CRITICAL THEORISTS' POLITICAL VIEW

While economics is the central concern of critical theorists, they speak the language of politics.  This blog is currently reviewing critical theory’s perspective on government and politics.  The political system, to Marxists, is part of the superstructure, the institution built upon the demands of the economic elites and relied upon to protect most directly their interests. 

Politics and government are counted on, in socialists’ plans, to determine the rules by which socialist practices will be established.  This posting will describe and explain the relationship between how critical theorists see their moral outrage over the exploitive practices in market economies and their view of government and politics.

          As pointed out in a previous posting, there are various intellectual sources that influence the political beliefs of critical pedagogues.  Those sources include Hegelianism, neo-Marxist thought, the Frankfort School of Social Research, the works of John Dewey (especially his later work), post structuralists, post modernists, Jurgen Habermas, and other leftist scholars.

Their epistemological bent opposes research methods common among natural rights advocates; that is, they discard behavioral or positivist (“scientific”) protocols.  They instead rely on rational processes – dialectical (logical) processes of thought.  If readers would like to read the works of recent critical pedagogues, they might look up Paulo Freire, Michael Apple, Bill Ayers, and Henry Giroux.

Stemming from the work of Lester Frank Ward in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the curricular approach known as social reconstructionism has influenced or guided the overall thrust of critical pedagogues.[1]  As the years have passed, more formal, leftist influences have made their mark on the works of critical theorists.

In the last posting, the point was made that to varying degrees, all critical pedagogues adopt Marxian ideas.  To understand the thrust of their work, one needs to appreciate how it reflects socialist thinking.  While this is true, one should keep in mind that some critical pedagogues are barely Marxists at all, but to contextualize their work, one is benefited by reviewing basic Marxian thinking.

At a minimum, the reader should understand the following concepts:  dialectical materialism, class struggle, surplus value, dictatorship of the proletariat, and superstructure.

Dialectical materialism refers to Marx's view of the sweep of history as recurring cycles of haves oppressing the have-nots.  At its essence, this development has placed entrepreneur class – the bourgeoisie – in power today.  The have-nots are the laboring class, or as Marx referred to it, the proletariat.  As with previous political cycles, Marx foresaw that the working class, the have-nots, will eventually overthrow the bourgeoisie. 

But with this revolutionary change, because of the historical factors characterizing this overthrow, the workers were to establish a political regime where no other class would exist.  Therefore, there would not be an exploitive relationship among the people of that resulting society.  This would end the cyclical nature of politics in human history. 

Class struggle is simply the clash of interests between the oppressors and the oppressed.  In the capitalist system, the oppressors are the business owners who own the means of production.  The oppressed are the working class made up primarily of mine workers and factory workers.  During the time Marx wrote, these workers, the proletariat, usually worked during severe conditions:  long hours and dangerous and odious environments.

Surplus value refers to the excess value of produced goods and services that workers create after the costs of production are paid.  Since the value of any produced good or service is value added to natural resources or unfinished goods by the toil of workers, that value rightfully belongs to the workers.  Under capitalism, the owners of the means of production call this value profit and “steal” it from the workers.  This is the essence of politics in a capitalist system.

Dictatorship of the proletariat is the resulting power arrangement after the workers overthrow the capitalist system in which only the interests of the workers will be recognized as legitimate.  All individuals in the production processes will be workers.  Since this will eliminate class struggle, the source of political conflict will disappear and eventually, the state or government will “wither away.”

Superstructure refers to the institutional arrangement in any given society with the economic institution being the foundation and all others constituting the superstructure.  In this way, the economic institution has enormous influence over the beliefs and assumptions held by those who control the major institutions. 

Crude Marxism holds that this is a one-way relationship in that the organizing beliefs of the economic institution basically dictate the beliefs of all the other institutions.  Moderate Marxism holds that the relationship is two-way, one in which the other institutions have, to some degree, an influence on the prevailing economic beliefs.

Both forms hold that the economic arrangements will at least provide the parameters in which all institutions operate.  This relation, in terms of civics education, is particularly important as it determines the policy by which government administers public schools and even regulates private schools.  Government policy will basically protect and promote the interests of those who own or control the productive forces of an economy.

Also, the institution of education will be ultimately controlled to advance the beliefs that sustain the position of the ruling class.  Currently, Marxists would point to the promotion of vouchers and charter schools as examples of the ruling class either taking over or sustaining control of public education.[2]

As pointed out, not every critical pedagogue buys into these Marxian ideas; consequently, many look to other sources to define how they see the political, economic, and social relationships in society.  The result has been that they have utilized influences from well-respected social scientists who range from Talcott Parsons to Sigmund Freud.  The reader is encouraged to consider this literature to see the breadth of these other influences.

