DISCIPLINARY CONCERNS OF PAROCHIAL FEDERALISM

 

An advocate of parochial federalism continues his/her presentation[1] …

With its review of the subject matter (in terms of its content), this blog begins describing parochial federalism’s position regarding the discipline of American government and civics.  And this segment begins with a question:  What is the state of affairs within the discipline of those subjects that would indicate a legitimate use of parochial federalism as its foundational construct?

In the eighteenth century, politics centered on the establishment of republican government.  James Madison and Alexander Hamilton spoke of a “new science of politics” concerned with the study of how free people can create a constitutional system of government based on popular sovereignty.”[2]

 

Today’s situation – given the polarized landscape that plagues the nation – demands a reconsideration of the forces and concerns associated with the establishment and maintenance of a republic.  Federalism is a theory of government that provides perspective for such a reconsideration.

          For those who follow a traditional/historical approach within the discipline of political science (one that utilizes documents and other written artifacts of past political activity), parochial federalism is a construct that fits their type of research and theorizing (e.g., the works of Daniel Elazar[3] and Donald Lutz[4]).  The professional organization, the Center for the Study of Federalism, conducts and reports on reputable research and teaching projects in the tradition of this construct.[5]

          Parochial federalism, with its historical/cultural basis, gives a more comprehensive view of political activity and behavior in an extended republic than is presently being offered in the typical civics and American government classes (this blog has provided such reviews and will do more, with relevant research, in the future). 

 As opposed to the sterile, neutral fare that characterizes government studies, parochial federalism enquires into the historical foundations of the nation’s political ethos and makes claims as to the current values to which instruction should ascribe.  That value system revolves around good citizenship and social capital that promote a republic commonwealth (akin to how Gordon Wood characterizes the Revolutionary generation which is historically known as those who joined the Whigs or commonwealthmen). 

It takes a more proactive approach in asking and analyzing information regarding justice and the establishment and maintenance of a civil society.  If the concern is to maintain a republic, what conditions must the construct address in order to be legitimate and a viable foundation by which to study government in the nation’s schools? 

Answering this question takes on several dimensions.  Eugene Meehan[6] provides criteria by which social scientists can judge constructs.  While a curriculum developer and/or implementor of curriculum have different concerns from a social scientist, some of Meehan’s concerns can be incorporated in evaluating constructs for the purposes of classroom use.

The following questions suggest themselves from Meehan’s work:

 

•     Comprehension: Does the construct explain as many phenomena related to the area of concern as possible?

•     Power: Does the construct control the explanatory effort by being valid and complete in its component parts and the relations between and among those parts?

•     Precision: Does the construct specifically and precisely treat its concepts, making them clear in their use?

•     Consistency or Reliability: Does the construct explain its components and their relations the same way time after time?

•     Isomorphism: Does the construct contain a one-to-one correspondence with that portion of reality it is trying to explain?

•     Compatibility: Does the construct align with other responsible explanations of the same phenomena?

•     Predictability: Does the construct predict conditions associated with the phenomena in question?

•     Control: Does the construct imply ways of controlling the phenomena in question?

 

In other words, given the general goal of parochial federalism, how does its view of government and politics match up with the realities of government and serve as a vehicle by which to present reality and the values involved?

          A curriculum, to be viable, must have, as one of its sources, a foundation in reputable subject matter from the relevant discipline.[7]  In addition, this blogger – apart but not necessarily distinct from parochial federalism – adds two more concerns that are in line with the demands of a successful application of a construct for classroom use.  They are:

 

·      Abstraction Level: Is the construct of such abstraction that students will be able to comprehend it?

 

·      Motivation: Is the construct and its content motivating to students?

 

This presentation will present evidence regarding the way the construct, parochial federalism, addresses its disciplinary approach in portraying governance and politics to secondary students.

---

[1] This presentation begins with the posting, “A Parochial Subject Matter” (March 11, 2022).

[2] Stephen L. Schechter and Jonathan S. Weil, “Studying and Teaching Political Science,” in Teaching the Social Sciences and History in Secondary Schools:  A Method Book, edited by James C. Schott and Laurel R. Singleton (Belmont, CA:  Wadsworth Publishing Company), 138.

[3] For example, Daniel J. Elazar, American Federalism:  A View from the States, Third Edition (New York, NY:  Harper and Row, Publishers, 1984).

[4] For example, Donald S. Lutz, “The Mayflower Compact, 1620” (17-23), “The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, 1639” (24-35), “The Declaration of Independence, 1776” (138-145), “The Virginia Declaration of Rights and Constitution, 1776” (150-165), “The Articles of Confederation, 1781” (227-248) in Roots of the Republic: American Founding Documents Interpreted, edited by Stephen L. Schechter (Madison, WI:  Madison House, 1990).

[5] An offshoot of the Center for the Study of Federalism is an academic journal, Publius:  The Journal of Federalism.  This journal is associated with Temple University in Philadelphia.

[6] Eugene J. Meehan, Explanation in Social Science:  A System Paradigm (Homewood, IL:  The Dorsey Press, 1968).

[7] Ralph W. Tyler, Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction (Chicago, IL:  The University of Chicago Press, 1949).

