaningful, depends on people being equal, not just in terms of standing “before the law,” but in terms of income and wealth. 

Short of that level of equality, politics becomes something beyond which lower-income citizens have influence in determining what public policy will be.  Therefore, public policy will be skewed against these citizens and, consequently, will offend their liberty. 

  This example indicates that equality means different things to different people.  To those who support the natural rights view, as well as others such as monarchists, liberty means something other than what critical theorists believe equality to be.  As a matter of fact, in the nation’s history, there have been several definitions of equality that different groups have favored.  Five of these definitions deserve one’s attention.

So, to provide some context for how critical theorists view equality, a quick summary of these definitions would be helpful so that one can better measure what they are advocating, especially in political matters.  One might be prone to think that all Americans, no matter how constrained, support equality, if only in the abstract.  Yet that is not the case.

At the beginning of the nation's history, it is safe to say that the founding fathers’ understanding of what equality was is not what most Americans today define equality to be. Their most “equality” prone advocates were probably in favor of what one could call “earned elitism.”

Actually, this societal attribute has changed as the nation evolved into what it is today.  As the years rolled by, certain views concerning equality, some supportive, some not, have sprung up, gathered support, and then lost that support.  One can detect in that history five general orientations concerning equality and all of them are not supportive of what one could reasonably consider equality to be.

Each view or orientation is a way of seeing what the relevant worth of an individual is.  The orientations are genetic elitism, earned elitism, equal condition, regulated condition, and equal result.  These orientations have been reflected in the political culture prevalent during the different eras of our history. 

Generally, the orientations are listed here in the order from the most non-egalitarian view, genetic elitism, to the most egalitarian view, equal results.  Here is a short definition of each:

Genetic elitism believes that nature has determined by the genetic distribution of skills and abilities who should lead.  From this state of affairs, leadership should be reserved for certain families.

Earned elitism believes that nature does determine who is gifted, but that leadership itself, in all realms of life, should be reserved for those who through their efforts demonstrate their skills and exhibit superior performances in their chosen fields.

Equal condition believes that everyone is equal before the law and that economic and other benefits should be distributed to those who perform marketable skills and the amounts of compensation should be determined by competitive processes.

Regulated condition believes that market processes or other competitive processes should determine basic distributive decisions, but that markets and other competitive processes can and do fail.  Therefore, these processes should be regulated so that all citizens are afforded basic opportunities and minimum living standards.  Mainly, the belief goes on to see skills as the result of arbitrary forces and that anyone can find him/herself in a significantly deprived state.

Critical theory promotes equal results.  Below, this bias is more fully explained.  What are the attributes of equal results?  Here is a list of its beliefs: 

1.      Personal abilities are primarily developed from genetic or social conditions not subject to a person’s control.  Therefore, people who secure very high incomes are exploiting conditions they have/had little control over creating or developing.

2.     Such exploitation reflects a randomness in the distribution of skills, opportunities, connections, family reputations, genetic makeup, historical context, and the like with which some might be advantaged to have.  To unequally compensate such advantages is judged to be unjust.

3.     Not only is this unequal reward system unjust at any level, but in advanced, capitalistic economic arrangements, one finds that some can earn in a few days what takes others a lifetime to save.

4.     Marketable skills and other prized assets in capitalist systems have little to do with a person’s merit as a person and, in turn, in allocating the rewards he/she can secure.  Instead, marketable skills or other arbitrary assets have little concern for human qualities and, therefore, the processes by which compensation is determined dehumanizes the affected individuals.

5.      All human labors are intrinsically equal and the compensation received for labor should be within narrow limits.  The only difference among the labors performed is simply that they reflect different roles.  Hard work is expected not only from highly compensated workers or business owners; laborers also engage in hard work. 

Therefore, labor should be seen in terms of equal value.  An example: the movie star who performs in front of a camera should not make so much more than the cameraperson.  Both are equally responsible for the product produced.

True, such beliefs are seen by many in this country as being highly un-American.  Yet these beliefs have been attractive to many Americans, albeit always a minority, at different times in the nation’s history.  As a matter of fact, some who have expressed these beliefs are/were considered as prominent individuals. 

One such American was Eugene V. Debs, a prominent labor leader and presidential candidate in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.  Admittedly, his views were never that popular, but his positions reflected a tradition of thought that dates to political writers from the more obscure John Ruskin to, at least to some degree, Henry David Thoreau.

Yes, the above beliefs are Marxian-socialist ideals, but they are not unique to Marx.  They can also be found in the works of Leo Tolstoy and Mahatma Gandhi.  In America, such beliefs or ideals have been given more positive endorsement among the populous during times in which extreme exploitation of laborers was prevalent. 

