LOOKING INTO IT, PART II

 

This blog’s attempt to analyze the dialectic struggles between parochial federalism and the natural rights view and then the natural rights view and critical theory continues with a further description of the methodology it will use.  To date, the last posting identified the contributions of G. W. F. Hegel and Joseph Schwab.  If not read, the reader is encouraged to do so.  This posting moves on.

          And it should be initially mentioned here that parochial federalism, while a voice from the past, is not totally extinguished from current political concerns and discussions.  The more recent forms of this tradition include the arguments of the religious right, advocacy for an academic rationalist curriculum[1] in schools, and support for the “choice” position in schooling.

These last expressions of this view will be further addressed in an upcoming evaluation of this construct.  There, this blog will ask:  what would be the consequences of readopting the parochial federalism view?  Perhaps, a prior question can be:  is this possible, and if so, at all likely?

          Once the parochial federalism perspective is presented and evaluated, the natural rights perspective will be described, analyzed, and evaluated.  This will consist of a review of the current political culture and the effects of the dominance of the natural rights view on society and the nation’s schools.  Again, the subsidiary questions[2] that were used to analyze parochial federalism will be used to study the natural rights view.  The presentation will emphasize the opposition this antithesis posed in the late 1940s against the thesis, parochial federalism.

          That presentation will conclude with an evaluative statement that describes modern forms of the natural rights perspective.  Currently, this perspective can be found in such advocacy as that favoring self-esteem curriculum and consumerist views of governmental services including education.

          The dialectic analysis of the struggle between the two constructs will conclude with the development of a synthesis which will abstract from the thesis and antithesis those elements that resolve the struggle.  It will do so by reflecting on the favorable position that the individualistic cultural bent has had on the nation since World War II.  Yes, the nation maintained its federal structural arrangement, a definite, tangible remnant of federalism, but its heart was and still is elsewhere.

          Today, that synthesis is being challenged by yet another perspective, critical theory.  But this dialectic struggle, to date, has not captured a national stage.  It has of late gained some recognition by the arguments concerning critical race theory – which not all advocates of critical theory recognize as being a form of their perspective.[3] 

With this struggle, one does not have the advantage of looking back to its twists and turns but faces the challenge of making sense of an ongoing struggle.  What is hoped by this blogger is that it is enough of a struggle to motivate the populace to consider yet another perspective, a newer version of federalism.

If this be the case – and this blogger will assume that it is – and a liberated federalism emerges as the new synthesis, as this blogger hopes that it does, it will combine the communal elements of parochial federalism and the integrity afforded to the individual which is central to the natural rights view.[4]  The synthesis must overcome the inherent consequence attached to parochial federalism, i.e., its exclusion of minority groups – those people of non-European descendancy – in the partnership it promotes.  Also of concern is the excessive individualism one associates with the natural rights view.

As for critical theory, this blogger sees it fondly, but at bottom, considers it a counterproductive view in that it promotes an unrealistic view about how wealth is created and increased.  Since this blog has not commented much on critical theory, it will keep its powder dry regarding this view for now.

In addition, the use of Schwab’s commonplaces (subject matter, teacher, learners, and milieu) allows the inquiry to analyze historically the effects of the opposing constructs.  By identifying foci of educational practice, this blogger can take a more expansive view than that which is allowed according to social science  modes of inquiry. 

“Everything that happens [in school], everything that could influence a student, is assumed to fall within the four commonplaces.”[5]  And the commonplaces are broad elements of what transpires in schools.  Therefore, operationalizing Schwab’s commonplaces does not rely on what is usually utilized in social research - that being distinct variables or factors and how they relate to each other (usually in correlational relationships).

The commonplaces are more holistic and probably more nuanced than what are usually highlighted in most social research approaches.  Actually, the four commonplaces interact with each other and among themselves; for example, teachers interact with teachers.  The commonplaces can be defined as follows: 

 

·      Subject matter refers to the academic content presented in the curriculum. 

·      Teacher is the professional instructor authorized to present and supervise curricular activities within the classroom setting.

·      Learners are defined as those individuals attending school for the purpose of acquiring the education entailed in a particular curriculum.