Critical thinkers and researchers spend a lot of ink reporting and analyzing evidence they believe verifies their view of the social realities that occur in capitalist nations such as that of the US.  In education literature, for example, they provide statistical data and firsthand accounts about how a mal-distribution of income and other resources lead to educational disadvantages of one sort or another for the oppressed classes.  This, for them, signals exploitation and systemic barriers to true equality.

The purest of Marxists bristle at “liberal” solutions to these conditions.  They see programs like Head Start as merely capitalists' strategies to ameliorate the demands of the working classes and a way to forestall the eventual rise of the proletariat which will lead to the overthrow of the capitalist class – the manifestation of the “Marxist scenario.”

Others see liberal or progressive policies as part of a process by which a more socialist governance and economics are approached.  That is, they are socialist “light” policies that serve to making conditions better and at the same time, educate a populous on how socialism is a preferred mode of social policy.  For example, the self-avowed socialist Bernie Sanders’ current support of Obamacare can be seen in this light.

Overall, therefore, critical pedagogues see politics as a battle between economic classes.  They complicate this picture with attempts to consider other sources of economic exploitation, such as discrimination and any other form of injustice.  Therefore, they are, for instance, vehemently committed to fighting racism and sexism.

Currently, one can see this battle over health care policy as demonstrating this class struggle.  For example, the bill that just passed the House of Representatives is being described as a tax cut for the super wealthy amounting to hundreds of billions of dollars.  One can see this example as how critical theorists see government and politics acting out in the US and around the world.

---

[1] Herbert M. Kliebard, The Struggle for the American Curriculum: 1983-1958, (New York, NY: Routledge, 1986).  In terms of Ward’s influence, see Kliebard’s book.  To be clear, Ward promoted the use of positivist protocols in social science research. 

[2] Diane Ravitch, The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education (New York, NY: Basic Books, 2010).  For this last point, see Ravitch’s book, The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education. Ms. Ravitch is not a critical pedagogue and cannot be categorized as a Marxist by any stretch of the imagination. But in her book, she gives an excellent description of how business interests are helping to destroy our public-school system. 

A CRITICAL MORAL STAND

This blog is in the midst of reviewing the moral stand that critical theory espouses.  The reason is to convey the elements of that mental construct that stand in opposition to the natural rights position, the position that is dominant in American thinking about government and politics.  It is felt that comprehending this opposition completes an understanding of what is prevalent today.

With the natural rights position, the trump value of liberty precludes that construct from espousing any substantive stand over most moral questions.  That is the case because that position holds the singular value that individuals have the right to determine which values they adopt.  Therefore, most moral questions go wanting when it comes to counting on this construct to provide guidance; it is up to the individual to decide what is good and evil.

While this moral thinking prevails among natural rights advocates, there is no singular moral view among critical theorists and critical pedagogues.  What most critical pedagogues do share is some allegiance to Marxian ideals.  As such, to a large extent, this common core tends to influence the way adherents see the various moral questions facing societal conditions. 

To remind the reader, Marx’s focus was on the conflict of interests between the business owning class and the laboring class.  To some, the social forces dictating the conflict between entrepreneurs and laborers reflect historical forces and are mostly amoral.  That is, there is limited moral consideration when people are simply following their natures and promoting their personal interests that are defined by the position they happen to inhabit.  

These are purely historical factors.  History has placed people in such positions and they, along with all of nature, will simply develop according to deterministic laws.  But to most critical pedagogues, what is at stake are moral considerations.  Their commitment to the critical construct is based on more of a moral outlook. 

For example, those who follow liberation theology equate the inequality existing in developing countries to reflecting sinful behavior.[1]  But as a way of demonstrating what can be a critical theory argument, what follows is but one view or argument supporting a moral position to which critical pedagogues might ascribe – there are other arguments.

In a previous posting, there is a listing of mental orientations regarding equality.  One of them is equal condition.  If one is an adherent of critical theory, one would be significantly concerned with the observation that since the 1980s, within the US, there has been a definite shift in public sentiment toward that orientation.  That is an orientation that is associated with the natural rights construct and champions market determinations for economic policy. 

It states that all citizens are equal before the law; no one person should be advantaged by public action over another, and compensation for labor and property should be derived from competitive processes.  Therefore, public actions that are set up to provide public assistance under this orientation in its purest forms are judged to be immoral in that they take from some to give to others. 

