HOW EQUAL IS EQUAL?

There is a generally held myth that is very hurtful to those Americans who find themselves earning incomes in the lower two fifths of all earners. The myth is that America has a meaningful level of economic mobility that justifies it being considered a nation of equal opportunity. The myth is sustained by the relatively small number of cases that can be used to support it. That is, some poor people do become rich. But let us look at this myth and see what some of the numbers indicate is the real situation.

One thing a person who looks into this issue of persistent poverty finds out is that education is central to any chance at breaking out of the “poverty trap.” The economist, Joseph E. Stigliz,¹ reports that in the US, there is a stronger relation not only between parents' educational level and their children's educational level, but their economic and “socio-emotional” outcomes than in just about any other advanced nation. As I have already reported in this blog, the level of inequality is higher in the US than these other nations and this strong relation between parental education and their off-springs' success bodes that future inequality will only get worse. Of course, all of this brings into question: given the current economic conditions in the US, just how much opportunity exists?

Stiglitz adopts a definition of equality as a national economy in which 20% of those in the bottom fifth will not see their offspring escape that lowest level of income. The nation that comes closest to this ideal figure is Denmark, where only 25% of the poorest see their children remain poor. Reputed class-conscious Britain can boast a 30% figure. In America the figure is 42% or, stated more positively, 58% of those in the bottom fifth will see their children escape the bottom quintile level of income. But before you believe this is still a good rate in bettering their lot, let me point out that about two-thirds of those born into the bottom fifth will still live their lives in the bottom 40% of wage earners – those represent households making roughly $40,000 a year or less. These figures indicate an economy that does not provide much equal opportunity as measured either in absolute terms or as compared to other advanced economies.

Given these figures, what should civics students make of them? The first point a civics teacher would attempt to make clear is that ever since the nation's origin, we have had a concern for equality. But this promotion of equality was never one that reflected what would become associated with Marxian thought. That is, our support of equality had more to do with equal condition before the law and equality in terms of economic opportunity. It did not set equal results – people generally living within the same economic and social standing – as the aim. It simply set out to strive for a social reality in which everyone had an equal shot at making it financially and the government would treat everyone the same. For example, if you break the law you should be punished in similar fashion to everyone else regardless of how rich you are or whom you might know. This ideal is so ingrained as a cultural belief that chances are a teacher would need only to remind students of this national bias in order to provide context for what would follow. Then comes the question: what exactly does it mean to have equal opportunity? And once that is determined, how do you know a nation provides equal opportunity? The standard stated above – full equal opportunity exists when only 20% of those in the bottom quintile in income will have their children remain in the bottom quintile – is provided by the Economic Mobility Project. This project is funded by the Pew Charitable Trust and is well respected. But students might be given the challenge of devising their own way of measuring economic opportunity. They might take into account what people in general consider equal opportunity to be by devising and administering an appropriate survey questionnaire to adults they know. The next stage in an inquiry might have students apply their adopted or devised measure to American realities and see how much Americans actually believe, as indicated by the levels of economic mobility, in equal opportunity. This can be analyzed by looking at what really materializes in terms of both economic conditions in the US and how public policy functions in any national effort to establish equal opportunity. Are we a nation that simply pays lip service to this ideal? How have we done historically; have we been better in providing equal opportunity in the past than today, and does existing governmental policy really address providing opportunity or does it offer counterproductive effects? For example, recently Rush Limbaugh, a famous conservative pundit, argued that welfare provides disincentives to people working and that, therefore, acts to inhibit meaningful opportunity. A simple “Google” review indicates that a lot of scholastic and journalistic interest has been dedicated to this very controversial assertion. Again, these concerns can be used to provide questions students can research.

What we do know is that poverty rates have increased since the beginning of our most recent recession. We also know that median wage has decreased during these last few years. And we know that the fate of the middle class in America has been deteriorating since the seventies. The question of whether our nation is living up to our commitment to establish and maintain meaningful economic opportunity has become and continues to be a vibrant concern. Our students should become proficient in talking and deliberating about this important issue. As a federalist based system, equality is a vital and legitimizing ideal for how we organize our governance.