Such times include the industrial revolution of the late 1800s or the Great Depression.  In the last election cycle, socialist Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign attracted a significant number of followers.  All socialists, at least to some level, espouse Marxian principles.[1]  It should be added that during those same times, there is also an uptick in nationalist sentiments – one can see that happening right now as displaced laborers in advanced countries feel threatened.[2]

While this Marxian source is common among critical pedagogues, its theoretical origins vary.  They can be from such sources as Tolstoy’s Christianity to Marx’s sense of science and scientific thinking which was influenced by Thomas Hobbes.  Marx claimed that the eventuality of a socialist state – one in which productive property would be owned in common – was an inevitable result of how productive forces would develop.[3]  Yet in all this scientific thinking, one can easily detect a moral claim lying below the surface.

---

[1] For a dramatization of such advocacy in an American setting, see the film, Reds (Beatty), starring Warren Beatty, who was also the film's producer and director.

[2] One can cite the Marxian scenario in which laborers are displaced by labor saving machines – automation.  Add to that the competition from low wage countries (emerging countries) and one has the makings of a disgruntled labor class.  Many attribute these conditions for the election of Donald Trump.

[3] In Marx’s view, the development of society is simply the product of deterministic laws in which people, following their nature of being hedonistic egoists – a la Hobbes – and are simply pursuing their selfish interests. 

A CRITICAL TURN

A description of the natural rights construct and its effect on civics education would not be complete without reviewing the main critique of it:  the critical theory construct which is primarily supported by academics.  In the postings leading to this one, this writer has been reviewing the natural rights construct.  That review was completed with the last posting.  To use, advisedly, the language of its origins, critical theory is the antithesis of the natural rights view.

          What this and following postings will do is answer three questions:  what view of morality motivates an adherent to harbor critical theory beliefs? What view of government and politics does the construct describe and explain?  And how do the construct’s adherents view their contributions toward the common good?

But before beginning this brief view, here is a word of “warning.”  Unlike the natural rights construct, this construct has very little influence or presence in American classrooms.  Why?  A simple reason for this is that its ideas and ideals do not have much support among the American people.

For those who do find this construct appealing, there is a wide variance of support from being merely sympathetic with its concerns to a life-defining commitment to its tenets.  While any set of ideas will not garner complete support among those who are attracted to it – that includes the natural rights construct – this is even truer for critical theory. 

The fact that the construct is based on Marxian ideas – a set of ideas Americans have been historically antagonistic toward – goes a long way to explain this lack of support among the general population or lack of consistent support among its adherents. 

For most teachers and other establishment educators (administrators and workers at educational bureaucracies), Marxian positions tend to be considered un-American.  As such, those who support part or all of it might be seen by many or most Americans as less legitimate than what is warranted. 

To fully appreciate the natural rights view, one needs to understand what the view engenders in opposition.  So, here is, hopefully, a legitimate and respectful presentation of this other view, albeit a short one, for a reader who might harbor antagonistic biases.

If only a few teachers and school administrators support critical theory, also known as critical pedagogy, one can ask:  why bother with this view at all?  In the various schools of education on the nation’s college and university campuses, critical theory has become the dominant perspective and that is what, frankly, keeps it an active force in education. 

These educators run the teacher education programs at the nation’s universities and colleges.  While this is true, their lasting effect on incoming teachers is highly limited.  In most cases, students who are exposed to ideas that run counter to what has become accepted truth will tend to dismiss such messages.  They have little influence. 

Upon finishing these few years away from home at a higher educational facility, students return to accept teaching jobs either in their hometowns or in towns or areas nearby.  In their assigned schools, they reemerge among the milieu of other teachers and school personnel who hold beliefs and attitudes that are more familiar.  These beliefs tend to be antithetical to the beliefs espoused by critical pedagogues.  It turns out that these other co-workers have much more influence on these newly credentialed teachers.

But it is important to present this critical theory construct to the reader because parents and teachers should have general knowledge of what these scholars behind the ivy-covered walls are presenting.  While this writer is not a critical pedagogue, those who are have important ideas to offer.  They offer legitimate concerns and challenging ideas.  Their recommended approaches to curriculum should be given respectful consideration. 

They are sources of information about which typical citizens are not conscious.  They shed light on tilted policies that favor advantaged, economic groups.  These conditions are verifiable and they seriously question the levels of justice the nation extends to lower income segments of the population.  As such, critical pedagogues deserve the attention of any citizen who is serious about social capital.  Hopefully, the following postings will stir an increased level of interest among the readership.

A COSTLY SHIFT

This blog, of late, revisited what it means when it claims that the nation’s civics curriculum is guided by the natural rights construct.  To restate this basic claim:  the nation, in the years following World War II, shifted in its basic view of government and politics from one which held as dominant a federalist view to one that can be designated as the natural rights view. 

