[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).