1Stiglitz, J. E. (2012). The price of inequality: How today's divided society endangers our future. New York, NY: W. W. Norton and Company.

WHAT SHOULD BE SAID

This posting will be relatively short. I basically want to review the evolving thinking concerning the rights contained within the First Amendment concerning free speech. I have, in previous postings, used this right and our view of it to demonstrate one of the points I have emphasized in this blog: we have moved in our constitutional thinking from one of obligation and duty to one of self-serving utility. That is, our original ideal view of our governmental system was the formulation of a federated union in which we all had equal standing, but the union called on us to be part of a dynamic collective formed to attain a certain list of goals. Summarily, the goals were to achieve a more perfect union – see Preamble of the agreement.

Michael J. Sandel¹ identifies a set of quotes that capture the original sense and the more modern view as expressed by constitutional experts. The more traditional quotes are:

• “[T]ime has upset many fighting faiths … [and] the best of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.” Oliver Wendell Holmes
• “[The founders believed that in] government the deliberative forces should prevail over the arbitrary … that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government.” Louis D. Brandeis
• “[The First Amendment] is to give to every voting member of the body politic the fullest possible participation in the understanding of those problems with which the citizens of a self-governing society must deal.” Alexander Meiklejohn

As opposed to the following:

• The more modern focus emphasizes “the source of the speech in the self, and make[s] the choice of the speech by the self the crucial factor in justifying protection.” C. Edwin Baker
• “[N]o other approach would comport with the premise of individual dignity and choice upon which our political system rests.” John Marshall Harlan
• “[I]t is nevertheless often true one man's vulgarity is another's lyric … .” John Marshall Harlan (Part of the opinion that found the conviction of a person wearing a tee shirt brandishing the term, “F**K THE DRAFT” – without the asterisks – unconstitutional.)
• “[The purpose of the First Amendment is] to assure self-fulfillment for each individual … .” Police of the City of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U. S. 96.
• “[Freedom of speech is] intrinsic to individual dignity … [I]n a democracy like our own, in which the autonomy of each individual is accorded equal and incommensurate respect [freedom of speech needs to be protected].” William J. Brennan
• [I]deas which are not a product of individual choice are entitled to less First Amendment protection.” Byron R. White

The shift between these two sets of quotes reflects a profound change in how freedom of speech is seen – how it is defended and how it is seen to function in our political dealings. The older view, captured in the first set of quotes, sees free speech from the perspective that speech and communication need to be free in order to protect and advance the integrity of a political system based on participation. Speech is not only a chosen course of action; it is an obligation and duty each citizen has. In contrast, the second, more modern view, not only softens the sense of obligation, but also attributes this freedom as a reflection of our right to be the individual we have chosen to be. We even get the sense, from White's quote above, that we have an obligation to be reflective in our efforts to formulate the person we are to be.

Students of civics should consider these opposing views. This issue concerning speech and our collective ideals, by which we define the constitutional protection that is extended to speech, serves to represent the whole question: is freedom a matter of one being free to do what one should do or is it a matter of being free to do what one wants to do? Is freedom of speech the right and obligation to participate in the political controversies that confront the polity at a given time or is it the right to express ourselves in whatever way we want or to consume whatever anyone else wants to express? This includes any salacious, hateful, or seditious materials. Of course, these positions are not mutually exclusive in all cases. At times, one can see that wanting to consume certain expressive materials does not interfere with one's obligation to be a participating citizen. But there are cases when these ideals can work at cross purposes. And it is in those cases that students can determine where their positions lie. For example, take the case of the offensive tee shirt cited above. A classroom study of the censorship policies associated with World War I could hypothetically juxtapose a case in which an anti-war advocate wears such a shirt or carries the message on a placard in a demonstration. Students can write a story in which they work out a scenario as to what would happen to such a person. The story would have to depict accurately the laws, the dispositions of the courts, and public opinion of that time. All of this could be followed by a discussion about what the person wanted to say and what the person should have said. Perhaps some students would conclude they are both the same and some other students might conclude that the message would be different and should be different.