That shift has been so extensive that the natural rights construct is guiding the content choices of the nation’s civics curriculum in its schools.  This blog has attempted to provide evidence for this claim.  More recently, this evidence has included a look at civics standards and at the textbooks used in both American government and civics courses.

In practical terms, what does that mean?  The primary effect is an overall trend to promote a consumer orientation to citizenship.  This trend is counter to the federalist view that emphasizes a more communal view, one that heightens a sense of partnership among the citizenry.  A federalist bent sees government as an extension of themselves, while a natural rights view sees government as a provider of collective or public services.

With this shift, a people has other goals and aims than were prevalent in an earlier era.  It is useful to know and understand this newer bias.  One can detect, in the literature, that natural rights educators pursue the following goals:

•      teach the structural components of government (such as the Presidency)

•      teach a view of government as a subservient institution which attempts to satisfy the collective interests of individual citizens

•      teach the philosophical basis of government’s role as defender of individual rights, placing the emphasis on the individual to the minimization of collective interests

•      convey the legitimate needs of government to encourage and facilitate degrees of support among the populous so that political stress within the political system can be kept at manageable and even useful levels

•      portray a realistic account of politics within the nation so that students will be able to reasonably interact with governmental agencies and offices to pursue their political demands in ways akin to a consumer seeking any good or service

•      express the technical nature of political activity with ample respect for political expertise of professionals which includes elected officials and bureaucrats

By accomplishing these goals, the natural rights argument holds that the subject matter of government and civics, its knowledge and skills, will be presented in such a way as to advance good citizenship.  As far as it goes, the writer has little argument with the natural rights perspective.  His concern lies more with the lack of its comprehensiveness. 

Being a limited view, the resulting curriculum robs students of a sense of partnership among citizens to work toward a more perfect union.  Instead, the ultimate message is:  here in this course, the student will be taught what he/she needs to know to be able to seek satisfaction for any reasonable demand.  Little to no concern or information is offered as to the richness that a more collective view offers and with that, there is little to no concern for social capital.

Again, relying on the definition of Robert Putnam, social capital means having an active, public-spirited citizenry, egalitarian political relations, and a social environment of trust and cooperation.[1]  This sense is what a more federalist approach tried to convey in the earlier years of the republic.

Instead, what a natural rights guided curriculum relays is:  here is what a student needs to know to compete for what a government can provide.  While this latter information is practical, it does not, in the opinion of this writer, convey what a viable democracy needs to convey to the younger generation.  This blog has attempted to describe what have been the consequences of this shift.

---

[1] Robert D. Putnam, “Bowling Alone:  America's Declining Social Capital,” Journal of Democracy, January, pp. 65-78.

REVIEWING THE MAGRUDER CASE

In the last posting, the point was made that typical teachers see their jobs as conveying the information contained in a course’s textbook.  That reality places the textbook as defining curricular content for any given course.  In the case of high school government, the textbook that is overwhelmingly used is Magruder’s American Government textbook.[1] 

So, if one wants to ascertain the content of government at the high school level, reviewing the content in Magruder’s would give one that information.  On the other hand, if one wanted to do the same for the middle school level, one could look at comparable civics textbooks, for example Glencoe Civics Today:  Citizenship, Economics, and You.[2] 

In addition to this Glencoe book, there are various textbooks that are popular and widely used at the middle school level.[3]  In all cases, the choice of a book is left to the district.

In considering this relationship between curricular content and textbook content, one should understand that teachers are not generally mindful of how the text reflects a curricular choice; they just know that the book is what they have been given to teach the course in question. 

The following description will indicate that more is involved in this choice.  In what follows, this writer is attempting to get at the assumed motivation the authors, publishers, and adopters of the text had in mind when Magruder’s for high school students was chosen. 

Further, the writer has selected a singular topic that he feels reflects a social capital concern.  He indicates how this text, Magruder’s, treats that topic as this will be an efficient way of determining how much this text addresses this central concept.  The writer feels that Social Security is particularly suitable. 

Below, this posting will outline how this textbook covers Social Security, but before that description is offered, it is useful to contextualize this information.  This posting looks at three concerns:  how does the text handle the topic of citizenship, how does the text provide information about factors associated with social capital such as community, and why does the review select Social Security?

To begin, one does not find citizenship, an important aspect of civic instruction, within the general text of the book.  Instead, scattered among its pages is a series of inserts entitled “Citizenship 101.”  As such, the message is that this topic is a supplement to what is important. 

The inserts contain several descriptive accounts that give general advice, usually in perfunctory language, on common activities available to citizens.[4]  This writer finds this treatment of citizenship to be easily ignored or lost as a teacher works through the content of the book.  This aspect of the text is very telling as it betrays a lack of concern or real commitment toward encouraging an active citizenship.  

