YOU SAY WHAT?

An aim of this blog, in large measure, is to convince the reader to believe two claims:  one, that federation theory is the best available mental construct to guide the nation’s civics curriculum, at least in terms of content, and two, that the reader should actively engage in the promotion and implementation of this construct.  The blog has dedicated a lot of space to describe and explain federation theory (one can see above the introductory remarks for an overview of the theory) and has attempted to give practical advice about how to change curriculum.

          In terms of this latter attempt, the blog has pointed out that change in how an organization thinks and functions is difficult, complicated, and a long-term project.  This is true if the change is fundamental and what is sought is what is known as transformational change.  Transformational change is not what most politicians such as Donald Trump are after; they speak in terms of transactional change. 

Transactional change is based on external motivation.  That is, a person agrees to change his/her behavior in exchange for something the person wants – a higher paycheck, higher status, a better parking space in the parking lot.  On the other hand, transformational change relates to people changing some behavior not for a reward (or to avoid a punishment), but due to an internal motivation, some change in attitudes or values.  That makes it hard to accomplish.

There is some recent research that sheds light on an aspect of such a dynamic.  The New York Times reports on the work of Robb Willer and Matthew Feinberg,[1] two sociologists who study what it takes to succeed in convincing people to support specific policy proposals, especially if the proposals are associated with an opposing political ideology.  For example, how does one convince a conservative to support same-sex marriage or convince a liberal to support increased military spending?

Actually, this aspect is not complicated, but it is difficult to pull off.  Per these researchers’ findings, what is needed is presenting arguments that frame the newer policy choice in terms of the subject’s, not the proponent’s, values and attitudes.  Here is what one of the researchers had to say:

In one study, we presented liberals and conservatives with one of two messages in support of same-sex marriage.  One message emphasized the need for equal rights for same-sex couples.  This is the sort of fairness-based message that liberals typically advance for same-sex marriage.  It is framed in terms of a value – equality – that research has shown resonates more strongly among liberals than conservatives.  The other message was designed to appeal to values of patriotism and group loyalty, which have been shown to resonate more with conservatives.  (It argued that “same-sex couples are proud and patriotic Americans” who “contribute to the American economy and society.”)[2]

          On the other side, liberals were swayed to support military spending with arguments that point out the role the military plays in offering opportunities, education, and training to low income, minority enlistees.  With a larger military, such offerings can be extended and taken advantage of by more low income individuals.  This is very much in the liberal “wheelhouse.” 

          What is the lesson here?  The lesson is that when one wants to convince others of a behavior or policy shift that on the face of it counters existing values and attitudes, if one frames the change in terms of existing values and attitudes by those who are to be changed or convinced of the change, success is more likely to happen.  When this premise was tested against external rewards, reframing did better.

          As mentioned, this sort of strategy is difficult to implement.  One reason for this is reflected by another finding of this research.  Liberals and conservatives alike were found to be reluctant or unable to think of arguments and presentations that solicit values and attitudes of those who initially opposed the proposed change.  In other words, liberals think liberally, not conservatively, and conservatives think conservatively, not liberally.  These two claims seem to be true even when the subjects are asked to do otherwise.

          This research used a variety of policy change proposals.  It was found that not all liberal or conservative policy positions were amenable to such reframing; some did not lend themselves to these language manipulations.  This writer can speculate that a national healthcare program such as the Affordable Care Act is such a policy area.

So, perhaps what one can say with the new administration coming in is that Democrats, who wish to cooperate with it, should see what areas the Trump team wants to pursue that they also want to advance (infrastructure spending) and which ones Democrats want and can be reframed in language that touts Republican values and attitudes.  For those latter proposals, part of the strategy should be to frame the debate, at least in part, in Republican language.  For the rest, from the Democratic perspective, game on!

As for changing a curriculum in a school, one similarly is confronted with people who initially are disposed to disagree with what is being proposed.  This research by these sociologists suggests certain steps a change agent needs to take if he/she hopes to be successful.

First, he/she needs to discover the values and attitudes the target subjects have.  The agent not only needs to know what these dispositions are, but also gain a sense – an accurate sense – of how much vitality they have, how centered they are to the person being asked to change.

Second, these values and attitudes need to be considered and the language by which they are or can be expressed must be discovered or developed.  Sometimes, these values and attitudes are held at a subconscious level or they are opaque.  This language task is difficult to achieve, but unaddressed commitments do not disappear or lose their influence.

And third, an appropriate language needs to be formed and, where possible, employed to voice the desired aim or goal with words that are amenable to the listener.  Here, the communicator might be tempted to be dishonest and manipulative.  If he/she is, untold damage can be done to the whole project.  Dishonesty is seldom forgiven or forgotten.

As the Times article points out, this research points out an almost obvious message that people are more apt to agree with what they already agree.  The challenge is in the implementation.

---

[1] “The Key to Political Persuasion,” The New York Times (November 11, 2015), accessed December 30, 2016, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/15/opinion/sunday/the-key-to-political-persuasion.html?_r=0 .

[2] Ibid.