This, according to critical theory advocates, defies equal condition or equal treatment in any meaningful way because it leads to such inequality in terms of material wellbeing.  This is borne out by an array of statistics.  For example, since 1980, there has been an overall increase in our national domestic product (GDP) of just under 200%[2] while the population grew by 42%.[3]  But when one considers how this increase has been distributed, one is confronted with disconcerting numbers. 

At this time, when there has been a largess, there has been a greater concentration of wealth, with most of the gains going to the upper income groups, especially the top 1 percent.  To add further injury, one should not forget the catastrophic effects of the Great Recession.  In other words, not all families are enjoying the new-found riches equitably, at least to any meaningful degree.

According to G. William Domhoff, in 2007, the top 1% of the US population owned 34.6% of the net worth and financial wealth of the nation. The next 19% owned 50.5%. That adds up to 85.1 % for the top 20% of the population, leaving 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80%.[4]  David Cay Johnston notes: 

The median income taxpayer – half made more, half less – made slightly less than $33,000 [in 2009] (and their average adjusted gross income was under $15,300, or less than $300 per week). The median income taxpayer would need 10.6 years to earn as much as someone at the low end of the top 1 percent.[5]

Yet Congress, from time to time, considers lowering the tax burden even further for the very rich.  President Trump’s latest proposal – as skimpy as it is – follows suit.

The “tide has risen, but not all boats have been elevated with that tide,” which leads one to the question of whether this disparity or inequality constitutes exploitation.  The term exploitation denotes an act that treats someone unfairly or unjustly.  But such a definition is subject to interpretation and is vague without some standard.  Many such standards have been offered in the literature concerning exploitation. 

A definition of exploitation that would garner the approval of many critical pedagogues is one offered by Johan Galtung.[6]  He sees exploitation as a relative concept.  That is, in any given society, he identifies exploitation happening when one group, usually an economic class of people, becomes wealthier at a faster rate than other groups. 

This allows for certain possibilities.  For example, you might see all groups becoming richer, but one group is getting richer at a faster rate or, in a more visible form of exploitation, one group is getting richer, but other groups are getting poorer. 

Applying this definition to the US, we can safely judge that exploitation is currently occurring.  But, of course, there are those who will seek to justify these conditions.  For example, one might believe that those groups that are getting richer faster are doing so because they are entrepreneurs and, due to their hard work, they deserve to become richer. 

Accepting that version, one’s inquiry should consider the assumptions of such a conclusion.  For instance, can one see common patterns among those who are and those who are not so advantaged?  Are there certain races, nationalities, religious affiliations, ethnicities, gender, or age groups that are more likely to be advantaged or disadvantaged? 

If this is the case, a student of these matters needs to ask certain questions unless he or she ascribes to the more genetic explanations for success (such as the racist beliefs of the KKK). 

If hard work is the key factor to the almost exclusion of all other factors, then success should be randomly distributed among all other classifications.  In addition, such practices as particular strategies in childrearing would be irrelevant in explaining the likelihood of success among those who are able to grasp the golden ring. 

What neighborhoods, schools, and other social platforms or milieus an individual is exposed to are equally irrelevant.  After all, the determining factor is hard work; that’s all that counts.  Yet one knows this is not true.  One need only look at the pains the rich take to control these other factors when it comes to rearing their own children. 

And once one accepts such factors in determining who is successful and who is not, one brings into play the formative forces pointed out by such writers as John Rawls.  That is, each person individually is, at best, minimally responsible for his/her individual success.[7]  One is fortunate if he/she has been born into or currently resides under the circumstances that lead to success.

So, a moral stand for critical pedagogues can be one based on fairness in which equality should be truly extended to all.  That is, to some meaningful minimum degree, there should be truly equal results, legal, social, and economic for all.  As such, critical theory advocates adopt the equal results orientation of equality.

This leads one to first recognize the existence of exploitation (the lack of equality), understand the basis for its existence, recognize the processes by which it is maintained and defended, and finally and probably most important, act to rectify the entailed injustices.

To give the reader a sense of what such thinkers promote, the following quote is offered: it is the first paragraph of an article that appears in an issue of the professional journal, Educational Researcher, a publication of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), the largest professional organization of academic educators:

The United States is one of the most affluent countries in the world, yet U. S. students' average achievement tends to lag behind that of students in many other affluent countries.  How can this be? …  [T]he United States differs from other affluent countries in a crucial way that has received less attention:  It is the most economically unequal.  That is, income and wealth are more unevenly distributed in the United States than in any other society.[8]

Such concerns are common fare for professional educational journals. 

