A POWERFUL PAIR

A recurring pair of concepts this blog has utilized is theory-in-use and espoused theory.  This writer finds the accompanying distinction between these two ideas to be very useful.  The first is the working sense or visualization one has about what one is doing.  The other, an espoused theory, is what one ideally believes and feels about what one is doing.  Ideally, the two should be in sync, but, if not, at least be congruent or accommodating one another.  The writers responsible for this conceptualization are Chris Argyris and Donald A. Shon.[1]

          This distinction can be quite complex in particular cases since ideals, though not espoused at times, can be subconscious.  Despite this, these biases pop up when it’s time to decide to act in a situation.  For example, one can have buried, within one’s senses, prejudicial ideals and, when certain situations arise, such a bias can lead one to judge a person, an animal, or a thing as being responsible for some event.  That biased person jumps to that conclusion possibly unaware of what prejudice is at work – the prejudice affects how that person sees the event.

          To varying degrees of seriousness, all people fall prey to such a thing.  When it happens, it is usually prudent to attempt to identify it, engage in appropriate introspection, and either combat the prejudice or, if one finds it positive, formualate reasoned reasons to harbor such a judgement – not all prejudices are negative, unjust in their content, or counterproductive.  All of them, though, are felt without sufficient reflection; they are more like intuitive beliefs.

          But that is at the individual level.  This writer believes that this couple of concepts are so powerful one can extend them to a societal level.  That is, a people can have a common theory-in-use and a common espoused theory.  A simple example is when a people believe in equal opportunity – like one can argue Americans generally do – and yet sustain economic conditions that cannot be described as providing equal opportunity. 

The theory-in-use or one these hidden espoused theories, to some degree, diverges from this equal opportunity, espoused theory.  A lot of the nation’s history has been to seek equal opportunity, but one would be hard pressed to say the nation has arrived at that ideal.  Along the way, the nation has supported policies that have hindered achieving meaningful, equal opportunity in too many cases or among certain segments of the population.

          As with an individual, there can be reasons for that shortfall.  Some can be legitimate, others not so much.  But that is not the point being made here.  What is being pointed out is that a society’s espoused theory concerning government and politics is important to know and, if seen as legitimate and worthy of allegiance, supported.  If not, it should be combatted.

This blog has made the claim that what he has called traditional federalism was the dominant view of government and politics from the earliest colonial days all the way to the years immediately following World War II.  While not all historians agree with that assessment – some only extend it till the time of the ratification of the constitution and some feel it is still the dominant view today – what is exactly held is not that the nation’s theory-in-use was a federalist theory, but that its espoused theory was and among some, still is.

By extension, this blog’s argument is that civics education should adopt a newer version of federation theory – liberated federalism.  In so doing, its advocates do not need to measure their success in promoting it by how many people accept it as a theory-in-use, but as a generally held espoused theory.  With that in mind, how can one further conceptualize federation theory to assist such an adoption?

One of the scholars that argues that federalism is still the dominant, espoused theory, is Daniel Elazar.  He provides an analogous language to help his readers get a more concrete sense of what the function of such a theory provides.  For example, there is the following:

The Bible reminds us that every tenth generation [100 years], a new epoch begins.  During the first epoch of American history, the American people forged a unique synthesis of constitutionalism, republicanism, and democracy.  As we reflect back from the vantage point of the newly begun twelfth generation [1990s], two generations into the second epoch of American history, we are well advised to consider the character and meaning of the first.  Federalism is the glue that has tied constitutionalism, republicanism, and democracy together during the first eleven generations of American history.  Like all glue, it has the properties of flexibility and hardness in turn and, once set, tends to be invisible or at least unnoticed in the midst of the materials which it has joined together, but without the glue the materials fall apart.  Contemporary Americans have shown that they have no less concern for constitutionalism, republicanism and democracy than their forefathers.  But it often seems as if they are neglecting the glue.  If the second epoch of American history is to reflect the fulfillment of the American promise, then we will have to be as concerned with the glue as we are with the materials themselves.[2]

          This writer does not agree with this venerable scholar – a person he had the honor to meet and share a lunch.  This writer believes that the espoused theory prevalent today is natural rights.  He also attributes a lot of what seems to be unravelling in the nation’s current political environment is due to this shift. 

