GENERAL AIMS AND OBSTACLES

 

[Note:  From time to time, this blog issues a set of postings that summarize what the blog has been emphasizing in its previous postings.  Of late, the blog has been looking at various obstacles civics educators face in teaching their subject.  It’s time to post a series of such summary accounts.  The advantage of such summaries is to introduce new readers to the blog and to provide a different context by which to review the blog’s various claims and arguments.  This and upcoming summary postings will be preceded by this message.]

This blog has of late reviewed various challenges civics educators face in the classroom.  These challenges need to be contextualized in terms of the common expectations people share concerning that subject matter; the same people who fund its efforts.  Admittedly, those taxpayers – when speaking of public schools – or tuition payers – in terms of private/parochial schools – probably do not give this concern much thought.  But to the extent they do, they cannot be happy with the lack of success that portion of the curriculum achieves.

          Of course, such judgements need to first consider what civics education is meant to accomplish.  People generally ascribe to civics the aim of promoting good citizenship.  And perhaps here is where the problems begin.  It turns out not everyone shares the same image as to what good citizenship is.  There is no unified vision of what qualities a good citizen has. 

Is it being loyal to a leader, is it a person that consistently obeys the law, is it a person who proactively participates in governmental decision-making, or is it someone who maintains allegiance to a set of national goals?  Probably in some places a totally apathetic citizen fits the bill.  Each of these standards reflects a different way at looking at governance and politics. 

And each, where it holds sway, is usually supported by not only a structure of government, but also by a set of values, beliefs, attitudes, and of a political culture that prevails in a given geographic area of the world.  Not only do these views differ among nations but within nations as well. 

This writer has argued that the dominant view of governance and politics in the US has changed since the nation’s inception.  It began with a version of federation theory – a view that perceives the American political system as a product of a grand agreement, a compact, that establishes a partnership among its citizens. 

That version, while introducing such espoused values as inclusion, equality, and a form of liberty (federal liberty), became dislodged – after a long decline from favor – in the years following World War II.  In its place, another construct took hold.  This latter view – a view that took on some currency all the way back to the time when the Constitution was being ratified – is the natural rights view.  This view has become so dominate most Americans would probably list its tenets as being that of the US Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights.

As one reads this blog, one gathers that the blog’s aim is to support the federalist view and disparage the dominance of the natural rights view.  Early on, the blog argues for the merits of federation theory.  It highlights the theory’s description of how the American constitution establishes not only a structure – three branches of government, a bureaucracy, central and state governmental arrangement, etc. – but a set of processes that counts on citizens being communal, collaborative, and disposed to support a spirited partnership with fellow citizens.

The reasoning of such expectations stems from the reasoning that the founders of the American republic had.  That is, one joins with others to form this communal entity for the common advantage of each within the congregated group.  They form a partnership under a realization that their individual welfares are tied to the health of that union.  It is not the creation of an extended family – an organic view – or of a collective – a socialist view – but of a mutually advantaged group of people understanding their common interests.

This is motivated by three social qualities:  reciprocity, sentiment, and self-fulfillment.

·       First, one joins such a grouping due to an understanding that one and others are naturally motivated to reciprocate both to positive interaction (someone does one a favor, one is apt to do one back) or negative ones (someone harms another, he/she is apt or, at least, motivated to harm that person back). 

·       Second, emanating from reciprocity, one gets to know others and if the interactions are positive, will tend to like them or even love them.  That furthers the ties.

·       And last, as one matures and all this becomes clearer, one seeks his/her fulfillment – doing that which one comes to see as his/her “purpose” – being derived from such a league.

At each step or level, the richness of the partnership grows if the values sustaining such processes are known, honored, and advanced.  Hence, this is a federalist view of good citizenship, good governance, and good politics.  That is, the ultimate aim is for citizens to become federated.

          Under this view, challenges to civics education would primarily originate from a view that does not share the ideals associated with federation or, at least, does not promote them.  And fulfilling that description is the view that is dominant today, not only within the American political culture but within the civics curriculum of the nation.  That is the natural rights view. 

