I want to revisit a
topic I addressed early in this blog. As
stated in the explanation shown just above this posting, this blog is, in part,
dedicated to introducing a mental construct.
Early on, I described a construct as a perspective one has on some topic
of concern. I used the notion of a
family to illustrate; that is, if I mention family, you have an entire array of
knowledge, beliefs, emotions, attitudes, and values you harbor about your
family or families in general. You
might, to varying levels of specification, add a narrative about your family or
families. Such narratives can summarize
the contents of the construct and serve to give one boundaries; that is, a sense
of what belongs to the construct and what does not. The media exploits this with standard story
lines we see in films, plays, TV shows, novels, and the like. All of this is entertaining because it relates
to your construct concerning family.
As with family, we
carry around constructs about all those things with which we deal, such as our
town, our schools, our work, our nation, etc.
This also pertains to the subjects we studied in school. As a matter of fact, constructs are important
parts of academic subjects. In the sciences,
constructs take on the term theories – or if the knowledge is less reliable,
models. I pointed out that for most
people, I suspect the construct one holds in a particular subject is some form
of the dominant construct that “rules” in a given field. For example, in biology the construct or theory
of evolution is dominant unless you happen to be a particular presidential
candidate. Whatever construct is
dominating the field at a given time serves to provide an overall explanation
for the subject; it provides potential answers to problems that can then be
tested (hypotheses and hypothesis testing); and, as such, provides direction to
the efforts of those engaged in furthering that field’s findings. In the natural sciences, fields are by and
large governed by one overarching construct.[1] But in the fields of the social sciences,
this is not the case.
When we consider the
social sciences, since our ability to predict is so lacking, we have contending
constructs. One particular field that
shares in this plight is the teaching of civics and government and this state
of affairs spills over to all of social studies. In this blog, I have dedicated a lot of space
to reviewing three constructs concerning the study of civics. They have been the natural rights construct,
the critical theory construct, and the liberated federalism construct. I have reviewed the debates concerning the
relative merits of these perspectives and have made a case for the adoption of
the liberated federalism construct. But
in all of this, a central concern has been the demands of truth telling.
In my earlier treatment
of this topic, I cited Plato’s distinction among knowledge, belief, and
ignorance. Knowledge is what we
reasonably hold as the truth beyond question; ignorance occurs when we don’t
know something, and belief consists of all those things we hold to be true but
about which we have some level of reservation.
I wrote back then that I knew I was currently typing the words that
appeared in the posting, I didn’t know what I was going to be doing the next
day at that time, and I believed there was going to be a next day (a belief
that turned out to be true). This is
important to what I am addressing here because the notion of constructs is
about truth telling, to the degree we can tell the truth. Ultimately, all we hold to be true is our
version of the truth, our construct of that truth. There is a truth out there, but we have
limited ability to discern what that truth is; we construct a version of
it. So it is with our views of
government and politics, the subject matter of civics. And what this blog has spent effort in conveying
is that there are three constructed perspectives of what government and civics
are and about what they should be.
Let me illustrate this
with an example (as I did in the earlier posting). As I describe the example, you might feel I am
straying a bit. Bear with me; I’ll get back
to it eventually. Since the terrorists
attacked us on September 11, 2001, there has been in the media and among
ourselves a certain level of anxiety. It
has to do with tolerating the non-Judeo-Christian tradition of Islam. Let me admit to a bias. I believe that we, as humans, are wired to
distrust the other, the foreign, the “not us.”
If true, such a proclivity will affect how students view governance and
politics in a pluralistic society and, therefore, have an effect on how they
will see the content of civics classes.
This proclivity might have been useful in our ancient past when
resources were scarce and boundaries between peoples were necessary for
survival.
Let me point out that I
did not write I know this proclivity is at work; I wrote I believe
that humans are so wired. I use the word
“believe” on the advice of Plato described above. Remember, belief is somewhere between
knowledge and ignorance. I believe that we have a bias toward not
trusting strangers or people not like ourselves.
The problem within this example, of course, is that in modern
life, with its high degree of interdependence, such a fear, distrust, or
downright dislike of Islam can be highly disruptive and counterproductive. Yes, it is also unjust. Therefore, good citizenship, in a civilized
country, should include beliefs and actions that combat such disruptive
biases. This includes an appropriate
civics education. Good civics
instruction should, by extension, encourage beliefs and actions reflecting
functional levels of tolerance if not downright affection for varied modes of
living. Therefore, to the extent that we
express or act upon our natural fears and related prejudices about the other,
the foreign, the “not like us,” we are failing to provide good civics
instruction. A healthy view of Islam is
that due to numerous factors, among the Islamic world there is a minority who
wish us ill, but that minority should not lead us to blanket the whole of Islam
and its adherents with discrimination.
Such a reaction will only make matters worse on both practical and moral
grounds.
There is another element at work here. History gives us ample examples of how
people’s tolerance has been affected by how well their economy is doing. Recently, we went through very trying
economic times since the financial crisis of 2008. But to quickly cite the most obvious
historical example of how economic conditions can affect levels of tolerance, it
would be post World War I Germany. It is
accepted historical thinking that those challenging conditions led to the rise
of Nazism. With the backdrop of
worldwide depression and then galloping inflation, Adolf Hitler found eager
ears for his message of hate and extreme nationalism. What we can experience in such times – more
recently the fear factors after the 2008 financial crisis – are social realities
treading on potentially dangerous ground and social conditions, and their
histories can eloquently demonstrate the importance of effective civics
education.[2] Civics should be that part of the curriculum
that addresses any leanings among the populous that express hatred for minority
groups, alien groups, and their corresponding beliefs, such as their religions. I highlight this concern because it relates
very closely to the overall argument I present in this blog – it adds a very
relevant context.
To get back on topic, the very deficiency of not having a
unified theory or construct in civics education can be exploited. This lack can be an illustration of this very
sense of how reality can be viewed by different perspectives. It can illustrate how the diversity of views
and beliefs – no matter how much they are held as knowledge – exist in a student’s
social environment. This applies to
academic subjects, religions, cultural narratives, and the like. Constructs are just that; they are
constructed versions of the truth and unfortunately, the vast majority of our
teaching does not highlight this factor enough.
I believe the above illustrates the importance of
civics education. Let me summarize. How we view our government and political
world is guided by the relevant constructs we hold concerning government and
politics. If that construct has a poor relationship
with what is truly real – it is inordinately filled with poorly founded beliefs
– and if those misconceptions are generally held, we can, under the “right”
conditions, be led down a dangerous path.
While the US is not close to such drastic conditions, the Nazi example
illustrates how serious this can be. As
it is, our current presidential race gives one pause. Therefore, that part of our school offerings
that addresses the relevant issues should be regarded as important – the health
of our society depends on it.
[1] In the field of physics, there are two contending
theories: relativity to describe and
explain the large cosmos and quantum mechanics to describe and explain, as best
it can, the molecular and atomic world.
The quest is to devise a unified theory for all of physical existence.
[2]The Ed Show, MSNBC, shared a report by the
Southern Poverty Law Center that the number of extreme right wing militant groups
spiking as of March, 2013.
No comments:
Post a Comment