MAJORITY POWER AND MINORITY INTERESTS

This blog, as its regular readers can attest, promotes federation theory.  The introduction to this posting, found in its Blogspot version, reviews the general ideas constituting that theory.  As that review indicates, the aim of issuing and promoting the theory is to offer civics teachers a guide by which to choose content for their subject.  Through the history of the blog, this writer has informed the blog’s readers what the attributes of that theory are.

          One of its main set of ideas has to do with what constitutes an ideal makeup in a polity’s governance.  That includes the attribute of a qualified majority rule.  That is, an ideal federal union is structured so that policy is enacted through mechanisms that reflect basically the majority wishes of the citizenry with some provided safeguards.  Safeguards against what?  Against the majority exercising tyrannical rule over minorities such as those minorities that hold unpopular views or that are comprised of members who are unpopular.

          This concern goes beyond merely identifying and protecting individual or group rights.  A government, for example, can protect its minorities’ right to voice their opinions, but at the same time enact laws that fundamentally endanger their interests.  This, historically, has been the case of racial and ethnic minorities.  Some of these interests are considered essential to further or even protect the viability of these groups.

          One group that felt this way – that today is viewed as deserving any such laws – was the slave states of the South prior to the Civil War.  And a politician/political theorist who spoke about the implied danger tht majority rule presented this group was John C. Calhoun. 

Since representation in the House of Representatives was becoming lopsided in favor of representation from the non-slave states, Calhoun feared that the federal legislature, Congress, posed a potential threat to the South and its perceived basic interests.[1]

          Yes, laws need to be enacted by both houses of Congress and that includes the Senate.  As long as the Senate was composed of equal numbers from each state and there was an equal number of slave and non-slave states, the Southern senators could, in effect, veto any legislation that threatened the fundamental interests of the South. 

But the development of the nation – in its western expansion – promised that that safeguard did not enjoy a safe future.  This encouraged Calhoun to devise a solution.  And his solution was to further “qualify” majority rule.  Here is how Fred McBride describes the issue for Calhoun:

Hence several problems arise from a majority-rule principle. Tyrannical majorities are able to rule in their self interest and force views on the minority. Individual liberty is suppressed. Diversity is minimized, and the majority's progress stands little chance of impediment. The common wellbeing of those in the minority is jeopardized. [2]

          In all this, one should keep in mind that not only slave states are minorities, but so are many other groups within a polity at any given time.  While one is well justified not to worry about slave state interests, the concerns over minority rights and interests are important in that one can cite the role the courts, especially the Supreme Court, have played in dealing with minority rights.  

History, though, provides a mix record; the Supreme Court has both protected minorities – e.g., Brown v. School Board of Topeka – and has also advanced the power of the majority – e.g., Plessey v. Ferguson.  Other cases can be cited both protecting or threatening minorities and their interests.  So, perhaps a closer look at Calhoun and his thinking in this regard might be useful for those concerned with minority rights.

This is the case if for no other reason than to see if other ideas occur to current thinkers who are concerned with the plight of minorities such as racial groups, various ethnicities, people of various sexual orientations, women concerned over reproductive rights, etc.

          To begin, Calhoun saw the purpose of government as preserving and protecting the common good of society – so far so good.  Consequently, government and society are strongly related.  But government has a tendency to abuse power.  Why?  Because it can, or can readily do so for the sake of powerful members of the polity.

In addition, in terms of the federal government and the states (such as South Carolina where Calhoun was from), the states are sovereign entities – they did not relinquish that sovereignty by agreeing to the founding compact, the US Constitution.

          Therefore, given how the politics of the nation had evolved since the Constitution’s ratification, he is described as making the following observation:  “[T]hat there were no provisions which prevented the federal government from encroaching on the powers reserved to the states. Thus, the problem, according to Calhoun, lies in numerical majorities which ultimately lead to absolute governments.” [3]  

His solution to this anti-republican attribute lay in his claim that the government should not be managed or run by politicians chosen by numerical majorities.  Instead, it should have representatives chosen by a concurrent majority in which each of the polity’s major groups be given a voice, through some system, to indicate their preferences regarding pending policies – such as proposed bills.