Adding to this context, the rest of the text further avoids social capital concerns.  For example, the text has few or no words to describe or otherwise treat the following concepts which are deemed to be supportive of social capital: community, community development, neighborhoods, charities, or non-profit organizations; that is, one cannot find these topics in the text’s index. 

And a final contextual concern is to answer the question of why Social Security?  It was chosen because it is felt to be the most interpersonal program that the Federal Government runs, especially its retirement program.  In effect, the program has one segment of the population providing for another.  It works by collecting a FICA[5] tax from those young enough to work and uses those funds to provide benefits for the older generation that is of retirement age. 

In short, Social Security is an intergenerational compact.  By setting up this compact, the Federal Government unites the interests of citizens to be closer together and by doing so, potentially encourages a more tangible sense of partnership among the citizenry.  And yet, one would be hard-pressed to find citizens who would describe Social Security with a language that would convey this sense of social capital at work. 

Few citizens seem to understand this basic relationship.  Instead, Americans speak of the program as something providing benefits they are due because they paid into it all their working years.  They see it as a forced savings program.  This is not an accurate depiction.

Many would be surprised, for example, to know that if a person lives a normal lifespan, he/she will most likely receive more in benefits than if the taxes were voluntarily saved and accrued normal interest returns.[6]  Yet the program’s essence of being this demonstrable partnership – or an element of one – seems to go un-noticed. 

With that context, how does Magruder’s describe this program?  On page 289, it points out that members of Congress are covered by Social Security;

Circa page 440 informs that Social Security is an independent agency and is not housed in one of the “Cabinet” departments;

 It describes on page 460 that Social Security is a social insurance program funded by a social insurance tax;

On page 461, it classifies the FICA tax as a regressive tax; that is, it is a “flat” tax up to a certain income level and income above that amount is not taxed;

 Finally, on page 469, the book explains that the program, as an entitlement program, has “uncontrollable” expenditures.  That means that the monies are automatically spent without having to secure new authorization.[7]

This last point is, of course, only partly true in that this spending can be controlled – increased, limited, or eliminated – if the law that authorizes the program is changed by Congress. That’s unlikely, given the popularity of the program among the citizenry.  Such a move would be political suicide for those who would fundamentally threaten Social Security. 

In sum, Magruder’s does not describe the interpersonal or intergenerational foundation of the program, much less explain it and, due to the lack of such instruction, little is done to inform and encourage a more “partnered” view of Social Security.  This, of course, enables, in part, the misunderstanding of the program described above.

So, overall, Magruder’s, as demonstrated by this limited evidence, does little to promote social capital.  It, instead, promotes a natural rights view.  If one is encouraged to look at the textbook and see if he/she agrees with this assessment, the book can be easily obtained by acquiring it at just about any public high school.

One should have a list of governmental departments or agencies in mind when reviewing the book.  He or she should go back to the index and look at how extensive and in what manner that part of the government is explained.  An overall question in such a review can be:  does this description review a government policy or program that reflects the voice of the people of the United States or is it described as a bureaucratic based public service that is there for the consumption by citizens? 

For those in favor of promoting social capital, the above would probably be disheartening.  It begs the question:  should Magruder’s be gotten rid of?  Definitely not.  The book is a good reference book and that’s how it should function in the classroom. 

As a “go-to” source for structural information about what agencies and departments exist and make up the government, the text can be of recurring value.  What a teacher, though, should keep to his/her counsel is what direction the course he/she teaches should follow.

Whether that teacher uses an approach that attempts to bolster social capital or not, that decision is one that should be made for a particular time, class, and school.[8]  In most cases, this writer believes that’s the way a course should be guided.

---

[1] Willian A. McClenaghan, Magruder’s American Government (Florida Teacher’s Edition) (Boston, MA:  Prentice Hall/Pearson, 2013).

[2] Richard C. Remy, John J. Patrick, David C. Saffell, and Gary E. Clayton.  Glencoe Civics Today:  Citizenship, Economics, and You.  New York, NY:  McGraw Hill Glencoe, 2008.

[3] See James E. Davis, Peter Woll, and Phyllis M. Fernlund, Civics:  Government and Economics in Action (Upper Saddle River, NJ:  Prentice Hall Publisher, 2009) AND William H. Hartley and William S. Vincent, W. S., Holt American Civics (New York, NY:  Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 2003).

[4] Given the overall challenge of “teaching” an almost 800-page textbook in fewer than 18 weeks, it is hard to imagine that these inserts get much attention.

[5] FICA stands for Federal Insurance Contributions Act.

[6] Louis Jacobson, “Medicare and Social Security:  What You Paid Compared with What You Get,” PolitiFact accessed September 11, 2016.  http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-met er/article/2013/feb/01/medicare-and-social-security-what-you-paid-what-yo/.