UNAVOIDABLE BIAS

A topic that all civics teachers will confront at one time or another is:  should he or she convey to the students his/her political beliefs, his/her ideology? It is a safe bet that a civics teacher will have an “attitude” about politics; why would he or she choose to teach civics or any of the social studies if his/her interests were not so engaged?  And if he/she has an interest, as is the case with most things that spur one to have an interest, the person’s attitude(s) will probably not be neutral.

          It is basic attitudinal theory that as one’s interest in a topic or subject becomes more intense, the person will tend toward attitudes that will be more pronounced, either in a positive direction or a negative one or, in some cases, both directions.  That’s why one can love and hate someone at the same time; as a matter of fact, if we love someone who gives us reason to hate him or her, the hate tends to be more intense.  But that’s another angle to this question.

          Here, the topic is civics and political interest and bias.  Above, all social studies were mentioned.  Another field that tends to be political is literature.  A lot of literature has been motivated by political issues.  In college, this writer took a social issues-literature course and the class was assigned such classics as The Prince, 1984, The Grapes of Wrath, Fahrenheit 450, The Fountainhead, and others.  Each of these books argued through its stories and descriptions definite political positions.

          Now today, with issues such as climate change, pollution, nuclear weapons, and others, science teachers are faced with many political concerns.  Again, should a science teacher portray what his/her political beliefs are?  Of course, in the case of science, the mere presentation of such issues says something.  It says:  here is a condition that is bad for us and the implied message is that the nation or the world should do something about it.  That is a political discussion which is directly addressed or implied.

          In this blog, this writer has argued that in choosing a fundamental mental construct that serves to guide civics instruction, a political bias is being expressed by such a choice.  What one can say about that choice is that it does not usually rely on a conservative or liberal bias as is the case with most of our political debates. 

          The blog has further argued that today, civics is guided by the natural rights construct.  This construct has elements that can be associated with conservative arguments but, at the same time, it has elements that can be associated with liberal arguments.  That construct’s reliance on individualism, quantitative research, and systems analysis of social (including political) arrangements tends to have a conservative-libertarian bent.  While that is true, its rejection of traditional/historical strains of argument tends to move its purview to a more liberal bias.

          The one mental construct which this blog has explained that has a left of center – in some cases an extreme left of center political view – is the critical theory perspective.  With its reliance on Marxian thought, one would not accuse critical theory of espousing reactionary political arguments.

          As for the favored construct of this blog, federation theory, it tends to be more conservative than liberal, except for one important aspect.  This construct is basically a collectivist view, albeit with a strong respect for the individual entity that makes up the collective.  That individual is recognized as having a definite set of rights as defined either by the US Bill of Rights or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  This along with its collectivist slant can be considered liberal elements of Federation Theory.

          The blog made the claim that a teacher cannot fully hide from students his/her political bias.  There is a multitude of ways a teacher does this, some quite straightforward and others subtle.  It is useful for civics teachers and other teachers (history, biology, English lit teachers) to be conscious of the several ways that espousing political beliefs are communicated.

          But before listing these ways, it is also useful to review why this is an issue of importance.  Are students sent to school to be “brainwashed;” to be exposed to propaganda of a political ideology?  Most would say no.  Yet, is it unavoidable?  This writer believes that it is.

          Why – because of the different ways that a teacher’s or curriculum’s bias is espoused.  The most subtle way a bias is communicated occurs when a teacher expresses an opinion not of a political idea, but a social one that has political implications.  That could occur when a teacher repeatedly expresses messages attacking laziness, for example, and how it is because of laziness that so many people find themselves deprived or in poor situations.  In trying to get his/her students to be more energetic, he/she expresses a basic conservative assumption that can be questioned on empirical grounds.  That is, poverty is caused by laziness.

          In a less subtle way, a teacher can espouse a bias by the questions he/she asks students about the content they are studying.  Here is where a mental construct functions to tilt the content.  If the content, for example, is consistently asking about how individuals are affected by social policy or events and never how the group or community is affected (a tendency using the natural rights construct), then individualism is promoted and that, in turn, can be political.  This writer believes that is exactly what happens too often in our classrooms today.

          Then there is the case in which, usually in small monocultural communities, teachers simply espouse the accepted political beliefs of that locality.  Those beliefs are transmitted with little or no reservations.  They become the accepted dogma of political thought and students naturally grow to further adopt them as their own.  The home offers little resistance to such indoctrination because what their children is being taught reflects what the family believes to be true and proper.

          So there, one has three levels of transmission that communicate political beliefs with their commonality.  All students are exposed to “propaganda” at one time or another.  What is one to do if one is concerned with this sort of indoctrination?  This blog has argued that recognizing the inevitability of this promotion and adopting strategies that have students question the beliefs they are being given is a responsible way to deal with this issue.  This is done with teachers who are self-aware of their biases and also of the biases of the curriculum they are teaching – and perhaps can see local biases as being just that – biases. 

          Once a teacher is so aware, then he or she can proactively ask the challenging questions about espoused beliefs, not only emanating from themselves but from other sources as well.  By asking such questions, students will more actively approach their subjects (not only civics, but subjects like history, biology, or English lit).  And in the bargain, that teacher might be able to generate the class that is lively and interactive among students and between students and teacher.