This reflects the popularity of critical arguments among this professional population in the academic ranks.  The above, in effect, offers a moral position for critical educators. 

Before leaving this description of critical theory’s moral beliefs, one can, in summary, say this review is anchored in a commitment to the value of equality as a trump value.  What does equality, according to critical theory, look like?

Equality, within this moral stand, is defined as a social and economic reality.  It is a societal arrangement characterized either by a population in which the people are basically equal in the ownership or access to material resources or they are closing the gap among the rates of advancement that the separate economic groupings of people within a society are experiencing.  This latter characteristic would address Galtung’s concern outlined above. 

To the extent a society approaches one or another of these conditions, it is moral; to the extent it falls short of these conditions, it is immoral.  This, if accepted, would be for critical pedagogues their moral belief and, as such, motivates what they strive to promote or enable in their political and educational goals.

The phrase, “if accepted,” is used because some critical pedagogues view these concerns from a deterministic perspective, rendering the whole concern amoral.  But for critical pedagogues who are not deterministic – and from this writer’s observation most critical educators in the US are not – in their orientation, this concern for equality, as just defined, constitutes their moral stand.

---

[1] Gustavo Gutierrez, A Theology of Liberation:  History, Politics, and Salvation (Maryknoll, NY:  Orbis Books, 1988).

[2] “US GDP Growth Rate by Year,” accessed September 7, 2016, http://www.multpl.com/us-gdp-growth-rate/table/by-year .

[3] “US Population by Year,” accessed September 7, 2016, http://www.multpl.com/united-states-population/table .

[4] G. William Domhoff, Who Rules America? Sixth edition,   (New York, NY:  McGraw-Hill, 2009).

[5] David Cay Johnston, “Beyong the 1 Percent,” Reuters, accessed September 7, 2016, http://blogs.reuters.com/david-cay-johnston/2011/10/25/beyond-the-1-percent/ .

[6] Johan Galtung, “A Structural Theory of Imperialism,” Journal of Peace Research 8, (1971):  81-117.

[7] Chandran Kukathas and Philip Pettit, Rawls:  A Theory of Justice and Its Critics, (Stanford, CA:  Stanford University Press, 1990).

[8] Denis J. Condron, Egalitarianism and Educational Excellence:  Compatible Goals for Affluent Societies?, Educational Researcher 40 (2) (2011):  47-55, 47.  To provide background for this cited quote, at the time this writer came upon it, he was doing research.  He wanted to find an example of critical pedagogues' work.  He looked up the AERA's website and readily found this article.  He didn't need to look far.

A CHOSEN VIEW OF EQUALITY

For the same reasons this blog used in reviewing the natural rights construct, the place to begin describing critical theory is with its moral perspective.  That is, moral positioning is what motivates someone to devise or adopt whatever other elements this construct offers.  Stated another way, initially one should see what the theory defines as good and evil. 

Any construct entails standards that reflect values arranged in a hierarchical order.  Atop that arrangement is a trump value.  Natural rights holds liberty as the trump value.  Critical theory sees equality as the trump value.  Critical theorists might hold liberty as important, even highly important, but in situations when one of these values needs to be chosen over the other, critical theorists will choose equality above liberty or any other value when it comes to societal issues. 

By placing equality as the trump value, it will affect how critical theorists will judge other social concerns.  One example is that in their use of the term liberty, critical theorists tend to define it as a quality that, to be meaningful, depends on people being equal, not just in terms of standing “before the law,” but in terms of income and wealth. 

Short of that level of equality, politics becomes something beyond which lower-income citizens have influence in determining what public policy will be.  Therefore, public policy will be skewed against these citizens and, consequently, will offend their liberty. 

  This example indicates that equality means different things to different people.  To those who support the natural rights view, as well as others such as monarchists, liberty means something other than what critical theorists believe equality to be.  As a matter of fact, in the nation’s history, there have been several definitions of equality that different groups have favored.  Five of these definitions deserve one’s attention.

So, to provide some context for how critical theorists view equality, a quick summary of these definitions would be helpful so that one can better measure what they are advocating, especially in political matters.  One might be prone to think that all Americans, no matter how constrained, support equality, if only in the abstract.  Yet that is not the case.

At the beginning of the nation's history, it is safe to say that the founding fathers’ understanding of what equality was is not what most Americans today define equality to be. Their most “equality” prone advocates were probably in favor of what one could call “earned elitism.”

Actually, this societal attribute has changed as the nation evolved into what it is today.  As the years rolled by, certain views concerning equality, some supportive, some not, have sprung up, gathered support, and then lost that support.  One can detect in that history five general orientations concerning equality and all of them are not supportive of what one could reasonably consider equality to be.