What system?  Here is how the historian, Richard Hostadter,[4] describes Calhoun’s proposed changes to the legislative process:

… Calhoun seized upon the idea of state nullification.  The powers of sovereignty, he contended, belonged of right entirely to the several states and were only delegated, in part, to the federal government.  Therefore the right of judging whether measures of policy were infractions of their rights under the Constitution belonged to the states.  When a state convention, called for the purpose, decided that constitutional rights were violated by any statute, the state had a right to declare the law null and void within its boundaries and refuse to permit its enforcement there.  Nullification would be binding on both the citizens of the state and the federal government.[5]

The reader might find this system a bit interesting as to its legitimacy and practicality.  Would the states be in a recurrent habit of calling conventions on a monthly, yearly, or bi-yearly basis?  That would be an interesting proposition.  But as any understanding of American history indicates, this is a dead concern. 

What is of more interest is the whole sense of nullification by minorities.  And this interest was revitalized when Bill Clinton, in his initial transition to the presidency, named Lani Guinier as Assistant Attorney General back in 1992.  She had advocated a more recent version of constraining majorities in her work representing the interest of African-Americans and other minorities.  Her ideas are based on her conclusion that America is not color-blind.

          She argues – or argued back then – that the American society has been founded on racial divisions.  These divisions can be observed in certain practices such as housing, voting, employment to name but few areas of social arrangements where that is the case.  Why do these practices exist?  Because the majority – which is white – can and does exercise racial monopoly over those who are not white. 

Whites’ majority is based on their numbers, their power positions (including their positions in the economy and the political structure of the nation), and the resulting influence these other elements accrue to whites.  In short, due to these advantages among whites, non-whites’ interests are seldom, if ever, considered.

“For Guinier, in a racially divided society majority rule may be perceived as majority tyranny.  Thus the discussion of majority and minority relations in the 20th century [and into the 21^st century] becomes primarily based on racial and ethnic lines.”[6]  Of course, if accepted as fact, this evidence shows unfairness.  It can even be considered as whites, the majority, exercising a tyranny for the purposes of advancing their advantages and self-interest. 

In addition, there does not appear to be a way to dislodge these advantageous positions by whites.[7]  Under these conditions, whites continuously win and non-whites lose, a zero-sum situation.  Guinier, under these conditions, offers a way out where non-whites get something.

Her first goal is to get a way for everyone to be motivated to play in the national “game” of distribution.  Her suggestion includes rules that reward winners but can be acceptable to losers.  She cites the former Chief Justice Warren Burger who is quoted as arguing that the Constitution does not require that majorities always get their way.  With that, Guinier promotes proportional or a semi-proportional system as other than winner-take-all systems.  That is, she suggests a cumulative voting regimen and a supermajority option.[8]

Here are these proposals in turn:

Cumulative voting:  A voter has not one vote, but the number of votes equal to the number of options the voter has in voting for a candidate or a proposal.  He/she distributes his/her choice in a combination of his/her choosing.  For example, one way is the case for choosing a mayor of a city.  If there are four candidates vying for that position, the voter would have four votes in which the first three votes can be cast for his/her first choice and the last vote for the second favorite.  The candidate who gets the most votes wins.

          This option is not totally foreign to Americans.  It is used in thirty states by corporate boards or for selecting school board members or county commissioners.

Supermajority option:  Here this option can utilize a “super-district” strategy in which a proposal needs to secure a super majority, like 60%, before a proposal is adopted.  Again, this is somewhat in effect since most proposals in Congress must, to avoid a filibuster in the Senate, be supported by a 60% majority.  If this was instituted across the board, then policies would have to garner support from groups that hold non-majority standing in settings such as a city or a county.[9]

Lani Guinier was, in 1992, dropped from consideration for the Justice Department position because her writings engendered a lot of concern and the President-elect, upon further consideration, found he was also at variance with her positions.

          This posting draws attention to this challenge that majority rule poses because if the majority does treat minorities unjustly, then that is a federalist issue.  Civics teachers should question students about such treatment as it may occur in students’ local community, city or town, state, and definitely the nation.

---

[1] Greg Timmons, “How Slavery Became the Economic Engine of the South,” History Network, August 31, 2018/March 6, 2018, accessed November 5, 2019, https://www.history.com/news/slavery-profitable-southern-economy .  The South produced 75 percent of the world’s cotton and if compared with other nations, the South would have ranked as having the fourth richest economy of the world.

[2] Fred McBride, “Strange Bedfellows:  The Political Thought of John C. Calhoun and Lani Guinier,” Endarch:  Journal of Black Political Research, vol. 1997, no. 1, accessed November 4, 2019,  https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b861/e2e50999d477329bd9742531c0716cee8b9b.pdf, 41.

[3] Ibid., 42.

[4] Hofstadter, R.  (1948).  The American political tradition.  New York, NY:  Vintage Books.