[7] Willian A. McClenaghan, Magruder’s American Government (Florida Teacher’s Edition) (Boston, MA:  Prentice Hall/Pearson, 2013).

[8] This is not to say that district or state authorities should not issue a curriculum.  But no matter how extensive such efforts are, there is always quite a bit of leeway teachers have interpreting these authoritative dictums.

STANDARD BIASES

This blog has made the claim that in the years following World War II, the nation, in its perspective of governance and politics, shifted.  Until that time, ever since colonial days, the dominant perspective was the mental construct this writer entitles traditional federalism.  The blog defines, describes, and explains this view and the effect it had on the American political feelings and behaviors during all those many years.

          Since the mid-1940s, another mental construct became dominant:  the natural rights construct.  Of late, this blog has reviewed the effects of this construct on civics education, political science, and the social/political realities of the nation.  With this posting, a look at a more formal evaluation of civics education is presented with commentary on how the natural rights view affects that evaluation.

More specifically, this posting attempts to convey an understanding of how natural rights exerts its influence by reviewing existing standards that, in turn, have been used to develop test questions.  Specifically, the focus is on the National Assessment Educational Progress (NAEP) testing program known as the Nation's Report Card.[1] 

By selecting NAEP testing program, this writer chooses a program that has made efforts to address the more mechanical aspects of a natural rights-based curricular work (this mechanical quality was described in the last posting).  He sees NAEP testing program to be in an evolving process which is moving toward a more community-based view of the subject matter it is testing.  It is through such a change that a more amenable effort to supporting social capital is achieved.

But to date, this testing program, as represented by its standards, has not changed enough.  Overall, its standards do not yet promote social capital – the standard this blog has offered by which to judge whether any element of the nation’s civics curricular effort is worthwhile. 

Having stated that limitation of NAEP, the judgment here is that with the latest edition of the standards, issued in 2014, one can see progress over previous editions – they do demonstrate a recognition that an attention to communal factors is something for which the nation’s civics curriculum should strive.

For example, the 2014 set of standards highlights values that can be considered as addressing social capital concerns.  That list consists of civility, respect for the rights of others, respect for law, negotiation and compromise, civic mindedness, and compassion.[2]  To be clear, these values are a subset of the overall values the standards promote – thirteen of them.  Be that as it may, their addition demonstrates more concern for communal qualities.

To further heighten its concern for community, the newer document contains throughout its pages an array of quotes from historical characters who communicate civil and democratic values.  These quotes can be seen to further encourage educators to promote social capital.  That is great, but this is seen, by this writer, as only a step in the right direction.  More can be done.

How are the newer standards deficient?  The standards do refer to values ensconced in the nation’s and states’ constitutions.  But those values are more supportive of structural elements of government.  For example, one such value is the distributive value of power as demonstrated by a two-tiered government and the checks and balance system, but one does not see any direct effort to bolster communal ties which provide essential support to a federal system of government.

And while the 2014 version of the NAEP standards identifies values that not only support constitutional principles but also, to a limited extent, social capital, the problem is that this more general support of these qualities is not meaningfully worked into the wordage of the standards themselves.  They are offered as background “music” and are there to provide guidance about how one is to interpret the standards.

Nor are these values reflected in a well-thought out rationale for their use.  That is, these values are listed without any explanation of how they are useful in encouraging trust and cooperation, essential supportive motivations upon which social capital depends. 

And while the above “social capital” values are notable, they are not the only ones that could have been chosen.  There are more direct or important prerequisite values in establishing a level of civic responsibility innate in a polity that holds social capital essential to its health.  Such values as empathy, trust, friendship, loyalty, and a sense of partnership among citizens are but a few values aimed more directly toward bolstering social capital.

In short, despite its more communal turn, the 2014 version of the standards does not sufficiently express a “we're in this together” message.  Unfortunately, the current language of the NAEP is judged to be more perfunctory than reflecting a true adoption of a federated view of governance, politics, and citizenship.

But the NAEP standards is a national effort.  What about the state level?  At that more local level, where standards have real consequences for students – in some states they are used to see whether a student passes a grade or not – one finds a stronger natural rights bias.  Readers can “Google” the state standards for their state; the writer did so for the state of Florida.

Compared to the NAEP language, Florida’s language reflects a more uncompromised systems approach as it bolsters a structural and functional perspective.  It has more definite provisions that segregate the citizenry from its government, in that it describes government as a third-party service provider.  In addition, those standards emphasize the structural elements of government in stark language without communicating any communal concerns.[3]

Before leaving this topic, there is another important aspect to this description.  Textbooks are chosen at the state level.  Nothing shows off a curriculum more than a review of the textbooks used in the classroom.  That includes civics education.  If a parent or other taxpayer wants to know what the curriculum of a subject is, he or she need only look at the textbook used and it will uncover what the curricular content, the scope, of that subject, is.[4]

In doing so, a course’s textbook will reveal, with a review of the topics its pages choose to include and the questions the text asks of the material, which mental construct is guiding the choice of content for that subject.  That includes civics courses.  As for high school government classes, the textbook that is overwhelmingly used is Magruder’s American Government textbook.[5]  This blog’s review will next look at the effect Magruder’s has had in government classes.