Each view or orientation is a way of seeing what the relevant worth of an individual is.  The orientations are genetic elitism, earned elitism, equal condition, regulated condition, and equal result.  These orientations have been reflected in the political culture prevalent during the different eras of our history. 

Generally, the orientations are listed here in the order from the most non-egalitarian view, genetic elitism, to the most egalitarian view, equal results.  Here is a short definition of each:

Genetic elitism believes that nature has determined by the genetic distribution of skills and abilities who should lead.  From this state of affairs, leadership should be reserved for certain families.

Earned elitism believes that nature does determine who is gifted, but that leadership itself, in all realms of life, should be reserved for those who through their efforts demonstrate their skills and exhibit superior performances in their chosen fields.

Equal condition believes that everyone is equal before the law and that economic and other benefits should be distributed to those who perform marketable skills and the amounts of compensation should be determined by competitive processes.

Regulated condition believes that market processes or other competitive processes should determine basic distributive decisions, but that markets and other competitive processes can and do fail.  Therefore, these processes should be regulated so that all citizens are afforded basic opportunities and minimum living standards.  Mainly, the belief goes on to see skills as the result of arbitrary forces and that anyone can find him/herself in a significantly deprived state.

Critical theory promotes equal results.  Below, this bias is more fully explained.  What are the attributes of equal results?  Here is a list of its beliefs: 

1.      Personal abilities are primarily developed from genetic or social conditions not subject to a person’s control.  Therefore, people who secure very high incomes are exploiting conditions they have/had little control over creating or developing.

2.     Such exploitation reflects a randomness in the distribution of skills, opportunities, connections, family reputations, genetic makeup, historical context, and the like with which some might be advantaged to have.  To unequally compensate such advantages is judged to be unjust.

3.     Not only is this unequal reward system unjust at any level, but in advanced, capitalistic economic arrangements, one finds that some can earn in a few days what takes others a lifetime to save.

4.     Marketable skills and other prized assets in capitalist systems have little to do with a person’s merit as a person and, in turn, in allocating the rewards he/she can secure.  Instead, marketable skills or other arbitrary assets have little concern for human qualities and, therefore, the processes by which compensation is determined dehumanizes the affected individuals.

5.      All human labors are intrinsically equal and the compensation received for labor should be within narrow limits.  The only difference among the labors performed is simply that they reflect different roles.  Hard work is expected not only from highly compensated workers or business owners; laborers also engage in hard work. 

Therefore, labor should be seen in terms of equal value.  An example: the movie star who performs in front of a camera should not make so much more than the cameraperson.  Both are equally responsible for the product produced.

True, such beliefs are seen by many in this country as being highly un-American.  Yet these beliefs have been attractive to many Americans, albeit always a minority, at different times in the nation’s history.  As a matter of fact, some who have expressed these beliefs are/were considered as prominent individuals. 

One such American was Eugene V. Debs, a prominent labor leader and presidential candidate in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.  Admittedly, his views were never that popular, but his positions reflected a tradition of thought that dates to political writers from the more obscure John Ruskin to, at least to some degree, Henry David Thoreau.

Yes, the above beliefs are Marxian-socialist ideals, but they are not unique to Marx.  They can also be found in the works of Leo Tolstoy and Mahatma Gandhi.  In America, such beliefs or ideals have been given more positive endorsement among the populous during times in which extreme exploitation of laborers was prevalent. 

Such times include the industrial revolution of the late 1800s or the Great Depression.  In the last election cycle, socialist Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign attracted a significant number of followers.  All socialists, at least to some level, espouse Marxian principles.[1]  It should be added that during those same times, there is also an uptick in nationalist sentiments – one can see that happening right now as displaced laborers in advanced countries feel threatened.[2]

While this Marxian source is common among critical pedagogues, its theoretical origins vary.  They can be from such sources as Tolstoy’s Christianity to Marx’s sense of science and scientific thinking which was influenced by Thomas Hobbes.  Marx claimed that the eventuality of a socialist state – one in which productive property would be owned in common – was an inevitable result of how productive forces would develop.[3]  Yet in all this scientific thinking, one can easily detect a moral claim lying below the surface.

---

[1] For a dramatization of such advocacy in an American setting, see the film, Reds (Beatty), starring Warren Beatty, who was also the film's producer and director.

[2] One can cite the Marxian scenario in which laborers are displaced by labor saving machines – automation.  Add to that the competition from low wage countries (emerging countries) and one has the makings of a disgruntled labor class.  Many attribute these conditions for the election of Donald Trump.