It is not that the natural rights view opposes people from ascribing to federalist values, that’s up to the individual.  What it opposes is for publicly funded entities to promote those or any other values except one.  And that value is natural liberty.  Natural liberty holds that individuals have the right to determine their aspirations, values, attitudes, and the freedom to pursue them short of prohibiting others the same opportunity.  It is called natural because it reflects the capacities of all natural creatures except for the last attribute.

Respecting the rights of others prevails only, where it exists, among humans.  And this capacity leads to the concern about why people are motivated to interact with others under the conditions this view identifies.  And the motivation, when all else fails, is transactional:  one does X for someone else in exchange for Y – tit for tat. 

Yes, this is a form of reciprocity but more limited compared to how federal theory views it.  As opposed to a federal exchange, a transactional exchange is limited to the immediate interaction – specified exchanged assets – and nothing else.  Expressed this way, the distinction between these two theories seems to be one of degrees but that is not accurate. 

Federalism counts on a sense partnership to develop and people who have experienced viable partnerships know that more than any set of immediate exchanged goods is involved.  Marriage serves as the most common example.  At the same time, natural rights thinking holds an indifferent sense to any such bonding or communality to develop.  The former sees government’s role as promoting communal forces; natural rights sees that with indifference and, if assets are needed (read tax dollars), its advocates tend to be hostile toward it.

As such, natural rights does not encourage one to see civics as anything beyond describing and explaining how the public transactions of the nation are conducted especially through the agency of its government, both through the central government and those of the states.  But a federalist approach broadens the concern.  And that stretches from family interactions – e.g., a single dad handling his teenage daughter’s initial experiences with intimacy – to how the nation handles its workers losing their jobs to cheap labor nations.

The aim of this account is not to investigate how the natural rights view affects the whole school experience, but how it affects the maturation process of students and schools’ civics education.  It also looks into the effects the political landscape has both in terms of how citizens interact and how it affects political parties.  But overarching these reviews, this blog attempts to highlight the fact that social arrangements, despite whatever problems they face, are loaded with assets.

Among these assets are the talents, financial resources, genuine good wishes, connections, inspirational insights, instructional experiences, and many other types of potential assistance from which one can benefit.  They can and will provide competition that brings out or encourages one to develop to one’s potential.

But this interaction, of course, can also be challenging, upsetting, or threatening.  One can and will run into those who harbor bad intentions.  These other actors oftentimes are motivated by short-term thinking in which advantage is sought through shortcuts to valued prizes at one’s expense.  Usually, those so motivated are exhibiting some form of immaturity.  They do not seek true federation with their fellow citizens, or they limit any such feelings to their meaningful others, e.g., to his/her family.

But all this understanding of the social world, of its potentialities, is not natural.  People do have a natural sense toward linking up with those considered part of one’s identity, of one’s grouping.  But in a nation, especially like the US with its varied population, there is no natural bent toward such inclusion.  Acceptance, tolerance, much less establishment of an expanded sense of Us, has to be taught.  In a “Pluribus” social environment, a good deal of instruction goes into establishing the “Unum.”

  This teaching is at two basic levels.  One is at imparting the belief that being federated is possible and worth achieving.  And two, conducting those lessons that impart the belief, knowledge, and skills aimed at advancing communal and collaborative dispositions, and an understanding that the nation’s societal health is at stake.

The reader might find all this a bit idealistic.  One should not belittle idealism.  Espoused theories that one hold act to motivate behaviors judged to be good or right.  Yes, a people don’t always live up to those standards, but they do play a role for after all most people find guilt to be discomforting and will act according to such theories to avoid it.

This writer expressed the espoused values of federation theory in previous postings and in his book, Toward a Federated Nation.  This and the following postings are more realistic.  And that realism looks at what stands in the way of Americans living up to the standards one associates with federalist theory. 

One place federated ideals are not being promoted or advanced, at least to the degree they should be, is American schools.  As various prior postings point out, schools and America’s youth are noted for their narcissistic character.[1]  As this blog has stated, “things are not good right now.”

---

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