---

[1] In full disclosure, this writer, about ten years ago, through the efforts of Dr. John Patrick, worked on a committee whose assignment was to evaluate proposed test questions for NAEP’s next administration of its test to measure civics knowledge among secondary students.  This test is given to a random sample of students around the country.  Through the results, educators can gain a sense of how well the nation’s civics instruction is doing.

[2] “National Standards for Civics and Government,” Center for Civic Education, accessed September 7, 2016, http://www.civiced.org/standards?page=912erica#15 .

[3] “Fundamentals of Government and Public Administration,” Florida State Department of Education, accessed September 7, 2016, http://fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/5574/urlt/8900500.pdf .

[4] The reason for this is that teachers see their responsibility as teaching the textbook they have been given to use in the course of study assigned to them.

[5] Willian A. McClenaghan, Magruder’s American Government (Florida Teacher’s Edition) (Boston, MA:  Prentice Hall/Pearson, 2013).

CLARIFYING THE MECHANICAL CHARGE

In the posting leading to this one, it was reported that a charge has been made against the use of political systems model as a theoretical guide for political science research.  The charge is that the use of the model tended to make its corresponding view of government and politics as having a mechanical quality.  This posting will further explain what is meant by that determination.

The main concern is that political science is not a natural science such as physics, chemistry, and biology, but a human science.  Despite this, the move toward the systems model made political studies a study that saw its subject as a machine with automated responses to different stimuli under specific conditions.  This is another way of saying that the model is deterministic in the way it describes and explains political behavior.

In the previous posting, David Easton is quoted on this issue, indicating his recognition of the charge and how his treatment of systems modeling introduced an organic element that, in turn, describes political systems as self-adjusting entities.  By such an alteration of pure behaviorist theorizing, the model overcomes the inclination of being mechanical, or so Easton indicates.

But the question remains: is systems theory, with the organism element in place, human enough?  That is a debate still waged in some circles.  But what is not debatable is that behavioral-leaning political scientists were (are) sensitive to the charge of being mechanical.  This has the implication that their work is not sufficiently sensitive to human qualities. 

The critics say such theoretical shifting does little to capture how rich a reaction to situational conditions can be.  While it recognizes such factors as emotions, it lacks insight into what and how emotions and other more qualitative variables affect the phenomenon under study.  Is the notion that by merely adding an “O” (for an organic element) to the S-R (stimulus-response behaviorist model), the model would be able to recognize and account for human concerns?  Would it be able to detect how the system can react to its environmental conditions?  The critics believe that it cannot.

This criticism runs along a fine line of distinction.  For example, one can measure how often reactive statements are made to a certain stimulus, but can it account fully for the tone in which the statements are made or the power enjoyed by the sender of such statements due to his/her reputation or some other quality?  Perhaps to a point, but not totally and, in the opinion of critics, not adequately.

Helpful to this concern might be a view of how systems analysis is applied to other areas of human endeavor.  One area would be business operations.  Much rethinking in business strategizing has directed attention to making business models more sensitive to “human” needs, but these newer focuses are haunted by established biases which tend to be more behaviorist in their orientation (see for example, Jim Collin’s work, Good to Great,[1] for a description of how these debates are carried out).

But there is a record on how the more mechanistic view of government has affected public policy.  Probably the most telling and visible example is how systems view led to policemen cruising their beats in squad cars.  This replaced officers walking the neighborhood and, consequently, not getting to know the citizens whom they are there to protect to be more “efficient.” 

When this policy bias is instituted among all the various governmental operations, the result is conflicting perceptions of “we” versus “them” and too little of “us” among the public servants who are there to serve the public.  A mechanistic view of governance is, of course, not limited to policing but describes too much of how government bureaucracies face their responsibilities in general. 

Of course, this view is not only found in government offices such as the DMV.  It can also be seen in the tone and descriptions of government and politics in the nation’s civics courses.  Unfortunately, it can even be reflected, for the most part, in the policies issued by school district offices, state education departments, and the federal government’s Department of Education.

This blog has argued that the systems approach, as it has been applied to secondary study, is relatively lacking in an organic sense, much less a humanistic sense in its treatment of governmental operations and the activities of those who try to influence public policy. 

Whether those who are concerned with this debate see developments in systems sufficient or not is of little interest here.  If behaviorism is purely, partly, or not at all deterministic, is a concern for political scientists and only indirectly of importance to civics educators.  Here, the more important concern is how mechanistic a view of government and politics has seeped into the nation’s civics curriculum and its corresponding instruction.