To be honest, the nation had in its past times unravelling conditions that took on a more strident character – probably the Civil War era makes today look like a kumbaya period.  But one is safe to say that those times were noted for the nation’s theory-in-use defying its espoused theory.  Slavery was an affront to federalism.

What makes development potentially more serious today is that current political developments are not so foreign from a natural rights construct, the current espoused theory.  So, therefore, the problem is not incongruence, but congruence.  Congruence between a theory-in-use – one that legitimizes extreme self-centered-ness[3] – and an espoused theory that turns a blind eye to the current state of affairs.

---

[1] Chris Argyris and Donald A. Shon, “Evaluating Theories in Action,” in The Planning of Change, Fourth Edition, eds. Warren G. Bennis, Kenneth D. Benne, and Robert Chin (New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1985).

[2] Daniel J. Elazar, “How Federal Is the Constitution?  Thoroughly” Readings for Classes Taught by Professor Elazar (presentation materials, prepared for a National Endowment for the Humanities Institute, Steamboat Springs, Colorado, 1994), 30.

[3] Jean M. Twenge & W. Keith Campbell, W. K. The Narcissism Epidemic: Living in the Age of Entitlement (New York, NY:  Free Press, 2009).

A JACKSONIAN DUALITY

This posting, via the use of several quotes, is visiting a recurring theme on this blog.  That is that this nation had, as a dominant political, mental construct, a form of federalism, but that through the years that view was challenged by another view.  The other, which eventually became dominant, is the natural rights construct.  The evolution of how the nation went from one view to the other was a slow process, one that was noted for its back and forth progression, and started at the time when the nation was engaged in the ratification of the US Constitution.

          The first quote is one that he feels best describes and emotes the urgency the advocates of the natural rights construct feel.  It is from a film, issued during the Cold War, that narrates a bizarre tale over the “communist menace.”  The Manchurian Candidate[1] has a character that is only seen for a few minutes, he is a presidential candidate who is to be an assassination victim. 

It doesn’t work out that way, but before the shooting starts, he utters the following:  “Nor would I ask of any fellow American in defense of his freedom that which I would not gladly give myself – my life before my liberty.”[2]  In terms of political values, that describes a trump value assuming the character has the usual attachment to his life as most people do.

And why is liberty so valued?  Does it guarantee happiness, wealth, a rewarding family life, or eternal salvation?  No, but natural rights advocates hold this value at the pinnacle and perhaps that is because they see it as a precondition for any of these other results.  It doesn’t guarantee happiness, for example, but happiness is impossible without it.  That is true, in these advocates’ eyes, at least, for Americans.

This blog has pointed out that liberty itself is viewed differently today than it was seen in the nation’s early days.  In those earlier times, John Winthrop’s view of liberty, defined as the freedom to do what one should do,[3] was the common notion of liberty.  That was a Calvinist view.  Today, the nation views it as the freedom to do what one wants to do.  The earlier view can be associated with federalist thinking (although early natural rights advocates saw it similarly); the latter view is more attuned to a current natural rights view.  

This more recent sense of what liberty is, in the opinion of this writer, has led to the narcissistic levels the nation is suffering from today.[4]  Advocates, who lead responsible lives, might see the resulting problem as just being the price of liberty.  The question that is considered here as useful to ask is how and why did American political culture shift from the more obligated view of liberty – associated with federalism – to the more libertine view of today. 

This blog has identified certain historical events and developments that encouraged or helped cause this shift.  Among them was the western movement of settlers, the rise of corporations with the resulting disassociation between ownership and management, the bureaucratization of government through the Progressive movement and the New Deal that detached citizens from their government and allowing an individualism to erupt.  Another set of events can be associated with the presidency of Andrew Jackson.

According to the historian, Richard Hofstadter,[5] Jackson’s terms of office were situated at a time when entrepreneurship was experiencing a boost.  Till that time, and even after, most “businesspeople” were farmers of small farms.  Hofstadter offers a telling statistic:  only one in fifteen Americans lived in towns of 8,000 or more.  The bulk of the population lived on farms.  In the 1830s there is a sudden uptick in people starting businesses. 