[5] Ibid., 71-72.

[6] Fred McBride, “Strange Bedfellows:  The Political Thought of John C. Calhoun and Lani Guinier,” Endarch:  Journal of Black Political Research, 45.

[7] More current demographic information seems to indicate that in terms of numerical standing, whites are being challenged by non-white groups (combined numbers of African-American and Latin-American groups).

[8] Ibid.

[9] “Lani Guinier,” Wikipedia, n.d., accessed November 4, 2019, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lani_Guinier . 

“NO BUCKETS”

Do these following three words – competition, aggression, violence – denote a regression?  And if stated in opposite order, a progression?  The second question can but does not necessarily reflect a negative air about humans not agreeing.  The first question, undoubtedly, does so and, with that ascription, unquestionably introduces a value or perhaps a moral judgement. 

To see disagreement as inherently bad reflects a childlike understanding of what social intercourse should be, but a mature outlook sees it as not only unrealistic but short sighted.  In addition, it sees it as counterproductive to good governance and politics. This is not only the case with formal governance and politics, but also the governance and politics that ubiquitously characterize daily human contact. 

If one agrees with the view that disagreement is functional, then one would be inclined to understand that civics instruction and civics instructors should be well informed about what causes, promotes, and leads to skillful exercise of these various levels in whatever direction these ideas are considered.  Granted, aggression and violence are upping the stakes, but do they have a place?

          Surely, civics instruction should not condone or advocate criminal or unjustified aggression and violence.  But there are times when even these more extreme forms of disagreement are called for.  Hence, a military, a police force, and self-defense classes have legitimate roles within one’s social life.  And Americans using violent metaphors – e.g., adoption of animals known for their violent behavior as names for favored sports teams including the Tigers and the Bears – reflects this understanding that violence has its place.

          How about the opposite trio – affiliation, reconciliation, and altruism?  Is that another progression/regression at work?  And in counter position to the first threesome, does it deserve equal billing in a civics class asking after their causes, their promoters, and their associated skills?  Robert M. Sapolsky[1] provides one with biological based insights useful in attacking these questions. 

While he admits to being a pessimist, he adds that knowing about the biological/social contexts that relate to these elements of social life helps in advancing what are determined to be of benefit in given situations, and that gives him a source of optimism.  And if one agrees with Sapolsky in pursuing this study, he warns of three provisos.

They are: 

·       one cannot answer these concerns without relevant biological understandings;

·       one cannot answer these concerns with only biological understandings; and

·       one cannot segregate any psychological/cultural understandings from the biological – they are hopelessly interrelated, intertwined.

As for the biology, he writes:  “[I]t is indeed a mess, a subject involving brain chemistry, sensory cues, prenatal environment, early experience, genes, both biological and cultural evolution, and ecological pressures, among other things.”[2]  It is this “mashugana” that puts any attempt at placing related information in categories a hazardous endeavor. 

Categorical thinking – some might say, simplistic thinking – is fraught with dangers.  Its either/or format tends to gloss over the nuances of life.  And yet it is those nuances in which one finds solutions for many of life’s challenges.  That goes from moral thinking to understanding why one might be sympathetic or belligerent.

Civics teachers might do well not to look for “buckets” in which to put related ideas, ideals, or information.  Instead, one should strive to take in and understand whole pictures or situations.  In doing so, one needs to conceptualize the limitations of boundaries and avoid being over reductionist – a critique leveled at overly “scientific” visions of human behavior and cognitive structures and processes.

Several guidelines can be relied upon when thinking and researching human action and human interaction.  Be conscious that such efforts cannot be overly committed to the approach of one discipline of either a natural or social science.  Reality seems to be more akin to the following:  Subject A did X because of the release of hormone Q but was influenced by being raised in environment R that predisposed the secretion of hormone Q in given situations.  Messy?  “You bet.”  And that’s without getting into genes.

Sapolsky states, “There are not different disciplinary buckets.  Instead, each one is the end product of all the biological influences that came before it and will influence all the factors that follow it … No buckets.”[3]  So, perspective civics teachers should pay attention to all the classes he/she takes.  Relevant information can and probably does come from all of them.  This topic will be revisited in future postings.

---

[1] Robert M. Sapolsky, Behave:  The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst (New York, NY:  Penguin Press, 2017).

[2] Ibid., 4-5 (Kindle edition).

[3] Ibid., 7 (Kindle edition).