---

[1] Jim Collins, Good to Great:  Why Some Companies Make the Leap … and Others Don't, (New York, NY:  HarperCollins Publishers, Inc. 2001).

---

[1] Jim Collins, Good to Great:  Why Some Companies Make the Leap … and Others Don't, (New York, NY:  HarperCollins Publishers, Inc. 2001).

TOWARD OBJECTIFICATION

The last few postings attempted to convey the theoretical concerns of political science during the years after World War II (1950s and 1960s).  This period is important to appreciate when one is concerned with the current state of civics education.  Educators of that time adopted a more scientific orientation to their subject disciplines.  Included were the social studies, and the story that led to this development is worth considering.

The sum effect of this theoretical work – the political systems model and the structural-functional model – on civics education – particularly on the content of civics curriculum – is to emphasize teaching the structure and processes of input agents such as interest groups and the structure and processes of government. 

What is minimized is a more value-oriented content.  This is significantly different from what prevailed as late as the mid-1960s when at the high school level, courses entitled Problems of Democracy were common.  In short, civics became more mechanical and avoided dealing with social issues that could be controversial. 

Today, if teachers want to introduce controversial issues, they need to either develop such materials or obtain available materials that are designed to have students analyze such issues and develop defensible positions regarding such concerns.[1]  More on this below.

As for the story that led to the current prevailing view of civics, there are three relevant developments.  One, the one that this blog has already commented on extensively, is the growing cultural shift from a federalist view to a natural rights view in the prevailing beliefs and attitudes concerning government and politics.  But there are two other developments that have had meaningful effects.

The second development was the prominent position that behavioral psychology enjoyed in the study of politics during the mid-century years of the last century.  The work of various behaviorists, most prominent being B. F. Skinner, had an influence on the various social sciences.  The exact nature of this influence was a subject David Easton wrote about:

The original behavioristic paradigm, S-R (stimulus-response), has yielded to the more intelligible one of S-O-R (stimulus – organism – response) in which feelings, motivations, and all the other aspects of the subjective awareness and reaction of the organism are taken into account as potentially useful data.  This has, of course, spelled the doom of pristine behaviorism …[2]

This quote hints at the influence of behaviorism.  That is, it assumes people basically try to seek rewards and avoid punishments.  The variance lies in how a current situation is viewed and how rewards and punishments are defined at a given time.  By studying behaviors, how people react in what they do in varying situations, one can describe, with certain levels of certainty, how people will behave in similar situations in the future.  This view led to the input-output-feedback structure of the political systems model. 

          Critics of this view argued that the whole systems approach made the study of politics mechanical.  To counter, Easton argued that with the introduction of an “organism” element, the systems view was more akin to studying politics as the activity of an organism with self-adjusting abilities.  One issue debated was how deterministic this view attempted to cast political behavior.  Briefly stated, the question was:  how much was human political behavior no more than a calculation of rewards and punishments in a particular environment?

          And by observing and measuring behavior, political studies took on a more scientific posture.  The turn provided an anecdote to what was perceived as being more traditional approaches to that study that relied on historical methods of research. 

Many saw those earlier methods as elaborate self-indulgent exercises in which personal political biases were expressed.  Lacking any effort to objectify their analysis using qualitative methods, political scientists were not scientists; they were, at best, expert editorial writers.  On the other hand, a shift toward a behavioral approach promised to be scientific as it relied on quantitative research instead.

          There was created a nexus between those who favored quantified research, such as corporate approaches to studying business practices, and natural rights advocates who favored self-defining consumer demands.  There is an ironic association in which those who see value in a deterministic accounting for human behavior and, at the same time, hold a view of individuals being free agents to determine their life goals and how to pursue those goals.

These reflect assumptions about the nature of human beings that barely rise to conscious consideration.  Yet this inconsistency seems not to deter those who defend both behaviorism and believe that liberty should be a person’s political trump value.  

By doing so, those educators who agree with both positions develop and implement a natural rights-based civics curriculum which practices instruction that is devoid of normative concerns and highly reliant on imparting information concerning the structure and functions of government.

But there was a singular historical event that sealed the establishment of a natural rights approach.  This third development was the launching of Sputnik, the Soviet satellite.  Suddenly, in 1957, the US’s major adversary demonstrated that it had the scientific understanding, technical knowledge, and wherewithal to deliver a nuclear weapon via a rocket.  That posed a true threat to America.  The US could not match that ability and, therefore, had to immediately do something about it.