[3] In Marx’s view, the development of society is simply the product of deterministic laws in which people, following their nature of being hedonistic egoists – a la Hobbes – and are simply pursuing their selfish interests. 

A CRITICAL TURN

A description of the natural rights construct and its effect on civics education would not be complete without reviewing the main critique of it:  the critical theory construct which is primarily supported by academics.  In the postings leading to this one, this writer has been reviewing the natural rights construct.  That review was completed with the last posting.  To use, advisedly, the language of its origins, critical theory is the antithesis of the natural rights view.

          What this and following postings will do is answer three questions:  what view of morality motivates an adherent to harbor critical theory beliefs? What view of government and politics does the construct describe and explain?  And how do the construct’s adherents view their contributions toward the common good?

But before beginning this brief view, here is a word of “warning.”  Unlike the natural rights construct, this construct has very little influence or presence in American classrooms.  Why?  A simple reason for this is that its ideas and ideals do not have much support among the American people.

For those who do find this construct appealing, there is a wide variance of support from being merely sympathetic with its concerns to a life-defining commitment to its tenets.  While any set of ideas will not garner complete support among those who are attracted to it – that includes the natural rights construct – this is even truer for critical theory. 

The fact that the construct is based on Marxian ideas – a set of ideas Americans have been historically antagonistic toward – goes a long way to explain this lack of support among the general population or lack of consistent support among its adherents. 

For most teachers and other establishment educators (administrators and workers at educational bureaucracies), Marxian positions tend to be considered un-American.  As such, those who support part or all of it might be seen by many or most Americans as less legitimate than what is warranted. 

To fully appreciate the natural rights view, one needs to understand what the view engenders in opposition.  So, here is, hopefully, a legitimate and respectful presentation of this other view, albeit a short one, for a reader who might harbor antagonistic biases.

If only a few teachers and school administrators support critical theory, also known as critical pedagogy, one can ask:  why bother with this view at all?  In the various schools of education on the nation’s college and university campuses, critical theory has become the dominant perspective and that is what, frankly, keeps it an active force in education. 

These educators run the teacher education programs at the nation’s universities and colleges.  While this is true, their lasting effect on incoming teachers is highly limited.  In most cases, students who are exposed to ideas that run counter to what has become accepted truth will tend to dismiss such messages.  They have little influence. 

Upon finishing these few years away from home at a higher educational facility, students return to accept teaching jobs either in their hometowns or in towns or areas nearby.  In their assigned schools, they reemerge among the milieu of other teachers and school personnel who hold beliefs and attitudes that are more familiar.  These beliefs tend to be antithetical to the beliefs espoused by critical pedagogues.  It turns out that these other co-workers have much more influence on these newly credentialed teachers.

But it is important to present this critical theory construct to the reader because parents and teachers should have general knowledge of what these scholars behind the ivy-covered walls are presenting.  While this writer is not a critical pedagogue, those who are have important ideas to offer.  They offer legitimate concerns and challenging ideas.  Their recommended approaches to curriculum should be given respectful consideration. 

They are sources of information about which typical citizens are not conscious.  They shed light on tilted policies that favor advantaged, economic groups.  These conditions are verifiable and they seriously question the levels of justice the nation extends to lower income segments of the population.  As such, critical pedagogues deserve the attention of any citizen who is serious about social capital.  Hopefully, the following postings will stir an increased level of interest among the readership.

A COSTLY SHIFT

This blog, of late, revisited what it means when it claims that the nation’s civics curriculum is guided by the natural rights construct.  To restate this basic claim:  the nation, in the years following World War II, shifted in its basic view of government and politics from one which held as dominant a federalist view to one that can be designated as the natural rights view. 

That shift has been so extensive that the natural rights construct is guiding the content choices of the nation’s civics curriculum in its schools.  This blog has attempted to provide evidence for this claim.  More recently, this evidence has included a look at civics standards and at the textbooks used in both American government and civics courses.

In practical terms, what does that mean?  The primary effect is an overall trend to promote a consumer orientation to citizenship.  This trend is counter to the federalist view that emphasizes a more communal view, one that heightens a sense of partnership among the citizenry.  A federalist bent sees government as an extension of themselves, while a natural rights view sees government as a provider of collective or public services.