DEALING WITH OR NEAR A MONOPSONY

As promised in the last posting, this offering addresses the influence critical theory has on federation theory or, probably more accurately stated, it points out the similar arguments the two promote regarding solidarity and equality.  Though both define equality differently – shortly reviewed – both consider that quality as an ultimate value or nearly an ultimate value. 

For critical theory, this blog has argued that equality is the trump value.  For federation theory, perhaps it falls short of having the status societal welfare has, but it probably can be considered a prime or co-prime (along with federal liberty) second rung value; i.e., an important instrumental value.  The moral code this blog has offered has three descending levels of values:  trump value, instrumental values, and operational values.  Equality, for federation theory, is near the top.

So how is equality defined by each construct?  In terms of critical theory, this blog has suggested that it be viewed as meaning equal results.  Or stated another way, critical theory promotes that society should strive toward equal distribution of a society’s income and wealth and that should be valued above all other concerns.

This calls for a struggle against agents who seek to protect inequality; that is, those who have and enjoy higher shares of those assets.  To this point, that is a condition in all societies to some degree.  That theory uses the terms oppressors – the haves – and the oppressed – the have nots.

Given the dialectic nature of existing inequality, that view determines there are those who have reached true liberation – they “understand” and find intolerable the unjust nature of inequality.  Further, they – the liberated – should unite with a sense of solidarity to pursue the implementation of those policies that first ameliorates the consequences of inequality and then pursue those strategies that eliminates it. 

Their overall aim would be to change the exploitive arrangements that deny the oppressed from acquiring their fair share.  In the language of struggle, the liberated form a comradeship – a collective force that work within the institutions of a society and strive toward a just society and world.  As the last posting pointed out, that would be led by a liberated oppressed and joined by liberated, former oppressors.

For federation theory, the concern for inequality is present, even virulent, but the extent of it is not seen by its advocates from a radical point of view.  Instead, they see justice residing in minimum requirements being met and that, in turn, is guided by a concern for the dignity and integrity of each person making up the polity.  But that aim, as it tends to happen with critical theory, does not abandon the free market economy.

For them, the means of production and distribution should be run by the competitive arrangements of capitalist markets, albeit under a regime of regulations.  This blog, under this proviso, gives a definitional term for federation theory’s view of equality; that is, regulated equality.

As with critical theorists, though, federation theory claims that the prime agent to secure the aim of equality is government – only that institution can summon the assets and authority to accomplish meaningful equality.  History demonstrates that solely relying on markets – given the vying goals of its participants – will not secure equality of either the critical theory variety or of the kind federation theory promotes. 

But, under federation theory the role of government policy calls for the enactment and administration of the necessary regulatory laws ensuring that employers and government agents distribute the assets necessary to secure dignity and integrity for all.  Usually, that would be regulations in the form of social insurance, minimum wages, or laws increasing competition in markets, such as labor markets, that are not purely competitive. 

For example, when there is a high level of concentration within an industry with one or few competitors, it forms a monopsony or close to a monopsony in which the single or few employers (technically, buyers of labor) can set wages below what productivity levels call for – those workers are paid below the marginal contributions of their labor.  Workers are stuck receiving these low wages because there is a lack of sufficient employers competing for or buying their labor.[1] 

Government could regulate that market to institute a minimum wage or a program that would increase the number of competitors.  In either case, workers would then receive a wage closer to that wage they would receive if the industry had a purely competitive market.  If that still would not satisfactorily increase wages so that workers’ integrity and dignity are secured, then a form of welfare could be provided to supplement what is needed to reach that level.

Federation theory allows for “conditions” to be attached to any handout; after all, every person who is part of a federation does have responsibilities and duties to the partnership and that includes, as best they can, to “carry their weight.”  But the reciprocal sense is that aid is offered when the need arises because everyone can be subject to the downturns of life. 

And sometimes those downturns are the product of past injustices that have befallen a person or group within the polity.  For example, the effects of structural segregation or other injustices that have been widespread among segments of the US population.  And this becomes complicated and not subject to simplistic notions. 

But one needs to remember that whatever is devised, policy cannot ignore the factors that allow for or secure a viable economy and that includes sustaining incentives necessary for economic growth.  And in that, one can surmise the type of compromises federation theory represents.  Yes, it is centrally concerned with meaningful equality, but not as a trump value.  Whatever policies are devised, the welfare of the society cannot be significantly sacrificed and that includes respecting other values such as federal liberty, economic fulfillment, and ambition.

