“MILIEU” AS A COMMONPLACE, II

 

To continue this blog’s account of William Schubert’s commonplaces of curriculum[1] with the last of his concerns, milieu, this posting addresses one of the main elements of American culture.  The nation is deeply entrenched in the prevailing perspective of the natural rights view.  This is mostly demonstrated by how individualistic the US is.  Usually, this characteristic is identified and described as a highly positive quality.  But a more reserved view can be illustrated by how World Population Review recently described this trait:

 

[A respected think tank] ranks the United States as the most individualistic country in the world.  Personal freedoms are a deeply held conviction for most Americans.  Varying opinions exist as to whether American individualism can go too far at times, such as when many Americans refused to wear masks or follow recommended contained policies during the COVID-19 pandemic, or whether this self-determination makes Americans more resilient and even altruistic (because they wish to help one another directly rather than relying upon the government to do it) than they would be if individualism was lower.[2]

 

Readers of this blog know the bias here is to see that the levels of individualism the nation holds are highly negative in regard to the health of the nation.

          Probably a good example of how a respected sociologist expressed concern over this trait was Amitai Etzioni (who died this past May).  He documented in 1996 the social trends of deviance and the deterioration of many of the nation’s social institutions as a result of such a view.[3]  Earlier in this blog, it documents how these deteriorating conditions have affected schools.  But Etzioni also sensed the beginnings of a “curl back” period. 

That is, he saw signs that the general population is becoming more sensitive to the lack of values and the consequences such a condition causes.  He cited several movements that are reacting and are based on conservative ideology, such as the religious right.[4]  But he also saw more moderate to liberal responses.  He included in this latter group the current communitarian movement, for which he was one of its main spokespersons. 

The more liberal reaction is not a call for revitalizing a time when Americans were more homogeneous in their thinking, but to a social condition where equality is sustained by meaningful allocation of responsibility and duties and the firm expectation that such an allocation be based on rational and reflected determinations of individual abilities.  Etzioni wrote:

 

Communitarians called for a shoring up of the moral, social, and political foundations.  Objecting to a liberal notion that the family was dysfunctional, defunct, or unnecessary, but not advocating a return to the traditional family, communitarians have favored a peer marriage in which father and mother have the same rights and responsibilities and both are more dedicated to their children.  Communitarians favored relying on moral dialogues, education, and suasion to win people to their ideals, rather than imposing their values by force of law.  They showed faith in faith.[5]

 

To what extent the current “curl back” movement is a viable one, time will tell.  And the time since 1996 has not seen meaningful turns toward a more communal nation.

Supporting this general judgment have been various journalistic reports.  For example, Time magazine recently portrays a fairly self-centered cultural bent in America.  After agreeing with the judgment that the bulk of American history could be described as Americans balancing the demands of community with self-ambition, its account reports:

 

But something has changed. We all feel this. In America today, far too many of us are disconnected from each other, lonely, self-protective, or at each other’s throats. Sacrifice for the common good feels anachronistic. Everything not nailed down has been commoditized or turned into a source of personal enrichment. The daily “shout” shows [sic] and nonstop social media hostility push[es] us into corners and reward balkanization. Sacrificing personal gain for the common good or treating people with different views respectfully or prioritizing collective success over individual success—it’s all for the suckers.

Much has been written about why we tipped toward ourselves over the last several decades. The villains in this story include declines in religious participation and social outings and clubs, fueled in part by television, which keeps us at home. Workplaces also became more focused on profit than on employee well-being and solidarity, and we started lionizing those who stepped over others to get ahead. While those people always existed in society, they were usually identified and treated as outliers that needed to be constrained, not as examples of American greatness.[6]

 

This account highly echoes what this blog has claimed.  But the judgment of this blog is that Etzioni is right when he argued that a shift toward communal concerns was needed not only on a social basis, but also at the individual level.

          How does the communitarian view agree with the proposed approach of liberated federalism?  The judgment is that it is a very congruent argument with the stated view of the communitarians in terms of goals.  To the extent that communitarians can convince people of their position, such development would be helpful in getting the proposed change in curricular approach, to federation theory, adopted.  But the challenges ahead should not be underestimated.

          One such challenge is the singular expectation that schools are built and maintained to only further the job preparedness of students.[7]  That expectation generally coincides with the anti-intellectualism that characterizes American culture.  But the picture is not so one-sided.  Insofar as curricular documents are political products, they reflect what Americans want.

One can generally find the expectation expressed in those curricula that schools should encourage students to be concerned with basic American political values, encourage them to participate in political processes, and understand the complex interrelationships of complex organizations. 

These are central concerns of the proposed liberated federalism approach.  One can argue that these are more rhetorical than substantive beliefs, but at least one can find among some Americans that, idealistically, believe they should be central.  To indulge in some hopeful thinking, if Etzioni was right in thinking that Americans are becoming more concerned with the lack of moral conduct, perhaps this is an ideal time to meet a growing expectation. 

With what?  For one, with a curriculum reform that fits so congruently with what Americans were able to accomplish some time ago – a balance between self-ambition and communal allegiance.  Liberated federalism is a view that in its elements addresses this seemingly contradictory value scheme.  Within that view, one can realize it is not contradictory if one realizes an assumed truth.

That is that one views reality from a more long-term perspective – as earlier Americans were able to do.  In that perspective, one realizes oneself interest is best served in a federated social environment.  That is the aim of implementing a liberated federalist curricular approach, especially in the nation’s civics educational efforts.

---

[1] William H. Schubert, Curriculum:  Perspective, Paradigm, and Possibility (New York, NY:  MacMillan Publishing Company, 1986).  The commonplaces can be defined as follows:

·       The subject matter refers to the academic content presented in the curriculum. 

·       The 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.

Upon reflection, these commonplaces prove to be helpful in asking insightful questions.

[2] “Individualistic Countries 2023,” World Population Review (2023), accessed October 25, 2023, https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/individualistic-countries.

[3] Amitai Etzioni, The Golden Rule:  Community and Morality in a Democratic Society (New York, NY:  Basic Books, 1996).

[4] For example, see David A. Palmer, “Spiritual Individualism, Is the Spiritual Consumer a God?” Medium (April 19, 2021) accessed October 25, 2023, https://medium.com/the-new-mindscape/spiritual-individualism-274361ee74f4.

[5] Etzioni, The Golden Rule, 74.

[6] Richard Weissbourd and Chris Murphy, “We Have Put Individualism Ahead of the Common Good for Too Long,” Time (April 11, 2023), accessed October 25, 2023, https://time.com/6269091/individualism-ahead-of-the-common-good-for-too-long/.

[7] A good deal of the current literature bemoans how schools are not doing a good enough job in preparing young people for the work-a-day world and, only as an afterthought, express concern for civic life.  For example, “Are High Schools Preparing Students for the Future,” XQ Institute (n.d.), accessed October 27, 2023, URL:  https://xqsuperschool.org/reports/are-high-schools-preparing-students-for-the-future/#:~:text=Again%2C%20these%20results%20reflect%20what,characterized%20by%20technology%20and%20automation.