With this shift, a people has other goals and aims than were prevalent in an earlier era.  It is useful to know and understand this newer bias.  One can detect, in the literature, that natural rights educators pursue the following goals:

•      teach the structural components of government (such as the Presidency)

•      teach a view of government as a subservient institution which attempts to satisfy the collective interests of individual citizens

•      teach the philosophical basis of government’s role as defender of individual rights, placing the emphasis on the individual to the minimization of collective interests

•      convey the legitimate needs of government to encourage and facilitate degrees of support among the populous so that political stress within the political system can be kept at manageable and even useful levels

•      portray a realistic account of politics within the nation so that students will be able to reasonably interact with governmental agencies and offices to pursue their political demands in ways akin to a consumer seeking any good or service

•      express the technical nature of political activity with ample respect for political expertise of professionals which includes elected officials and bureaucrats

By accomplishing these goals, the natural rights argument holds that the subject matter of government and civics, its knowledge and skills, will be presented in such a way as to advance good citizenship.  As far as it goes, the writer has little argument with the natural rights perspective.  His concern lies more with the lack of its comprehensiveness. 

Being a limited view, the resulting curriculum robs students of a sense of partnership among citizens to work toward a more perfect union.  Instead, the ultimate message is:  here in this course, the student will be taught what he/she needs to know to be able to seek satisfaction for any reasonable demand.  Little to no concern or information is offered as to the richness that a more collective view offers and with that, there is little to no concern for social capital.

Again, relying on the definition of Robert Putnam, social capital means having an active, public-spirited citizenry, egalitarian political relations, and a social environment of trust and cooperation.[1]  This sense is what a more federalist approach tried to convey in the earlier years of the republic.

Instead, what a natural rights guided curriculum relays is:  here is what a student needs to know to compete for what a government can provide.  While this latter information is practical, it does not, in the opinion of this writer, convey what a viable democracy needs to convey to the younger generation.  This blog has attempted to describe what have been the consequences of this shift.

---

[1] Robert D. Putnam, “Bowling Alone:  America's Declining Social Capital,” Journal of Democracy, January, pp. 65-78.

REVIEWING THE MAGRUDER CASE

In the last posting, the point was made that typical teachers see their jobs as conveying the information contained in a course’s textbook.  That reality places the textbook as defining curricular content for any given course.  In the case of high school government, the textbook that is overwhelmingly used is Magruder’s American Government textbook.[1] 

So, if one wants to ascertain the content of government at the high school level, reviewing the content in Magruder’s would give one that information.  On the other hand, if one wanted to do the same for the middle school level, one could look at comparable civics textbooks, for example Glencoe Civics Today:  Citizenship, Economics, and You.[2] 

In addition to this Glencoe book, there are various textbooks that are popular and widely used at the middle school level.[3]  In all cases, the choice of a book is left to the district.

In considering this relationship between curricular content and textbook content, one should understand that teachers are not generally mindful of how the text reflects a curricular choice; they just know that the book is what they have been given to teach the course in question. 

The following description will indicate that more is involved in this choice.  In what follows, this writer is attempting to get at the assumed motivation the authors, publishers, and adopters of the text had in mind when Magruder’s for high school students was chosen. 

Further, the writer has selected a singular topic that he feels reflects a social capital concern.  He indicates how this text, Magruder’s, treats that topic as this will be an efficient way of determining how much this text addresses this central concept.  The writer feels that Social Security is particularly suitable. 

Below, this posting will outline how this textbook covers Social Security, but before that description is offered, it is useful to contextualize this information.  This posting looks at three concerns:  how does the text handle the topic of citizenship, how does the text provide information about factors associated with social capital such as community, and why does the review select Social Security?

To begin, one does not find citizenship, an important aspect of civic instruction, within the general text of the book.  Instead, scattered among its pages is a series of inserts entitled “Citizenship 101.”  As such, the message is that this topic is a supplement to what is important. 

The inserts contain several descriptive accounts that give general advice, usually in perfunctory language, on common activities available to citizens.[4]  This writer finds this treatment of citizenship to be easily ignored or lost as a teacher works through the content of the book.  This aspect of the text is very telling as it betrays a lack of concern or real commitment toward encouraging an active citizenship.  

Adding to this context, the rest of the text further avoids social capital concerns.  For example, the text has few or no words to describe or otherwise treat the following concepts which are deemed to be supportive of social capital: community, community development, neighborhoods, charities, or non-profit organizations; that is, one cannot find these topics in the text’s index. 

And a final contextual concern is to answer the question of why Social Security?  It was chosen because it is felt to be the most interpersonal program that the Federal Government runs, especially its retirement program.  In effect, the program has one segment of the population providing for another.  It works by collecting a FICA[5] tax from those young enough to work and uses those funds to provide benefits for the older generation that is of retirement age. 

