SOME IDEAL REALITIES

How does a teacher during a time when excessive individualism and self-centered views prevail¹ get students to consider a more idealistic view of politics and governance? By adopting federation theory, as this blog proposes, to guide content choices in our civics and government curriculum, a teacher is being asked to introduce an overall idealistic vision. That is, a teacher would plan lessons that have students consider idealistic options in regards to both personal political behavior and governmental policy. One way to get such an educational aim off the ground is to present lessons that hit upon the more practical aspects of such a view. William A. Galston² provides help in devising such instruction.

Initially, it is useful to consider a main concern of federation theory. That is, this more communal view of politics and governance is centered on the idea that good governance is about trying to attain and maintain the common good. Of course, seeking the common good oftentimes flies in the face of trying to advance self-interest. It also questions a governmental/political construct that promotes individual aims and self defined values, such as the case with the prevailing construct – the natural rights perspective. Galston points out three types of factual conditions that highlight our need to consider this central concern of federation theory. He begins by pointing out that the very commonness of these facts almost make them invisible to us. We assume them in calculating our plans to advance our interests. Yet, as we consider them – as we should from time to time – we can more realistically understand and appreciate their importance in our ability to successfully fulfill our aims.

The first of these factual conditions is the existence of inherently social goods. Certain highly prized aspects of life demand social venues and modes of being in which those aspects take place. The venues or modes of behavior are social goods. For example, there is humor that demands a social arrangement (trying telling a joke to yourself). The same can be said for most games. But, life itself demands the existence of social goods (we are all vulnerable in some way or other all the time, but especially during certain segments of our lives such as in infancy or advanced age). Of course, we are social beings where even the most introverted person needs social outlets at times.

The second factual condition is our dependence on social linkages. We formulate, quite naturally, an array of social linkages. As just mentioned, we are social animals by nature and our interconnectedness sets our reality in such a way that the well-being of some will affect the well-being of others precisely because we are linked. Along with Galston, many writers have pointed out the ironic truth that oppression, for example, does not only claim a toll only the oppressed, but on the oppressor as well. Oppression eats away at our very humanness. Our enlightened self-interest is served when we meet our obligations within these social linkages. This is observed when we submit, for example, to socially responsible behavior such as when we voluntarily follow health mandates like vaccinating our children from infectious diseases. Yes, the rich oftentimes try to use their wealth to de-link themselves; they might pay for private security, for example. But sooner or later such strategies fall short when underfunded social services such as police cannot keep up with rising social problems like crime rates. We see this in some poorer countries where kidnappings are a chronic problem. The establishment and maintenance of a healthy economy, from which we all benefit, counts on law-abiding communities either locally or nationally.

The third factual condition is what Galston calls “the good of the common.” The common life takes place in either physical or technologically created places. Our behaviors within these places, either if one behaves by oneself or in social groupings, will very likely affect the quality of a particular place to serve its designated function. Places usually need to be clean enough, safe enough, accessible enough, and resourced enough to meet the needs of those who want to use them. This calls for socially responsible behavior by those who use these places.

Social goods, social linkages, and common places are not an exhaustive list of factual conditions that are practical aspects of the common good. Ironically, Galston points out, our very conflicts trying to determine what exactly constitutes the common good is very much an aspect of the common good – the very debates that oftentimes challenge the prevailing vision of the common good are part and parcel of that good. Educators can use these realities to create case study accounts that students might analyze to identify, appreciate, and even debate either how the conditions support or challenge our social and individual interests. Take the condition, social goods, as when a teenager abuses a social media by posting inappropriate material – should there be mechanisms that restrain that practice? Should terrorist groups be able to publish directions on how to build a bomb? How does bullying affect a school's ability to fulfill its purposes? Should children be seen as the sole responsibility of parents or do communities have a responsibility or even a sense of “ownership” over all of their children? Each of these questions can serve as a topic for a lesson – a lesson that has the student delve into our social realities and our concerns for the common good from a practical perspective.

1Twenge, J. M. & Campbell, W. K. (2009). The narcissism epidemic: Living in the age of entitlement. New York, NY: Free Press.

2Galston, W. A. (2013). The common good: Theoretical content, practical utility. Daedalus: Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 142 (2), Spring, pp. 9-14.