In the last posting, this blog addressed what motivates
citizens to exhibit two social qualities:
social capital and civic humanism.
In short, these qualities are observed when citizens support a set of
values – an active, public-spirited citizenry, egalitarian political
relations, and a social environment of trust and cooperation – and to exhibit
them to a higher degree than he/she would act out of self-interest.
That posting,
in part, asked: why would anyone be so motivated? It provided a three-pronged answer to that
question. Using the thoughts of Michael
Sandel, the three are: reasons of
reciprocity, of sentiment, and of self-fulfillment. The reader is invited to visit that posting
to read the descriptions these sources of motivation. Here, this posting will outline a critique
or, if not a critique, a qualifier to Sandel’s sources.
Richard Dagger[1] begins
describing this critique by indicating what to him seems to be suggested by
Sandel’s work. Dagger states that by
listing these three sources, Sandel is minimizing the strength of the
reciprocity source and of the sentiment source and over relies on the
self-actualizing source.
A constitutive source of motivation
seems to be part and parcel of what it means to be human. As such, it would take on the role of being a
more fundamental source, even if it is not felt by all people. For those who reach a motivational level of
self-actualization, they are constituted to pursuing this civic minded
motivation. By not succumbing to this
innate motivation, they would be denying their constituted self.
If this is what Sandel is intimating,
Dagger believes he is a bit unrealistic.
After all, few reach this level of motivation, so a society would be ill-served
if it depended on this sort of motivation.
Dagger further states that one should not see these sources as being mutually
exclusive. That is, the three can
co-exist within a person and, by so doing, they should not be viewed as deficient
or superior, one to the other.
In his comments,
Dagger cites Michael Taylor who views these concerns as being concerns over
community. While social capital and
civic humanism are qualities of a highly developed community, they are relevant
to all communities. Taylor’s analysis
starts with the observation that community is not an either/or sort of thing;
it either exists or it doesn’t. Instead,
there are levels of community. The range,
not subject to quantitative measures, extends from weak to strong levels.
Taylor further identifies three “measures”
he says determines the strength or weakness of a community. They are:
the degree the citizenry enjoys shared values and beliefs, the degree
the citizenry enjoys many-sided relations, and the degree the citizenry
practices reciprocity. These measures
are also relevant to social capital and civic humanism.
As to these measures’ meaning, they are
fairly self-evident, but by “many-sided relations,” Taylor is referring to
social arrangements that are not limited to a single purpose – e.g., a
monastery – but have numerous purposes. If
a person is a member of a community arrangement that fulfills various purposes,
members interact with each other on multiple conceptual and emotional fields.
Generally, the measures are robust in
smaller and stable communities and less so in wide-scale communities. Since modern life is more apt to be
experienced in wide-scale arrangements, the qualities of community suffer in
any given geographic area where more modern arrangements are prevalent. Therefore, such developments as globalization
– in terms of economic and political factors – pose serious challenges to maintaining
the integrity of communities and communal life.
Obviously, this nation’s constitutional framework was designed to meet
this challenge by adopting a federalist structure.
Bottom line: whether one is attracted
to Sandel’s imagery or Taylor’s, one can see that societies, if they want to
sustain their communities and, in turn, the sources by which citizens are
motivated to sustain social capital and civic humanism, they cannot turn their
backs on all aspects of promoting a sense of peoplehood. It is within communities in which this
peoplehood is expressed. Peoplehood is a
summary term that captures the essence of Sandel’s sources of motivation or
Taylor’s measures of community.
On the other hand, it cannot, to
maintain a healthy social harmony within and without a society’s borders, by being
antagonistic to those who belong to other arrangements or represent other
peoplehood. It is unhealthy to harbor
and express prejudicial postures toward the Them, whether the Themness
originates from national, class, racial, and/or religious origins.
In a pluralistic society, like the
US, this is tricky, but essential in furthering its truly federated character
among its citizens. This is a
challenging mandate for those charged with socializing the young toward a
healthy citizenship. It is also becoming
a challenge befalling other nations. One
can see European nations facing it as more and more migrations are crossing the
various European borders. It is spurring
nationalist movements from England to the Eastern European nations.
History seems to indicate that overzealous
nationalist responses are potential precursors to animosities and even
war. Hopefully, the right levels between
these opposing forces, peoplehood and pluralism, can be found. What education teaches the young is important
and this is particularly true of civic subject matter. No civic issue is more important to civic
educators than this balancing act.
[1] Richard Dagger, Civic Virtue: Rights, Citizenship, and Republican
Liberalism (New York, NY: Oxford,
1997).
No comments:
Post a Comment