“STUDENT” AS A COMMONPLACE, VI

 

This posting continues a review of student political interests as an item of consideration in developing a civics curriculum.  What follows is in line with one of William Schubert’s commonplaces of curriculum development, the student.[1]  The review is reactive in that it is posed as an alternative approach to what prevails today in American classrooms – a curriculum guided by the natural rights perspective. 

In turn, what prevails, ala natural rights, has a strong proclivity among Americans to treat government policy in a neutral fashion.  That includes dependency on such analyses as what is rendered from neutral protocols such as cost-benefit analyses.  This blog’s last posting describes this practice as it affects classroom instruction of civics. 

A contradictory approach would be one that explores how people feel about the subject or whatever aspect of life is being considered.  A civics curriculum guided by liberated federalism, what this blog promotes, relies heavily on normative, value laden content.  Moral considerations are central and, therefore, are not neutral but guided by federated, constitutional values. 

Moral analysis, as what is being promoted, is more in line with the long-term interests of the individuals or any other entities, such as politically active groups, that engage in political behavior.  Philip Selznick writes about the challenges such a position places on the socialization processes of young citizens.[2] 

The challenges involved are about reconciling the demands of authority and autonomy or with repressive policies as they relate to participatory socialization – a socialization that encourages a civic engagement by students as they are ready to enter their adult years.[3]  Given the issues facing young people during adolescence, these distinctions are highly meaningful.

Of course, in repressive socialization, one is relying on punishment and uses methods to elicit obedience to what is usually considered by adults – mostly parents or teachers – as appropriate behavior.  Often, respect is the sought after disposition of young people.  This sort of socialization relies on external sources of motivation, striving for conformity to some collective standards such as those of a family or religion. 

Here, there is a distinction between adult-centered and child-centered socialization.  In short, each places different emphasis on determining how young people are socialized into what is good, correct, or appropriate behaviors.  In both, adults lead the socialization process to what children and young people should do, but both take different paths.

The more adult-centered participatory socialization places the adult as responsible for ascertaining compliance, and a child-centered participatory socialization places the adult as responsible for ascertaining the child’s needs instead of the other way around.  The child-centered approach is further characterized by extending freedom to youngsters, assuming that learning is the product of trying things out. 

But this latter method should not be confused with parental indifference.  Parents and other supervising adults who engage in participatory socialization do exert a great deal of worry and attention.  They express these concerns in general – as in creating or providing an inquisitive environment – as opposed to detailed supervision. 

This, in other words, is not an either-or choice.  Selznick sees how both are necessary components of a viable socialization strategy.  He writes:

 

At times, repressive authority is in truth the only means of establishing order or accomplishing a morally worthy task; in the circumstances the alternative may well be utopian and self-defeating.  But it is more often tempting to claim there is no other way and to rely on repression as a first rather than as a last resort.  For its part, participatory authority requires very congenial conditions and may readily degenerate into weakness, negligence, and undue permissiveness.  Yet it holds the greater promise, not only for moral development but for high levels of personal achievement.[4]

 

A fraternal ethos best regards this distinction as a continuum in which functional levels of order must be established to be effective and efficient.  But the adults should move toward the participatory end. 

Why?  Because it is the participatory end that promises to result in optimum levels of effectiveness and promises that community can be reached as young people learn how to be active citizens.  A well-thought-out instructional plan can give young students face-to-face experiences that expose students to the real human concerns facing the communities in which they live.

          A relevant national trend noted as early as 1991 is the movement away from traditional institutions and associations, such as political clubs and parties, toward single interest groups.[5]  The consequence of such moves is that public debate tends to disregard the general good.  Politics and its rhetoric become the sole domain of self-interested parties only fighting for narrow ends, which seems to be selfish to the rest of the population. 

A review of a Pew Research Center report adequately shows the negative poll results which document the low esteem among the public in its views of both politicians and current political processes.[6]  Under the natural rights perspective, as it is judged in this account, such alienation to politicians and the political process is tolerable among Americans, even expected given the levels of individualism one finds in the national culture.[7] 

The federalist-republican view sees that alienation as being a political problem in and of itself.  The liberated federalism perspective takes the stand that the nation’s core institutions, such as schools, should actively strive to encourage citizens’ involvement in all aspects of governmental processes.  According to this view, the citizen has a duty and obligation to take on such a role. 

Beyond the obligational aspect, this account judges that such involvement is in the long-term interests, if not the short-term interests, of each individual citizen.  The ideal is that such a role should be taken up by every citizen because it adds to the knowledge base, skill base, and social base of each participant.  These benefits are again intangible and not easy to measure.

          Insofar as the political processes of the nation have been the product of group dynamics, such as the work of special interest groups, the liberated federalism model is insightful regarding the processes of those groups.  While that model is not a group theorist model, it does have a certain overlap with those models.  Students have an interest in understanding the workings of groups in a pluralistic, democratic society, so that they can better understand current political operations.

This posting argues that the national welfare will be served to the extent that group structure and group decision-making processes approach the ideal that the liberated federalism model offers, in which the participants of such groups feel a sense of partnership with their fellow group members.  The students’ long-term interests are advanced by each student becoming aware of such an ideal and acting to support, both in words and actions, its normative aims.

---

[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 (students) 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.

[2] Philip Selznick, The Moral Commonwealth:  Social Theory and the Promise of Community (Berkeley, CA:  University of California Press, 1992).

[3] See for example, Michael Fullan, Leading in a Culture of Change (Hoboken, NJ:  Jossey-Bass, 2020).

[4] Selznick, The Moral Commonwealth, 268, emphasis in the original.

[5] 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).  More recently, see Omer Taspinar, “America Remains Self-Centered, Brookings (December 6, 2010), accessed September 30, 2023, URL:  https://www.brookings.edu/articles/america-remains-self-centered/.

[6] Public Trust in Government:  1958-2023,” Pew Research Center (September 19, 2023), accessed September 30, 2023, URL:  https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/09/19/public-trust-in-government-1958-2023/.

[7] For example, see Jean M. Twenge, Generations:  The Real Differences between Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, Boomers, and Silents – and What They Mean for America’s Future (New York, NY:  Atria Books, 2023).  It should be noted that individualism is not all bad.  It has its positive elements, but here the concern is with excessive individualism at the expense of communal interests.