A FEDERALIST MORAL VIEW

With these identified sources from the Western tradition (identified in the previous posting), the stage is sufficiently set to present an organized moral view that could serve as a foundation for the other elements of a federalist construct.  In this effort, morality is solely a social concern.  This context is derived from the tradition established by Aristotle in which he centered his relevant concerns over behaviors advancing the interests of the polity, the common interest.

The proposed liberated federalist trump value, as derived from that Western tradition, is societal welfare.  This value is measured by behaviors that help secure a society's survival and/or the advancement of social capital and civic humanism (defined below and described in previous postings).  So, a first step in the development of the proposed construct is taken:  a trump value, societal welfare, is identified.

It is a position that will be developed further below and in upcoming postings, but be assured that it will hold in high status the values of liberty and equality as instrumental values – in that they are instrumental in securing societal welfare.  This trump value also has a two-dimensional structure.  Societal welfare can be measured by policies, acts, and behaviors that tend toward primarily societal survival and societal health through the advancement of social capital and civic humanism.

Survival is just what it implies – extending the life of a society that might be threatened by either internal or external threats or a combination of such forces.  The assumption is that societal survival is advanced by a value commitment to certain societal qualities.  These qualities are social capital and civic humanism.

 As has been reported in this blog, Robert Putnam indicates that social capital is when there is an active, public-spirited citizenry, egalitarian political relations, and a social environment of trust and cooperation.[1]  Civic humanism is a disposition at the individual level in which a person is committed to, ideally, place his/her interests as subordinate to the common interest or, at least, does not define his/her interests in opposition to the common interest.

          With a trump value identified, more substantive elements of a proposed construct can be presented.  In terms of values, this blog conceptualizes a hierarchy of values system which can be divided into three layers:  a trump value, instrumental values, and operational values.  Each layer is logically derived from the layer above it, e.g., instrumental values are derived from the trump value.

In terms of their application, these values are definite values, but should not, except for the trump value, be applied in absolute terms as one finds in Kant's categorical imperative approach.  The list presented will be applicable to American society, but one can claim that it has a universal quality.  This list includes:

•      constitutional integrity – a basic value that promotes respect for the constitutionally defined individual rights of the US Bill of Rights or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; aka liberty

•      equality – defined as equal opportunity in a realistic fashion with a commitment for minimal welfare standards as promoted by John Rawls (explained in a previous posting as regulated condition)

•      communal democracy – a value for the establishment and maintenance of an ideal summarized by the phrase, “people as a whole”

•      democratic pluralism and diversity – a value that, while it needs further developing, stands for a respect for diverse cultural expression but realizes that national viability demands transcending cultural commitments; aka centered pluralism[2]

•      covenanted/compact arrangement – a value that supports social conglomerations based on mutually agreed upon values, constitutional structures, social and political processes, and is formalized in a perpetual agreement

•      critical and transparent deliberations – valuing open political processes

•      collective approaches to problem-solving – proactive commitment toward representing all interests within a social/political entity

•      trust – reasonable expectations of veracity and reliability of others

•      loyalty – reasonable commitment toward the collective

•      expertise – critical but reasonable respect for intellectually trained participants and their contributions

•      countervailing powers – the sense that any social arrangement should disperse power to avoid a concentration of it and to be able to check on the ability of any one actor or set of actors to abuse its use

•      spirited and joyful commitment to the collective – aka patriotism or upgraded loyalty

•      justice – commitment to giving everyone his/her due based on a realistic view of dispersed or accumulated advantages

The overall sense of these values is to promote social capital and civic humanism; the reader would be helped if this overall sense is kept in mind as the federalist model of politics is described in subsequent postings.

It avoids civics instruction that stacks the deck with the recurring themes of an ideology, be it leftist or rightest.  Instead it presents a more holistic view of society and its problems, as defined by federalist values, and, therefore, open for student investigation.  The proposed hierarchy of values does not only hold a trump value, but also presents a logically arranged set of values; arranged according to this moral view’s sense of importance.

As stated above, there are three levels of values:  trump value, key instrumental values, and operational values.  Here is a listing of these values:

•      Trump Value:  Societal welfare (as experienced through societal survival and societal health)

•      Key Instrumental Values:  constitutional integrity (liberty), equality, communal democracy, democratic pluralism and diversity, compact arrangements, critical and transparent deliberation, collective problem-solving, countervailing power, earned trust, loyalty, patriotism, expertise, justice

•      Operational Values (partial listing):  political engagement, due process, legitimate authority, privacy, universality of human rights, tolerance, non-violence, teamwork, consideration of others, economic sufficiency, security, localism

Later in this blog, a set of postings will address classroom application of this construct and, more specifically, this moral view.  At this point, though, a general overview is offered.  The view can be used with an array of instructional strategies from what are considered traditional approaches – lecture and other information dispensing techniques – to more progressive approaches – inquiry, role playing, simulations, and the like. 

But since the view reflects a federalist commitment – sharing and incorporating input of participating actors in collective efforts – a more collective and horizontal decision-making mode of instruction would be more congruent with the substance of the code. 

One such approach is outlined in a National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS) publication, Handbook on Teaching Social Issues:  NCSS Bulletin 93.[3]  This handbook describes a variety of inquiry instructional models.  Generally, inquiry calls on students to solve problems – factual or ethical problems – by engaging in such activities as gathering information, testing hypotheses, analyzing, synthesizing, and evaluating.  This blog will promote an instructional approach that relies on this set of activities, but under a dialectic mode of inquiry. 

This source, the Handbook on Teaching Social Issues, was cited in an earlier posting and critiqued in that it demonstrates how an issues-centered curriculum can be handled in natural rights based lessons.  Here it is presented for its instructional value and applied to implement federalist based lessons.  The strategy is considered “open ended” in that the students arrive at their own conclusions which they then are expected to defend by using rational argument. 

The approach can be readily applied to students tackling social issues as defined by the above moral view.  In terms of relating the technique to the proposed moral view, the view provides a guide by determining or, at least, suggesting which issues should be considered for classroom instruction and what questions should be asked.

And what are these issues?  In the above cited handbook, the issues identified are amenable to a leftist ideology, the writer considers them to be derived from critical theory – “critical light.”  That is, material that approaches the value of equality as defined by the criterion of equal condition (the economy should distribute its benefits equally among the population).  This reflects critical values.

If instead, instruction adopts a federalist view, not only would relevant issues include equality, albeit defined differently,[4] but it would also include those related to liberty, economic sufficiency, security, etc.  Therefore, a more varied array of concerns is available to the educator.  Since the view holds societal welfare as the trump value, not just equality or liberty and related issues become legitimate topics for classroom instruction.

---

[1] Robert D. Putnam, “Bowling Alone:  America's Declining Social Capital,” Journal of Democracy, January (1995), 65-78.

[2] Robert Gutierrez, “A Case for Centered Pluralism,” Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue 5, no. 1 (2003):  71-82.

[3] Ronald W. Evans and David W. Saxe (eds.), Handbook on Teaching Social Issues:  NCSS Bulletin 93 (Washington, DC:  National Council of the Social Studies, 1996).

[4] Equality in this federated moral view is defined as a regulated condition; i.e., while distribution of assets is based primarily on a competitive system, it is mindful to assure basic life-sustaining resources and a livable mode of life for a citizenry comparable to the society’s ability to provide those resources.  These ends are achieved through a regimen of regulations, such as minimum wage and an insured retirement program.