ONE VIEW: THE “GENERAL WILL”

This posting continues this blog’s summary of Daniel Elazar’s general description of the influence that federal theory had on the founding fathers, especially as they devised the governing model that addressed the nation’s vast land mass and its diverse population.  The last posting addressed how this model, if implemented, can prove to be a source of indecision.  That is, in trying to secure the input of all, law making can easily get bogged down and result in either ineffective legislation or in no legislation for a demanding problem. 

          This posting looks at how the constitutional solution the founders devised was both something new and unique, but at the same time extended established norms and modes of governance Americans had grown to accept as preferable.  And in this, one can detect how this nation rejects traditions that were being implemented or promoted by other democratic or semi-democratic arrangements from Europe.  For example, they dismissed notions of a “general will” a la France or an “organic state” a la European monarchies, such as Great Britain.

          This debate as to what America adopted and what it rejected deserves special attention.  The main concern to which this blogger’s attention is drawn has to do with the difference between collective models or principles and federation model or principles.  Early in the history of this blog, in its attempt to describe and explain critical theory, it dedicated a series of postings to the critical theorist, Paulo Freire.  

           One of the end states that theorist aims for, in his book, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, is a condition he calls “communion” – a sort of union between the oppressed and the oppressor.  The idea is that the oppressor discovers his/her humanity by ceasing to be an oppressor.  But the question this blogger asks:  what exactly does that mean?

          This is how this blog answered that question as it relates to education back then,

 

According to Christopher Ferry, it is described or defined as a state in which teachers trust students, accepts them and their limitations as they are, while at the same time work with them to transform reality. [[1]]  In this definition, one can appreciate an overlap between Freire’s ideas and [those] of federation theory.[2]

 

But this alignment with federation theory is somewhat tentative in that it is ascribing its most communal sense to Freire’s idea.  One can easily give it a collective sense which would further classify it as a critical theory idea – a classification more in line with Freire’s general argument or tradition which his writings are judged to be.

          The importance of all this has to do with the implications of collectivist ideals and ideas.  For example, socialism is generally considered a collectivist construct.  As such it degrades the values associated with individualism.  While the “new left” claims to be more moderate on this point, certain developments among current advocates of the new left give one pause.  And here, language distinctions muddle one’s understanding, but the results demand that one has a clear understanding of this difference.

          Both federal values and critical theory values promote a repudiation of extreme individualism and perhaps the difference comes down to one of degrees, but the consequences of those degrees can be significant.  It turns out that if one ushers in high degrees of merger or union to the point individuals’ integrities are diminished, a form of mob mentality seems to take hold. 

One sees this in socialist countries – especially where democratic traditions are lacking – when their assumptions about peoples’ willingness to abandon individual ambitions and profit do not materialize.  Those efforts have, as a result, been degraded and despotic elements have been utilized to secure what regimes might deem as justice.  A form of this has recently been reported as occurring here in the US.

          Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt report that among new left advocates there has been a proclivity to shut down presentations by right wing speakers on American campuses – even claiming that such speech equates to violence.  Now, speech can lead to violence or danger, as in the famous refrain, one doesn’t have the right to yell fire in a crowded theater, but the cases Lukianoff and Haidt share seem too far from such results. 

Attorney General Merrick Garland is quoted in news reports that in America the Justice Department doesn’t investigate hate speech[3] – the exception is when violence occurs, and motivation is an issue.  This tie in with violence can be complicated and what some of these speakers say reflects policies or practices that should be prohibited.  But the readily chosen reaction of either banning of speakers or disallowing the dissemination of written works seems to reflect a collective mindset reaction that one usually associates with autocratic governments. 

And the history of such efforts goes back to the collectivist practices one associates with the various revolutions in Europe.  One being the French and the other the Russian, both in their ways instituted collectivist solutions to governance.  Here is what Elazar writes concerning the “general will” of the French,

 

Other revolutionaries in the “Age of Revolutions” that has existed since the late eighteenth century – most prominent among them the Jacobins – also sought solutions to some of the same problems of despotism that perturbed the Americans.  But, in their efforts to hurry the achievement of the millennium, they rejected what they believed to be the highly pessimistic assumptions of the American constitution-makers that unlimited political power could even corrupt “the people” and considered only the problem of autocratic despotism.  They looked upon federalism and its principles of checks and balances as subversive of the “general will,” their way of expressing a commitment to the organic unity of society, which, like their pre-modern predecessors, they saw as superior to the mere interests of individuals.  They argued that, since their “new society” was to be based on “the general will” as a more democratic principle, any element subversive of its organic unity would be, ipso facto, anti-democratic.[4]

 

The take-away is that this degree in diminishing the importance of individuals has a strong enough track record to give one concern.

That would be as to its ability to protect the rights – not just natural rights, but federal rights – of individual people.  So, for example, in France, it led to the Reign of Terror – an orgy of guillotine executions of political opponents.  Here in America, especially on college campuses, a slew of “witch hunts” that not only has disregarded the rights of free speech but has led to fear among those who would have come to the defense of targeted speakers and writers. 

That is, collectivism has a track record that frankly gives republican advocates serious concern.  The next posting will look at what federation theory’s response to this traditional “organic” problem has been.  While federation theory challenges extreme individualism, it is strongly committed to upholding and advancing the dignity of individuals. 

Their rights, in the eyes of federalists, are sacrosanct within the parameters of the common good which in turn is defined by a constitutional agreement.  And an important part of that common good is for each to feel and act in ways that reflect his/her own integrity and value as a viable, multidimensional person.  Today, there is a campaign to “police” what is taught in American history classes – an effort geared at “white-washing” the racial history of the country.  Among its offensive character, such policing undermines the socialization of vibrant citizens.

---

[1] See Christopher Ferry, “When the Distressed Teach the Oppressed:  Toward an Understanding of Communion and Commitment” (n.d.) accessed June 11, 2021, https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/268749403.pdf .

[2] Robert Gutierrez, “Review of Freire’s Main Ideas,” Gravitas:  A Voice for Civics Education (June 3, 2011), at present, not available in published form.

[3] For example, Meet the Press, Daily, June 15, 2021 – a news item.

[4] Daniel J. Elazar, “How Federal Is the Constitution? Thoroughly,” in a booklet of readings, Readings for Classes Taught by Professor Elazar, prepared for a National Endowment for the Humanities Institute (conducted in Steamboat Springs, Colorado, 1994), 1-30, 27.