A PAROCHIAL SUBJECT MATTER CONTINUED

 

An advocate of parochial federalism continues his/her presentation …

In addition to the sum total of American history, in which parochial federalism held – up to the late 1940s – the dominant position among the various espoused political constructs, it has to be analyzed within the context of that whole experience:

 

Since the beginning of the 17^th century, the Americans have found and refounded [sic] their political societies, from small settlements and colonies to a large nation, by “reflection and choice” more than by “accident” or the natural growth and development of communities.  American foundings reflect at least five profound influences:  the colonial mission of a “covenantal people;” the Enlightenment ideal of rational choice; the republican principles of popular consent and limited government; the principle of the rule of law derived from Anglo-American common-law tradition; and the federal principle of organizing polities by distributing and sharing power between general and constituent governments.[1]

 

The parochial federalist construct would contain this rich historical foundation as essential subject matter in the study of American government and civics and thus add the needed context to make sense of the American governmental structure.

          In terms of the foundation of the nation and the principles that are derived from that experience, students would benefit from the spirit and values that initiated the national development.  Parochial federalism was not a stagnant force.  At different times, its basic ideals were more or less prominent among the popular culture. 

T. H. Breen describes that even during a boycott of British goods during the years leading up to the Revolutionary War – a commercial form of political engagement but with a highly social flavor – a constant reference to the common good seemed to be about what the colonists ultimately were concerned.[2]  For example, here is how Breen describes women’s role in this organized rejection of imported goods – all of which legally came from Britain.

 

Although colonial males may have hoped to contain the expansion of political participation – both in the streets and in print – it was clear that some women intended to make themselves heard, forcefully articulating what one historian has recently called “communal consciousness.”[3]

 

While Breen doesn’t attribute this sort of thinking to federalist values, parochial federalist thinking (in the opinion of this blogger) does.

On this matter, Daniel Elazar writes,

 

In order to understand American federalism in the broadest sense of the term – not as inter-governmental relations, as federalism has come to be interpreted from managerial perspectives of the 20^th century, not as a matter of the constitutional distribution of powers between the general and state governments, as the constitutional lawyers are wont to see it; not even as the grand political struggle between the Union and the states which covered the canvas of the 19^th century historians; but as something close to what the French term “integral federalism,” that is to say, as the animating and informing principle of the American political system flowing from a covenantal approach to human relationships.[4]

 

Parochial federalism, as defined here, refers to an “integral federalism”:  a comprehensive paradigm of explanation and prescription of federalist ideals, ideas, and values.

          Historian Gordon Wood[5] makes a compelling argument that during the years immediately preceding and following the adoption of the Declaration of Independence, there was an especially strong and pervasive support for the ideals of federalism as defined in this blog.  Under the general political movement known as the Whig tradition (adherents called Whigs or Commonwealthmen), an unprecedented support for the ideals of federal republicanism was genuinely felt among the general population.

          For the sake of presenting a working configuration of the parochial federalist perspective, the ideals of the Whig tradition are used to demonstrate that construct.  Whig ideals, as will be described in this blog, emphasize the federalist elements of community, citizen participation, localism, representative government, equality, liberty, and public virtue.  The Whigs incorporated the religious and enlightened (reasoned) traditions of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries into an ideology.

            That ideology, Wood emphasizes, promoted a moral wholeness for society.  These same elements are seen to counter the prevailing nihilistic, excessively individualistic pathologies plaguing this nation’s society of late[6] and are presented in this blog as a current, viable alternative system of ideas. 

These detrimental conditions include incivility,[7] anti-social behavior,[8] and a lack of educational achievement[9] in relation to current needs of the economy.  And with this context, the next posting will look at American government and civics as a discipline.  But the takeaway here is that with these notions, the subject matter has a definite direction, one which, if adopted, can help lead to a federated nation.

---

[1] Stephen L. Schechter, “Introduction,” in Roots of the Republic:  American Founding Documents Interpreted, edited by Stephen L. Schechter (Madison, WI:  Madison House, 1990), 4.  This citation does not necessarily consider Schechter as an advocate of parochial federalism.

[2] T. H. Breen, The Marketplace of Revolution:  How Consumer Politics Shaped American Independence (New York, NY:  The Oxford University Press, 2004).

[3] Breen, The Marketplace of Revolution, 279.

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

[5] Gordon S. Wood, The Creation of the American Republic 1776-1787 (New York, NY:  W. W. Norton and Company, 1969).

[6] There is a whole literature to support this claim.  One can begin reviewing that literature with Robert N. Bellah, Richard Madsen, William M. Sullivan, Ann Swidler, and Steven M. Tipton, Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life (New York, NY:  Harper and Row, Publishers, 1985/2007).

[7] For example, Ray Williams, “The COVID-19 Pandemic and Rising Incivility,” Medium (September 12, 2021), accessed March 14, 2022, https://raybwilliams.medium.com/the-covid-19-pandemic-and-rising-incivility-679c151ede3 .

[8] For example, “Prevalence of Personality Disorders in Adults,” National Institute of Mental Health (n.d.), accessed March 14, 2022, https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/personality-disorders .

[9] Drew Desilver, “U. S. Students’ Academic Achievement Still Lags That Their Peers in Many other Countries,” Pew Research Center (February 15, 2017), accessed March 14, 2022, https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/15/u-s-students-internationally-math-science/ .