·      Milieu refers to the general cultural setting and ambiance within the varied social settings found at the school site.

 

These foci will be the conceptual targets or points of comparison these commonplaces highlight. 

Throughout these points, Aristotle’s categories of causation – state of affairs, interactions, situational insights, and capacity to act morally – will also be used to engender specific questions of inquiry.  More specifically,

 

·      The state of affairs refers to the actual conditions found at schools, as opposed to abstracted or hypothesized relations between factors or variables.  Of particular concern will be dilemmas caused by adherence to one construct as opposed to another.

·      Interactions refers to social encounters affected by respective constructs.

·      Situational insights are interpretations of encounters gleaned from analysis(es) of practice. 

·      Capacity to act morally will be assessments of practices as judged according to good citizenship and social capital.[6] 

 

These categories will be used freely to suggest questions for the analysis of the various elements that make up the struggles under study.

          The above indicates various sets of concerns that reflect deeper analysis as the study progresses.  The reader should not look for each set he/she progresses through the analysis that follows, but informed that this blogger is applying them as he sees fit.  It is his responsibility to present the analysis in a logical and cogent manner.  Hopefully, the reader will judge the presentation as being so.

And with that, enough for the methods to be used.  As one goes through what follows, one should keep in mind that each construct will be given its due without much criticism, at least initially.  There will be an evaluation of each, and this blogger might not be able to remind the reader that he is holding off on that critique as each is being reviewed.  But make no mistake; this blogger supports what he hopes will be the last synthesis, liberated federalism.

---

[1] Academic rationalism is an approach or orientation to curricular plans that relies on traditional sources and their contribution to formulating rational human minds.  It emphasizes content that has endured or stood the test of time.  See “Academic Rationalism,” Encyclopedia of Curriculum Studies, ed. Craig Kridel (Sage reference, n.d.), accessed March 8, 2022, https://sk.sagepub.com/reference/curriculumstudies/n2.xml#:~:text=Academic%20Rationalism,-In%3A%20Encyclopedia%20of&text=Academic%20rationalism%20is%20an%20orientation,of%20the%20rational%20human%20mind. 

[2] Presented in the last posting, they are:  1. How has the construct that guided the teaching of American government and civics evolved? 2. What have been the salient consequences of that development? 3. To what social arrangement, according to its tenets, should the development of a construct lead? 4. How can that desirable social arrangement come about?

[3] Given that critical theory – which has taken various forms and has relied on a variety of scholarly constructs – is generally in all its forms an evaluative approach to culture.  Politically, it has centered on Marxian claims of institutional practices of exploitation.  What follows is a general description of critical race theory:

Critical race theories combine progressive political struggles for racial justice with critiques of the conventional legal and scholarly norms which are themselves viewed as part of the illegitimate hierarchies that need to be changed. Scholars … challenge the ways that race and racial power are constructed by law and culture. One key focus of critical race theorists is a regime of white supremacy and privilege maintained despite the rule of law and the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws. Agreeing with critical theorists and many feminists that law itself is not a neutral tool but instead part of the problem, critical race scholars identify inadequacies of conventional civil rights litigation.

Taken from “Legal Theory:  Critical Theory/Critical Race Theory,” The Bridge (Cyber Harvard Education, n.d.), accessed March 8, 2022, https://cyber.harvard.edu/bridge/CriticalTheory/critical4.htm .

[4] See Jeffrey Reiman, “Liberalism and Its Critics,” in The Liberalism-Communitarianism Debate, ed. C. F. Delaney (Lanhan, MD:  Rowman and Litttlefield Publishers, Inc., 1994), 19-37 AND of interest as to the more responsible view of individualism see “Jung’s Individuation Process,” Soul Therapy Now:  Know Yourself, Heal Yourself (n.d.), accessed March 6, 2022, http://soultherapynow.com/articles/individuation.html .

[5] William H. Schubert, Curriculum:  Perspective, Paradigm, and Possibility (New York, NY:  MacMillan Publishing Company, 1986), 301.

[6] Robert Putnam characterizes social capital as having an active, public-spirited citizenry, egalitarian political relations, and a social environment of trust and cooperation.  Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 2000).