---

[1] For a more authoritative description of a monopsony, see Linda Yech, What Would the Great Economists Do?:  How Twelve Brilliant Minds Would Solve Today’s Biggest Problems (New York, NY:  Picador, 2018).  Of particular interest regarding wages, see Chapter 9.  That chapter reviews the work of Joan Robinson.

A MENTAL DIALECTIC

The last posting of this blog presented information in a form not previously used by this blog.  That is, it presented and compared elements of three mental constructs in a chart.  The three constructs are federation theory, natural rights, and critical theory.  This blog judges federation theory to be, in certain key aspects, a compromise between natural rights and critical theory constructs. 

That means, federation theory has adopted certain claims the other two constructs set forth.  To gain a sense of this “cross pollination,” the reader is invited to click on the last posting to see the chart, but this posting wants to address how critical theory informs federation theory on the concepts of solidarity and equality. 

To begin, in terms of critical theory, its ultimate or trump value is equality.  Equality for critical theorists means equal results; that is, equality is reached when society distributes equally its wealth and income.  Under such a regime, the people of that society share a sense of comradeship that reflects a solidarity among the populous.

          And how does such a view see liberty or freedom?  This is a real concern, especially to American sensitivities and beliefs.  With a strong view of unity – solidarity – Americans are apt to shun this level of oneness among a citizenry.  They would worry about their individualism if ever a serious attempt were made to enforce the critical theory view. 

This worry is well placed.  From the chart, liberty is seen as the “[f]reedom from the exploitation by dominant class …”  This, for the advocates of critical theory, leads to a “true” freedom; one in which people are free to discover their true humanity.  It also means the diminution of what most Americans regard as their sacred rights – especially rights associated with property.

          This posting aims to expand on this last point.  It extends the ideas expressed on a previous posting, “Be As I Am, Or Not,”[1] in which this writer reported on the ideas of Paulo Freire.[2]  Specifically, Freire outlines how in exploitive societies, the exploited take on the standards of the exploiters.  Chief among these standards is that the exploited pine to become exploiters.  This, along with the actual realities of exploitation, offends the humanity of those involved, both the exploited and the exploiters. 

Therefore, according to that view, true liberation entails breaking this psychological connection.  Why?  Because to be truly human, one cannot harbor such a sense of who one is, who his/her fellow citizens are, or what he/she or they should become.  The fate of each and the fate of all are inextricably tied. 

The exploitation path might lead to riches for the oppressors, but only to be enjoyed in a perverted reality where constant vigilance and suspicion prevails.  When people are exploited, the realities associated with the desire for justice are constantly at issue and the resulting demands, on the part of the oppressed, never disappear.

When the oppressed struggle to be free, they are seeking liberation.  That can be a perverted sense of liberation – when the oppressed want to become oppressors – or a state of true liberation – when the oppressed strive to eliminate the system of exploitation.  But the struggle for true liberation is not easy and the oppressed often do not see or understand it. 

But when it is sought, it is difficult and it often involves a slow process in order to accomplish it.  Freire uses the analogy of being reborn.  In its way, the challenge is due to the very psychological factors just mentioned.  It calls for a “birth” of a new person that sheds any desire to exploit.  That is a person that is neither an oppressor nor an oppressed person. 

What can one say about the process to achieve this birth?  Most of the initial processes have to do with one’s thinking and feeling.  Those mental processes must be arranged to be encompassing of two realms of thoughts and feelings:  over the objectified realities involved, and over the normative judgments made of those realities. 

If done, this psychological accomplishment opens the possibility of exiting the oppression in that it allows a belief, that liberation can be achieved.  One needs, first, to be convinced that the world in which they are living is not a closed one where there is no exit.  And that insight, in turn, can become the motivation to move on. 

In this there is an objective reality to know – mostly of the forces sustaining the exploitation – and there are valuations or espoused theories to formulate and define – a vision of what is just, legitimate, and in the best interests of all involved.  Despite the “dialectic” relationship between these two mental realms (one needs to introduce Hegelian language), a realization can descend on the oppressed:  the oppressor cannot exploit – cannot reap his/her wealth – without the oppressed.  And that is a liberating realization.

And for the oppressor, such realizations can also be liberating.  Afterall, who wants to be given the title of oppressor with all its degrading character?  He/she, history shows, is apt to engage in what he/she sees as actions undermining such a designation.  “Rationalizing his[/her] guilt through paternalistic treatment of the oppressed, all the while holding them fast in a position of dependence, will not do.  Solidarity requires that one enter into the situation of those with whom one is solidary; it is a radical posture.”[3]

What the oppressed people need is not paternalistic treatment – meant to continue dependency by smoothing its rougher edges – but for the oppressors to take on another strategy.  Not a strategy to continue the exploitive relationship they hold over the oppressed, but by actively fighting, along with the oppressed, for true liberation for all.  Obviously, this calls for a transformation of their beliefs, attitudes, and values similar to those changes needed from the oppressed.