One of the things the government did was to invest a great deal of money in the nation’s schools to upgrade math and science instruction.  This would close the gap between the US and the Soviet Union regarding the science and math knowledge requirements to catch the Soviets.[3]

In the process, the government provided moneys to other disciplines and that included social studies.  Suddenly, there appeared new curricula with names such as new math, new biology, new physics, and the like.  Included was the new social studies.

The new social studies was to be more scientific in its instructional choices.  The general thought was to align school subjects with science and scientific thinking by imbuing the nation’s overall curriculum with scientifically inspired innovations.

Educators introduced students to methodologies – referred to as the scientific method.  This newer approach was applied to social studies and was called the inquiry approach.  And this took place at the same time the above-mentioned application of systems’ behavioral view was being applied to human study.  Even the study of history was affected.[4]

Citing progressive rationales, social studies teachers were to implement open-ended lessons, thereby generating student involvement into investigating inquiry questions and avoiding dull lecturing; an aim, by the way, that was not successfully accomplished.  Most social studies teachers kept on lecturing. 

While there were teachers who attempted the newer instructional methods, they were the exceptions.  One should never expect that teachers will readily accept what educational innovators concoct on their university campuses or in their publishing offices.  The new social studies movement lasted about ten to fifteen years and all that remains, in terms of civics education, are textbooks that do not apply inquiry methods, but do reflect the bias to present structural and functional information.

But what about values education?  One can readily see the relevance of values if the subject matter is citizenship.  The natural rights bias is to promote individuals determining what their own values will be – it treats this concern as an element of liberty.  On the other hand, the bias toward objectifying political studies encouraged that a distance should be established between the study of government and politics and the treatment of values.[5] 

The effect was to avoid or diminish any treatment of value issues in the classroom.[6]  There were exceptions to this general trend.  Sensing a demand for addressing values in relation to social studies, there were various projects that attempted to fill the gap that the natural rights turn created.  Two notable examples were the Jurisprudential approach[7] and the values clarification approach.[8] 

Both efforts had students review either a controversial issue or a personal character issue and pass judgement as to what should be done in a value challenged situation or how students should identify a personal preference.  Those choices were to reflect students’ values and, in turn, provide the opportunity and obligation to publicly – within the classroom – defend the values identified.  The instructor’s role was not to pass judgement as to the worthiness of students’ preferences, but to instruct them on how to logically defend their positions.

Stated another way, as part of the nation’s shift toward a natural rights perspective, one resulting change was relinquishing the traditional dependence on Protestant theology to define what moral lessons schools imparted to students.[9]  Collectively, these two efforts were to present either opportunities for students to make life-defining value statements or to solve controversial issues which presented value dilemmas in the classroom. 

These efforts are continued even today by others, mostly education professors as part of their training of aspiring teachers.  In most classrooms around the nation, the only values that are actively promoted are organizational values that are essential in running a school.  Such values are, for example, punctuality – get to class on time – and honesty – don’t cheat on tests.  But in terms of political values, students are mostly left to their own devices.

---

[1] For example, an organization that offers civics rationale and classroom materials concerning controversial issues is ProCon.com.  See http://www.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=005860 (accessed April 5, 2017).  Some of the argument promoting such value oriented material ties the concern to instruction that has students engage in critical thinking.  Critical thinking has gained prominence in the various state standards around the country.

[2] David Easton, “The Current Meanings of ‘Behavioralism,’” in Contemporary Political Analysis, ed. James C. Charlesworth (New York, NY:  The Free Press, 1967), 11-31, 12.

[3] Jeffrey Byford and William Russell, “The New Social Studies:  A Historical Examination of Curriculum Reform,” Social Studies Research and Practice, 2 (1), accessed April 7, 2017, http://www.socstrpr.org/files/Vol%202/Issue%201%20-%20Spring%202007/Research/2.1.3.pdf .

[4] Edwin Fenton, The New Social Studies, (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1967).

[5] Reference to values, according to this view, should be limited to treating them as variables in the study of human behavior, variables no more important than other variables such as income level or ethnic background.  For example, why do citizens vote the way they do?  A tested variable in a relevant inquiry could look at stated values as a predictor of voting behavior.

[6] James D. Hunter, The Death of Character:  Moral Education in an Age without Good and Evil (New York, NY:  Basic Books, 2000.

[7] Donald W. Oliver and James P. Shaver, Teaching Public Issues in the High School (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 1966) AND Fred M. Newmann, and Donald W. Oliver, Clarifying Public Controversy:  An Approach to Teaching Social Studies (Boston, MA: Little, Brown, and Company, 1970).

[8] Louis E. Raths, Merrill Harmin, and Sidney B. Simon, Values and Teaching (Columbus, OH:  Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co, 1966).

[9] Toni M. Massaro, Constitutional Literacy (Durham, NC:  Duke University Press 1993) AND James D. Hunter, The Death of Character:  Moral Education in an Age without Good and Evil.