NECESSARY ISSUES FOR ALL

There are a lot of issues a civics teacher can cover in the course of a year.  I have in this blog argued that one of the chief functions of a mental construct is to guide the choice of issues and social problems that will then be studied in the classroom.  Of course, not all civics teachers deal with issues; many see their charge is to simply offer factual information, usually information regarding the structure of government.  Their students, who happen to have good memories, do well.  But, and this has always been the case, intelligence – social intelligence in particular – reflects the ability to figure things out.  This sense of intelligence is more apt today with cyber memory readily available to all of us who might own a smart phone with Internet access.  Problem-solving is becoming more central in the demands we hold for students; hence, reliance on choosing appropriate problems – issues and social problems – is, in turn, becoming more important. 

Yet this phase of instructional preparation gets very little attention.  By default then, teachers, parents, and other interested parties tend to simply apply our current dispositions and biases to settle on what specific problems will be studied.  One of the main purposes of this blog is to point out the function of mental constructs in this process.  I have argued that we currently hold, as a prevailing construct, the natural rights view and that perspective has been the basis by which we analyze issues and social problems.  Not only does the construct heavily influence what issues will be entertained, but how we view those issues; what questions we will ask; and what will be deemed as relevant or irrelevant information and argumentation?  While a construct plays such important functions, it is, by and large, not questioned and is used mostly on a subconscious level.

Another main message of this blog has been that we should replace the natural rights construct with the federalist theory construct.  The introduction above reviews the main elements of federalist theory – at least, as I see them.  My purpose is not to re-argue these views, but to simply state that despite the fact there is significant differences between natural rights construct and federalist theory, there are some issues that I believe would be addressed irrespective of which of these two constructs is used to guide the content of a civics course.  Let me identify them:

The environmental degradation of the planet

The concentration of wealth and income in the global economy

National policy regarding what leads to healthy economic development

The degradation of our national infrastructure (particularly as it affects transportation)

Perhaps you can add to this list – the issue of terrorism might be considered a must – but if a teacher is going to approach civics through the analyses of issues, the above list seems to me to identify the necessary issues a teacher should include.

A curriculum guided by the natural rights construct, as I just indicated, would see these issues from a different perspective than one guided by federalist theory.  Let me illustrate by looking at the first on this list:  the environmental issue. 

A natural rights view would probably emphasize costs and imposing the gauntlet of regulations, taxes, and other liberty-limiting policies a serious approach in tackling the odious effects of pollution and a degraded natural world would entail.  I am not saying that a natural rights approach would necessarily push a conservative, pro-business agenda.  What I am saying is that that construct will view the environmental issue from the perspective of calculations regarding how addressing the environmental issue or ignoring it will affect our levels of liberty.  One can easily imagine how an environment chuck full of carbons, for instance, can limit our ability to seek our self-defined goals.  Just ask the citizens of Texas right now how they view the effects that severe weather has on their liberty.  The question is one in which we calculate how, against these liberty-limiting realities, they compare with how a vigorous governmental policy will affect those liberties.  Which is worse?

From a federalist point of view, on the other hand, instruction would point out these liberty issues, but would also view the political maneuvering that is in play, especially in terms of climate change deniers, language manipulation by the advocates of either side of the environmental debates, and the extent of vested stakes any of the involved parties have in either changing our environmental policies or keeping the status quo.  These particular items of interests are tapped because they reflect how the environmental issue affects our sense of partnership among the citizenry.  This might be a subtle difference for many, but I believe an important one.  Do you calculate detrimental effects or do you feel the human anguish involved with our partners’ fates?  I believe that a federalist approach comes closer to the humanizing questions more readily than the natural rights approach does.  What do you think?