“CONSTITUTIVE CONCEPTION”

What can we expect of an individual who claims to be part of an association – a federal union? What seems reasonable, even if we are asking in terms of an ideal? One can start such an inquiry by considering a person who has normal ambitions in life. There is a line in the HBO series, Boardwalk Empire, that goes something like this: all of a man's [woman's] problems stems from his [her] inability to live contently sitting in his [her] room. We all want more out of life. So we go about dreaming, planning, training, sacrificing, risking, sometimes conniving to achieve the “better” life. Yet none of this can be accomplished alone. We are all dependent on others so that those kinds of activities can take place. I just heard of a study that links the incidence of lower crime rates to the prevalence of abortions. It seems that lower incidence of unwanted children being born has eventually resulted in fewer people wanting to commit crimes. I don't offer this relationship as an argument or a justification for abortions – many unintended positive consequences begin from either immoral acts or, at least, less than desirable acts – but it does hint at the importance of a nurturing home. A good and loving family, a caring community, good schools, and enriching environments in general all increase the probability that children will grow up to be productive, law abiding, and, at a minimum, contented citizens. And yet, this whole amalgamation of factors is provided by others: parents, teachers, neighbors, priests or ministers, relatives, and public officials.

So, a civics curriculum, I believe, should address this reality. It should take on what Michael Sandel calls a strong view of community. What is that? Let me attempt to describe a “strong” view by first reviewing what a “weak” view is. A weak view sees community or a sense of community as either being instrumental – a view of community as a field of opportunity to advance one's interests – or being sentimental – a view of community as one composed of a compilation of people who have shared, final ends. Instead, a strong view is one that has other characteristics. One, the community is seen and felt as being a part of who one is. “It is a part of me.” Two, as such, the community or a sense of a community is not something one chooses – as is the case when one sees community instrumentally or attaches oneself to it to seek mutual ends with others – but instead is something one discovers as one understands who one is. It is one of an array of items that helps determine the essence of one's identity, but is not so obvious as other essential characteristics such as religion or nationality. Sandel refers to this view of community as part of a person's “constitutive conception” of community.¹

Here is what Sandel means. He believes that community ideally should become a part of a person and, as such, is not dependent on a person having a sense of obligation or seeing community in terms of gains or losses, advantages or disadvantages. This is a view that is dependent on a higher degree of self-knowledge or understanding. It takes the dependency I describe above – of family, neighbors, etc. – and internalizes it within a person who can appreciate how constitutive of his or her being that reality is. If a person doesn't appreciate the constitutive role that community plays in whom he or she is, perhaps he or she can feel it when considering his/her family. Or perhaps a person can transcend the community and extend such a view to the region or even the nation within which he/she lives, because a lot of what a community can do is, in turn, dependent on the factors that exist in its environment.

A telling response which indicates whether a person has such a constitutive conception would be his/her answer to the question: what keeps you from breaking the law or keeps your behavior within the boundaries of legitimate social norms? Is it fear of detection, being arrested, being beaten up, or being ostracized? Or is it a logical choice in which you see your interests served by supporting a system of rewards that is dependent on some minimum level of cooperation? The first reason is one that is based on coercion and the second is one based on predictable and reliable rewards. The first reason, if universally or extensively held, is expensive for a society and the second is too dependent on many whimsical factors. In either case, the health of the society is not well-served if these are the bases for the prominent motivations in citizens obeying the law or otherwise cooperating with essential social activities. Where there exists a close psychological relationship, however, between what one wants and what a community is trying to achieve, there is no need for excessive coercive measures or an unrealistic reward system that is unsustainable.

So how does one see his or her community, state, or nation with a strong view of community? He or she, in simple terms, strives to see other citizens as partners. He or she understands that his or her interests, if not in immediate terms, then in long range terms, are linked. Therefore, he or she should conduct his/her business in such a way that any resulting advancement should be for all. This idea begins with one understanding how dependent one's self reality is unalterably linked to one's community and to the efforts exerted by the community on one's behalf. And even in our competitive environment, which is a product of our capitalist system, this idea or view can be sustained. If I produce and bring to market a useful product and do all I can to lower my costs, yet treat my employees fairly – which does not mean extravagantly – and treat my customers honestly and fairly, then I am helping everyone's interests, including my competitors', not just my own. As Robert Reich says on TV, while promoting his recent documentary film, if businesses pay their workers a fair wage and treat their workers fairly, everyone will do better than if they don't. He applies this principle by comparing Walmart to Henry Ford² and also by his analysis of the effects of the Affordable Care Act:

[As a result of the ACA] everyone does come out ahead in the long term: Even the best-off will gain from a healthier and more productive workforce, and will save money from preventive care that reduces the number of destitute people using emergency rooms when they become seriously ill.³

But such an analysis, while helpful in promoting positive images of community, gets us back to seeing community and society as a transactional arena and offering our allegiances for instrumental reasons instead of reasons based on a constitutive conception that Sandel would like us to adopt when viewing our community. Perhaps encouraging a transactional view is a good place to start with students. When this reality is well understood and accepted, then students can start inquiring into how integral community and society are in determining who we are.

1See Dagger, R. (1997). Civic virtue: Rights, citizenship, and republican liberalism. New York, NY: Oxford, pages 48-50. The reference to Sandel can be found in Sandel, M. J. (1992). Liberalism and the limits of justice. New York: Cambridge University Press.

2Henry Ford is historically remembered for his business philosophy which held that businesses should pay their workers well so that they in turn can be good consumers of his products.

3See http://robertreich.org/ .