Part of the debate over the national bank was due to this change.  For those who need the reminder, Jackson set upon himself to bring the national bank to an end in favor of state banks.  This was seen as more readily assisting the business startups of that time.  What should be remembered by this move – one that was very controversial – was the notion that Jackson was concerned over equal opportunity and adopted a central argument of the natural rights view.

To illustrate, the veto message Jackson issued – the one that shot down the reauthorization of the bank – reveal this natural rights perspective.  Here’s part of it:

It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes.  Distinctions in society will always exist under every just government.  Equality of talents, of education, or of wealth cannot be produced by human institutions.  In the full enjoyment of the gifts of Heaven and the fruits of superior industry, economy, and virtue, every man is equally entitled to protection by law; but when the laws undertake to add to these natural and just advantages artificial distinctions, to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society – the farmers, mechanics, and laborers – who have neither the time nor the means of securing like favors to themselves, have a right to complain of the injustice of their Government.  There are no necessary evils in government.  Its evils exist only in its abuses.  If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rain, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing.[6]

It was felt here that, given the more recent attention Jackson has enjoyed since the current president has claimed Ol’ Hickory is his model for an effective president, he deserves some focus here.[7]  More to the point, one can detect both strains of influence in this quote.

          On the one hand, yes, he provides the natural rights sense of equality.  Currently, people call that equal condition and Jackson gives the standard used in this view of equality:  government should confine itself to bestowing equal treatment.  If the law says its provision affects one person one way, that law should affect all people the same way.  According to Jackson, if government kept it to that, all would be well – a very natural rights’ bias.

          But, if one looks for the reasons of this view, a more federalist view peers through.  His concerns regarding the national bank originate with an economy that was skewed so much in favor of the rich – nothing new there.  Yes, he understood that there will always be unequal distribution of income and wealth, but artificial advantages, not all caused by unequal treatment by government, needed to be addressed.  Perhaps government could be used to assist those caught at the short end of the economic stick.  This reflects a more proactive role for government.

          And one sees this when the national bank is killed, he distributes its moneyed assets to state banks that were more accommodating to the financial needs of the lower ranks.  This did not end well in that these banks were so speculative in their lending practices that the economy fell into a serious inflationary phase that later led to a depression.  But the point here is that Jackson’s calls for advancing self-interest could not escape a more fundamental federated message.

          In what way?  Federalism is about creating a sense of partnership among the citizenry.  It is not about providing a landscape for energetic citizens getting the most out of the system irrespective of what happens to the whole national community.  As stated before in this blog, strong government was not seen as an institution that provided “giveaways” to the poor, that had never happened to that time.  Strong government was an institution that was instrumental to making the rich richer.  This undermined a federal sense of a union or of a commonwealth.

          Is there any other evidence indicating this view of Jackson or of what was an ideal at the time?  To this end, here is the last quote of the posting: 

Could it really be urged that the framers of the constitution intended that our Government should become a government of brokers?  If so, then the profits of this national brokers’ shop must inure to the benefit of the whole and not to a few privileged monied capitalists to the utter rejection of the many.[8]

One more item this blog has highlighted is the difference, at the individual level, between theories-in-use and espoused theories.  This writer believes one can make the same distinction at the societal level.  When this blog claims that federalism was the dominant view of governance and politics, perhaps a more accurate statement would be, it was the dominant espoused construct.  That is, federalism was the source of its ideals.  That can no longer be claimed.

---

[1] John Frankenheimer (director), The Manchurian Candidate (United Artists, 1962).

[2] Ibid.

[3] Daniel J. Elazar, “How Federal Is the Constitution?  Thoroughly” Readings for Classes Taught by Professor Elazar (presentation materials, prepared for a National Endowment for the Humanities Institute, Steamboat Springs, Colorado, 1994).

[4] Jean M. Twenge and W. Keith Campbell, The Narcissism Epidemic: Living in the Age of Entitlement.

 [5]  Richard Hofstadter, The American Political Tradition (New York, NY:  Vintage Books, 1948).

[6] Ibid., 62. (emphasis added)

[7] Focus yes, admiration, given his history associated with the Cherokee removal and Trail of Tears, no.

[8] Ibid., 45.