They, the oppressors, need to see the oppressed as real people, not as some abstract figure to be pitied or for whom to feel sorry.  He/she needs to adopt a true love for these people as people, each with their own stories, challenges, and hopes.  The oppressed are not a category but are beings with humanity. 

This other humanistic sense, to be satisfied or actualized, must be accompanied by the subject engaging in related practices – praxis – that actuates a newer view of who the oppressed are.  Two aspects emerge:  the objective reality and the subjective valuation of that reality and they must be accommodated within one’s thinking and feeling.  This internal dialectic characterizes the psychology of the liberated oppressed and of the liberated, former oppressor.

          Therefore,

Making “real oppression more oppressive still by adding to it the realization of oppression” corresponds to the dialectical relation between the subjective and the objective.  Only in this interdependence is an authentic praxis possible, without which it is impossible to resolve the oppressor-oppressed contradiction.  To achieve this goal, the oppressed must confront reality critically, simultaneously objectifying and acting upon that reality.  A mere perception of reality not followed by this critical intervention will not lead to a transformation of objective reality – precisely because it is not a true perception.[4]

A liberated person does not divorce or attempt to separate the reality (objectified to attain reliable knowledge) from the judgement (the normative valuations of how and why oppression is unjust); he/she, to be effective at achieving true liberation, thinks, analyzes, and arrives at workable solutions for the dichotomies his/her mind observes and must account for in any resulting praxis.

          The next posting will address the implications of this argument on federation theory.

---

[1] Robert Gutierrez, “Be As I Am, Or Not,” Gravitas:  A Voice for Civics, January 5, 2018, accessed October 25, 2019, https://gravitascivics.blogspot.com/2018/01/be-as-i-am-or-not.html .

[2] Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed (New York, NY:  Continuum Publishing Company, 1999).

[3] Ibid., 31.

[4] Ibid., 33-34.

A SUMMARY CHART OF CONSTRUCTS

Over the number of postings this blog has shared, recurring distinctions have been made over the vying constructs that the field of social studies has entertained.  That has been federation theory (in the form of the parochial/traditional version and the liberated federalism version), natural rights, and critical theory.  The following chart summarizes some of the attributes of each construct and how they compare to those of the other constructs:

Chart of Vying Perspectives in Civics/Social Education

Construct	Ultimate or Trump Value	View of Equality	View of Liberty	Application to Civic/Social Education
Federation Theory Two versions:  Parochial/Traditional & Liberated Federalism	Societal Welfare:  Societal Survival & Societal Health	Regulated Condition or Regulated Equality:  Gov’t regulates to assure human dignity, integrity, and the ability to participate while relying mostly on markets to distribute values – a sense of partnership prevails	Federal Liberty:  Freedom to do what one should do	Historically, Parochial/Trad. was the dominant view of gov’t/politics from colonial times up to the years following World War II – Newer version, Liberated Fed’ism, sheds parochial biases to be inclusive of all legal entities w/in a partnership
Natural Rights Construct	Natural Liberty	Equal Condition:  Equality before the Law especially in market relation-ships	Natural Liberty:  Freedom to do what one wants to do (respecting others to have the same) – a sense of transaction prevails	The dominant view of gov’t/politics since World War II; basic view of educational establishment
Critical Theory	Equality	Equal Results:  To share equally in society’s wealth; comrade-ship under a sense of solidarity prevails	Freedom from the exploitation by dominant class – Truly free to determine one’s humanity	The dominant view of American academics particularly in socially related fields of study

          The next posting will take a closer look at the critical theory construct and how it overlaps and distinguishes itself in terms of the concerns of federation theory.  In a nutshell, federation theory shares critical theory’s view of how individuals need to find their humanity.  That quality manifests itself in how each construct views exploitation by a dominant class.

Under the exploitation associated with market and traditional economies, the exploited find themselves pining to be exploiters.  This undermines an exploited and exploiting agent’s ability or disposition to view him/herself as a being entitled to dignity and the power to define his/her essence both personally (one’s view of one’s true interests) and in terms of social relationships.[1]

---

[1] Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed (New York, NY:  Continuum Publishing Company, 1999).