In short, Social Security is an intergenerational compact.  By setting up this compact, the Federal Government unites the interests of citizens to be closer together and by doing so, potentially encourages a more tangible sense of partnership among the citizenry.  And yet, one would be hard-pressed to find citizens who would describe Social Security with a language that would convey this sense of social capital at work. 

Few citizens seem to understand this basic relationship.  Instead, Americans speak of the program as something providing benefits they are due because they paid into it all their working years.  They see it as a forced savings program.  This is not an accurate depiction.

Many would be surprised, for example, to know that if a person lives a normal lifespan, he/she will most likely receive more in benefits than if the taxes were voluntarily saved and accrued normal interest returns.[6]  Yet the program’s essence of being this demonstrable partnership – or an element of one – seems to go un-noticed. 

With that context, how does Magruder’s describe this program?  On page 289, it points out that members of Congress are covered by Social Security;

Circa page 440 informs that Social Security is an independent agency and is not housed in one of the “Cabinet” departments;

 It describes on page 460 that Social Security is a social insurance program funded by a social insurance tax;

On page 461, it classifies the FICA tax as a regressive tax; that is, it is a “flat” tax up to a certain income level and income above that amount is not taxed;

 Finally, on page 469, the book explains that the program, as an entitlement program, has “uncontrollable” expenditures.  That means that the monies are automatically spent without having to secure new authorization.[7]

This last point is, of course, only partly true in that this spending can be controlled – increased, limited, or eliminated – if the law that authorizes the program is changed by Congress. That’s unlikely, given the popularity of the program among the citizenry.  Such a move would be political suicide for those who would fundamentally threaten Social Security. 

In sum, Magruder’s does not describe the interpersonal or intergenerational foundation of the program, much less explain it and, due to the lack of such instruction, little is done to inform and encourage a more “partnered” view of Social Security.  This, of course, enables, in part, the misunderstanding of the program described above.

So, overall, Magruder’s, as demonstrated by this limited evidence, does little to promote social capital.  It, instead, promotes a natural rights view.  If one is encouraged to look at the textbook and see if he/she agrees with this assessment, the book can be easily obtained by acquiring it at just about any public high school.

One should have a list of governmental departments or agencies in mind when reviewing the book.  He or she should go back to the index and look at how extensive and in what manner that part of the government is explained.  An overall question in such a review can be:  does this description review a government policy or program that reflects the voice of the people of the United States or is it described as a bureaucratic based public service that is there for the consumption by citizens? 

For those in favor of promoting social capital, the above would probably be disheartening.  It begs the question:  should Magruder’s be gotten rid of?  Definitely not.  The book is a good reference book and that’s how it should function in the classroom. 

As a “go-to” source for structural information about what agencies and departments exist and make up the government, the text can be of recurring value.  What a teacher, though, should keep to his/her counsel is what direction the course he/she teaches should follow.

Whether that teacher uses an approach that attempts to bolster social capital or not, that decision is one that should be made for a particular time, class, and school.[8]  In most cases, this writer believes that’s the way a course should be guided.

---

[1] Willian A. McClenaghan, Magruder’s American Government (Florida Teacher’s Edition) (Boston, MA:  Prentice Hall/Pearson, 2013).

[2] Richard C. Remy, John J. Patrick, David C. Saffell, and Gary E. Clayton.  Glencoe Civics Today:  Citizenship, Economics, and You.  New York, NY:  McGraw Hill Glencoe, 2008.

[3] See James E. Davis, Peter Woll, and Phyllis M. Fernlund, Civics:  Government and Economics in Action (Upper Saddle River, NJ:  Prentice Hall Publisher, 2009) AND William H. Hartley and William S. Vincent, W. S., Holt American Civics (New York, NY:  Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 2003).

[4] Given the overall challenge of “teaching” an almost 800-page textbook in fewer than 18 weeks, it is hard to imagine that these inserts get much attention.

[5] FICA stands for Federal Insurance Contributions Act.

[6] Louis Jacobson, “Medicare and Social Security:  What You Paid Compared with What You Get,” PolitiFact accessed September 11, 2016.  http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-met er/article/2013/feb/01/medicare-and-social-security-what-you-paid-what-yo/.

[7] Willian A. McClenaghan, Magruder’s American Government (Florida Teacher’s Edition) (Boston, MA:  Prentice Hall/Pearson, 2013).

[8] This is not to say that district or state authorities should not issue a curriculum.  But no matter how extensive such efforts are, there is always quite a bit of leeway teachers have interpreting these authoritative dictums.