For teachers
who teach civics, the discipline of political science formally fulfills the
role of being the academic content source, at least for the most part. When considering the role of a construct in
relation to an academic subject, particularly a natural science, there is a
broad-based view of the subject matter that prevails among the scholars who do
research in that subject. For example,
the theory of evolution plays that role in biology.
As a social science, though, political science does not have a
universally accepted theoretical foundation as exists in biology, physics, or
chemistry. Yet as a study of human
endeavors, political science is easily affected by notions of right and wrong –
normative considerations – which purely scientific approaches avoid. From the choices available, civics educators,
by and large, have adopted the political systems model as their theoretical
foundation and by doing so have turned away from most moral concerns.
They, especially classroom teachers, might not be conscious of
that choice; the choice might have been handed to them without their
realization. How? By mostly assigning them a textbook. Ask typical teachers why they teach what they
teach, and they will probably say something along the lines that what they
teach is what their textbooks cover. In
turn, those textbooks in civics follow a natural rights view of government and
politics.
As such, this choice of adopting the natural rights view has consequences
because any resulting content is logically derived from that construct. That includes its emphases, questions, and
desired outcomes. Generally, a natural
rights construct, by using the political systems model, promotes a view of
politics as an overarching procedure that is aimed at arriving at consensus
through legitimate, competitive processes.
This last statement might sound a bit ephemeral. The upcoming text of this blog, in this and
following postings, will outline these elements as it attempts to describe and
explain how natural rights adherents view the subject matter.
On a more basic level, one can ask: what are the origins of this construct? There are two theoretical traditions at work.
One is the tradition known as the Enlightenment.[1] The chief idea inherited from the
Enlightenment is that humans should operate from a rational basis. People, according to this view, know what
they want, know what their interests are, and should make rational calculations
in trying to match their perceived reality with their desires.
The Enlightenment also gave the scholarly world a deep respect for
natural forces and rejects the influence of otherworldly forces. Therefore, according to these precepts, it is
in everyone's interest to learn about the natural environment at least insofar
as it affects people. The means by which
one does this learning is best served by using a “scientific method” with a
profound reliance on mathematics (in the form of statistics).
The second tradition was initiated by Niccolo Machiavelli. Machiavelli began what is considered modern
political thought. It stands counter to
traditional or classical thought that was founded on the ideas of Plato and
Aristotle. Basically, Machiavelli
proposed that people are not motivated, and should not be expected to be
motivated, by altruistic goals.
Therefore, leaders, especially supreme leaders such as princes,
kings, presidents, prime ministers, and the like, should rule from a position
that advances their power. Politics is amoral
and only power can be counted on to achieve success. Concern for constituents is limited to those
policies that advance the ruler’s (s’) power.
For example, Machiavelli counsels a ruler not to provide resources
to the poor. To do so would make the
ruler seem weak because he or she would apparently be motivated by
sentimentality and then hated when he or she could not afford to provide
assistance at some inevitable future date.
Machiavelli urged leaders to be both a fox, as in being crafty, and a lion,
as in being strong and fearless.[2]
Summarily, these
traditions encourage students of politics to see that activity as a no-nonsense
aspect of life in which decisions of distribution are made. The decisions as to who gets what, when, and
how are calculated to advance decision-makers, be they in authority or just
common citizens, in their interests.
Analysis of and participation in civic activities demand an objective,
non-sentimental, and self-serving approach. One should remember, politics exists in a
reality of scarcity in which people ultimately compete “to get theirs.”
The currency of such a
competitive landscape is power. Under
this approach, if one holds a political morality that is limited by the
relatively simple dictum that everyone should be free to do what he or she
wants as long as one does not interfere with the rights of others, then one is
left or encouraged to adopt an amoral view of governance and politics. Those self-centered views lead to an
environment in which the individual is left fending for him/herself, family, perhaps
friends, and business.
As such, one can readily
see how these two traditions can be cited as the foundation for what John Locke
developed in the 1600s and how the self-serving aspects of Locke’s work has
been influential in the subsequent years, especially in the US. Part of the consequences of such thinking
eventually can be detected in political science when that discipline attempted
to imitate the methodologies of the natural sciences during the mid-twentieth
century. More on this to come in upcoming
postings.
[1] The
Enlightenment was a philosophic development in European history that only
affected philosophy but through its tenets affected politics, science, and
communications. Also known as the “Age
of Reason,” it took place from 1685 to 1815.
[2] The
Machiavellian ideas expressed here are those expressed in The Prince. Elsewhere, this political writer somewhat
softens these “Machiavellian” ideas as in Discourses on Livy. See Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince
(New York, NY: A Mentor Book, 1952) AND
Niccolo Machiavelli, Discourses on Livy (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1996). One more bit of advice Machiavelli extends to
the prince: it is good to be both liked
and feared, but it is more important to be feared.
No comments:
Post a Comment