This blog, as its title indicates, is dedicated to civics
education. In turn, civics is concerned
with imparting to a younger generation that knowledge about the political
system under which they live and in which, hopefully, they will decide to participate
as adults. That participation does not
need to wait till the student turns twenty-one or eighteen – voting age – but
can begin immediately, during his/her teenage years as he/she takes a civics
course in middle school and an American government course during high school
years – usually the senior year.
Being that the
main subject in civics is government, one cannot ignore the contribution the
discipline of political science has on this school subject. Therefore, an accounting of that influence is
useful when dealing with civics education issues. This posting provides a comment or two on
this relationship between this discipline and the school subject of civics.
Political science has experienced a bit
change since the years after World War II.
Most, current political science work has taken a definite behavioral
turn. Actually, that turn had its
origins back in the 1950s. Up to that
time, political science research took on a more historical character. The assumption was that by investigating the
history of political/governmental activity, one could glean what would happen
politically and/or what should happen politically as policy-makers tackled the
ongoing governmental challenges of the day.
But the track record
of such an approach was not too good.
After all, such political analyses led to governmental policies
resulting in two world wars with their untold numbers of violent deaths, vast
amounts of destruction, and psychological costs to millions of survivors. That study also led to governmental policies
that supported economic and business activities culminating in the Great
Depression.
Apparently, policy-makers needed to
adjust how to view politics, economics, and world events. With that baggage, the discipline was ready
for a transformational adjustment. The
result was the behavioral revolution – a purer scientific approach. That is, political scientists began
incorporating the scientific protocols that the natural scientists had been using
for years. That included a heavy
reliance on statistical analysis of political behavior.
Since the revolution
of the ‘50s and ‘60s, there has been a “counter revolution” that has questioned
a sole reliance on the “scientific” mode of analysis. That mode of analysis, beyond relying on mathematical
analysis, is based on identifying, measuring, and juxtaposing variables – independent
and dependent variables – and accounting for other factors (controlled
variables) – in formulating claims that suggest cause and effect relationships. A la
Hume’s insight, technically one cannot determine cause and effect, therefore behavioral
findings seek correlations or tendencies.
The counter revolution, of late, has
been a reaction to this mathematization of political science. More current consensus
is that there should be a variety of methods to the study of politics. This can include historical study, analyzing case
studies, action research, theoretical analysis, survey research, and so on. But as for political science being the main
source of disciplinary information for the study of civics, the demands of education
can tolerate only so much variety.
That study, in terms of the needs of
teachers and the expectations of students, calls for civics to be anchored in a
predominant view of politics and in how to study it. Why?
Because, to students, a wide variety of approaches promises to be
confusing. That confusion is like what
would happen if a political scientist jumped from one research approach to
another. Political scientists home in on
one approach to their research and build their careers around that methodology.
Secondary students, whose main
concern should be learning how to become good citizens – not effective
political scientists – are not equipped to be varying their approach in how
they study their government. As such, a
singular approach should be emphasized. This
does not mean various approaches should be totally avoided. Once an approach is identified, then others
can be introduced for limited purposes.
The question is: which approach
should be center stage? And that decision,
in turn, should depend on two concerns:
what approach matches best with the ability of typical teenagers to
abstract and what approach matches best with the goals of teaching civics in
the first place? This blog has chosen
federation theory as a substantive source for guiding its efforts; but that
also favors a historical methodology.
The claim here is that it offers the best answer to the above second
question.
The blog has given various accounts
as to why it has chosen federation theory.
Here is another one and, following, there is a stab at answering the abstraction
question. In terms of the purposes, as
noted above, the aim is to assist students to become good citizens. How can this subject matter – what
constitutes governance and politics – be presented so that the student is
encouraged to adopt modes of behavior one can consider good or active
citizenship?
Federalism is readily matched to the
task since central to its aim is to address what leads to citizens becoming federated
amongst themselves. A federated sense on
the part of citizens leads naturally to collaboration in meeting effectively
practical political challenges. Here is
what Daniel Elazar has to say about the general aims of federalism:
That is, federal theory, to be good
theory, must prove itself empirically, and the practical application of federal
arrangements must always rest on some set of theoretical principles. Thus the study of federalism is central to
political science because of its linking of theoretical and practical wisdom, which is what all political science should
do.[1]
As one reads on, Elazar reports
historical information to make his points over the advantages of using
federalism to analyze federalist arrangements such as what exists in
Switzerland and the United States. Using
comparative methods, he also comments on non-federated arrangements. Lacking in his analysis is the language of
independent and dependent variables – although some are identified in a more holistic
fashion. Federalism is not a
reductionist approach.
Instead, it is
more suitable to devising narratives and narratives match more accommodatingly to
the abstracting levels in which students think – a level that favors a concrete,
but story-like portrayal of what is offered to be studied. Hence, not only does federation theory
portray a more suitable approach to encouraging good citizenship, it also aligns
with the cognitive developmental needs of most secondary students.
[1] Daniel J.
Elazar, Exploring Federalism
(Tuscaloosa, AL: The University of
Alabama Press, 1987), Preface (Kindle edition).
Emphasis added.
No comments:
Post a Comment