This blog, of late,
revisited what it means when it claims that the nation’s civics curriculum is
guided by the natural rights construct.
To restate this basic claim: the
nation, in the years following World War II, shifted in its basic view of
government and politics from one which held as dominant a federalist view to
one that can be designated as the natural rights view.
That
shift has been so extensive that the natural rights construct is guiding the
content choices of the nation’s civics curriculum in its schools. This blog has attempted to provide evidence
for this claim. More recently, this
evidence has included a look at civics standards and at the textbooks used in
both American government and civics courses.
In
practical terms, what does that mean?
The primary effect is an overall trend to promote a consumer orientation
to citizenship. This trend is counter to
the federalist view that emphasizes a more communal view, one that heightens a
sense of partnership among the citizenry.
A federalist bent sees government as an extension of themselves, while a
natural rights view sees government as a provider of collective or public services.
With
this shift, a people has other goals and aims than were prevalent in an earlier
era. It is useful to know and understand
this newer bias. One can detect, in the
literature, that natural rights educators pursue the following goals:
• teach the structural
components of government (such as the Presidency)
• teach a view of
government as a subservient institution which attempts to satisfy the
collective interests of individual citizens
• teach the philosophical
basis of government’s role as defender of individual rights, placing the
emphasis on the individual to the minimization of collective interests
• convey the legitimate
needs of government to encourage and facilitate degrees of support among the
populous so that political stress within the political system can be kept at
manageable and even useful levels
• portray a realistic
account of politics within the nation so that students will be able to reasonably
interact with governmental agencies and offices to pursue their political demands
in ways akin to a consumer seeking any good or service
• express the technical
nature of political activity with ample respect for political expertise of
professionals which includes elected officials and bureaucrats
By accomplishing these goals, the natural rights argument holds
that the subject matter of government and civics, its knowledge and skills,
will be presented in such a way as to advance good citizenship. As far as it goes, the writer has little
argument with the natural rights perspective.
His concern lies more with the lack of its comprehensiveness.
Being a limited view, the resulting curriculum robs students of a
sense of partnership among citizens to work toward a more perfect union. Instead, the ultimate message is: here in this course, the student will be
taught what he/she needs to know to be able to seek satisfaction for any
reasonable demand. Little to no concern
or information is offered as to the richness that a more collective view offers
and with that, there is little to no concern for social capital.
Again, relying on the
definition of Robert Putnam, social capital means having an
active, public-spirited citizenry, egalitarian political relations, and a
social environment of trust and cooperation.[1] This sense is what a more federalist approach
tried to convey in the earlier years of the republic.
Instead,
what a natural rights guided curriculum relays is: here is what a student needs to know to
compete for what a government can provide.
While this latter information is practical, it does not, in the opinion
of this writer, convey what a viable democracy needs to convey to the younger
generation. This blog has attempted to
describe what have been the consequences of this shift.
[1] Robert D. Putnam, “Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital,” Journal of Democracy, January, pp.
65-78.
No comments:
Post a Comment