This blog has been going on for some time. And it has had a central purpose – to promote
federation theory. For what? To guide educators in their choice of content
in the subject matter, civics. Such an
effort, to whatever influence it might have, causes its author reason to
reflect. This posting reports on such a
reflection.
Actually,
there are two reflections. One, it
occurs to the writer that all this talk of encouraging an ideal-based view of government
and politics might be considered “pie in the sky” talk (or writing). This is despite the fact this writer has been
very straight forward in describing this construct as idealistic.
This is not, exclusively, in terms of
what exists, not even of what might exist, but as an espoused aspiration of
what, in terms of government and politics, perfection might look like. After all, the Constitution uses that sort of language: “… to form a more perfect union.” Federation theory, which this blog has argued
had a lot to do with the Constitution’s
purposes, is not meant to guide political science research; and not to be a
basis for legalistic argument – although in another context it could be used
for either of these purposes.
No, here instead it is used to assist
in socializing students in the political culture of the nation as it is and in how it should be. In turn, these purposes are considered as
being very important. The blog dedicates
a lot of space to indicating what happens or is enabled to happen when school instruction
is deficient in these endeavors.
This blog has provided evidence that
there exists among the populous a deficient level of political knowledge, of skills
in acquiring political knowledge, a general disinterest in government and in
being engaged in politics, uncivil behavior, and high levels of criminality as
compared to other nations. All this
points to a deficient civics education program.
And within this deficiency, the blog has further identified an element
of that instruction that is central to the problem. That is, the adoption of the natural rights
perspective in choosing content for civics courses of study.
And this leads
the writer to the second reflection:
can’t a curriculum that adopts the natural rights construct be equally
idealistic? By its very nature, natural
rights diminishes being idealistic. Its
closest approach to being so is that it tends to romanticize the individual –
the John Wayne image out there attempting – and in the movies, succeeding –
taming the environment. The environment,
be it the natural one or the social one, is depicted as hostile in various ways
and degrees.
Natural
environments can be extreme in terms of weather, geological features, or
distances one needs to transverse.
Social environments are often pictured as prejudicial, backward,
ignorant, or enemies of change. On a
more recent bent, the social also includes unreasonable and oppressive bureaucracies,
especially those housed in government departments either within state capitals
or within the national government.
Of course, federation theory shares a
concern over governmental control when it comes to local matters. Yet, liberated federalism tempers this
concern with the realization there is a need to face global forces, often run
by officials, ironically well-ensconced in natural rights views. Yes, they believe in a form of corporatism,
but they rail against government intrusion. These can be officials of global organizations
such as transnational corporations.
The truth is, more and more of a
citizen’s daily concerns are affected by these mega entities. But it is argued here that federation theory,
with its concern emanating from its view of regulated equality, is more able to
address it than a view that acts as if all entities enjoy equal condition,
equal standing before the law. And in
that distinction between how the two constructs treats this issue of equality,
federation theory is in a more “real” space.
So then, is federation theory too
idealistic? One in which a student
population would be left adrift in a view of government and politics that
simply does not exist and in one leaving them without enough of the truth for
them to be able to function in what is real.
This writer, of course, does not agree with this characterization.
He sees it as an avenue to take a
cold look at the truth and judge it against a life-sustaining view of what that
truth should be. It understands that in
too many cases the truth isn’t what it should be, but it holds out hope that it
can be made right in the way ideals do for those who hold them.
Is the reader beyond such a view; too
enveloped in what is and unable to waste time in such fancy sentiments? Here is a way to tell, by asking: does the film, It’s a Wonderful Life,[1] seem to
be too schmaltzy? To the degree the
reader sees that movie as a bunch of niceties that one thinks about at
Christmas time – because “tis the season” – but has little to say about
everyday life, then, yes, federation theory is probably a waste of time.[2] Unless, that reader has at least a smudge of
doubt over such a judgement, then this blog is of little use.
But, if there is that doubt or if
that movie has something to say on July 4th, then the reader is in
fact open to considering federation theory as a more useful way to define
civics education. It is for them that this
blog is meant to affect. This writer
doesn’t know what more needs to happen – or is he scarred to consider what more
needs to happen? – for one to see what is deficient in this very important
process.
The process is: how schools teach what the nation’s government
is and how its politics is practiced. He
sees that, in addition to these concerns, an educator, a parent, or the
community needs to ask: what its
government should be and how its
politics should be practiced.
No comments:
Post a Comment