1Sandel, M. J. (1996). Democracy's discontent: America in search of a public philosophy. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

MERELY A NUMBERS GAME?

Much has been made of the differences between traditional thinking and modern, scientific thinking. And, in truth, there are significant differences between them, but in one regard, they have a significant similarity: both have an intolerance for indefiniteness. Both seek assurance. One does so through traditional beliefs such as religious beliefs or old cultural myths and the other through observation, measurement, and objective generalizing that is based on those observations and measurements. This posting is a comment on positivist rationalism.

In our modern world, we have given much credence to the value of rational thought. Philip Selznick¹ identifies two forms of rational thought: axiomatic rationalism and positivist rationalism. In this posting, in trying to describe positivism, I will begin by distinguishing it from axiomatic rationalism or idealism. Just to place some context to this attempt, I wrote of axiomatic rationalism a few postings ago – you are invited to click on that posting entitled A Step Toward Reasoned Argument.

The foundation of axiomatic rationalism is the mind and ideas. Unlike with axiomatic rationalism, for positivist rationalism ideas, qua ideas, are struggled against. With axiomatic rationalism, there is a commitment to hit upon objective standards for determining morals and truth. As I described in the previous posting, this type of rationalism is, in the end, based on postulates and assumptions. As such, there is, by necessity, a limit on the determinant quality one can associate with axiomatic rationalism. We believe in rights, for example, because we assume that “all men are created equal.” Such a foundation to a moral belief is unprovable, at least, against the real, observable world – it's simply “self evident.” This type of claim is not so much seeking determinacy in either the domain of morals or in the domain of truth.

Instead, positivist rationalism rejects such reliance, in the long term, on postulates or assumptions. They take on a more limited temporary role, but in the end are subject to being questioned and tested. Truth and morals are sought after in the real experiences of people, not their ideas. This approach strives to be precise in its meanings and to eliminate vagueness. The aim is to be able to test beliefs either through scientific research, in terms of objective reality, or utilitarian calculations, in terms of morals. In this posting, my attention is limited to the scientific methodology.

Part and parcel of this approach is to reduce beliefs or findings to more basic realities; that is, to view the area of interest in a more simple form – in a more definite elemental context. For example, biological knowledge is sought to be reduced to chemical explanation, or to reduce sociological knowledge to psychological explanation. If successful, the knowledge is more widely applicable; that is more powerful. This whole approach has obviously been very beneficial to human progress in terms of material understanding and well-being. But through this reductionism, positivism and our over- dependence on it has led to oversimplifying complex reality, especially when we are concerned with that aspect of reality that pertains to consciously reactive beings – human behavior.

Let me illustrate this problem by pointing out one area with which I am particularly familiar. School reform has been a topic much highlighted in our public discourse. Too many would-be reformers have been reliant on positivist rationalism to come up with the solutions to our unrelenting school problems. Not enough students are learning those things we believe are essential to being productive and participating citizens and workers. Reductionist thinking has led to one “silver bullet” solution after another with little change in school success rates. I have written of these failed answers before and I will skip over the merits or limitations of these “reforms.” What I will express is that educational challenges in our nation might be helped by scientific approaches, but ultimately final solutions will take a lot of complex qualitative study that will be more akin to historical, literary, linguistic, philosophic, and other not so determinant modes of research. Those scholars who have delved into more cultural areas of concern, such as anthropologists and historians, have long ago realized that measuring, numbers, and reductive logic often overlook those factors, developments, nuances, relationships, and norms that don't lend themselves to measurements per se. Story telling skills often are more useful in such research than fancy statistical analysis. Let me share Philip Selznick's words on this issue:

These assertions stem from a general perspective – a nominalist ontology – not from the closely reasoned findings of focused inquiry. They reflect positivism's impatience with the more complex and elusive aspect of social and psychological reality.²

That is, the shortcomings of positivist research stem from its tendency to reduce social phenomena to being the exclusive result of individuals and their choices. By so doing, understanding is likely to be sacrificed as I believe has been the case in our efforts to understand our nation's schools. The subtle facts of relations and their intertwined complications are easily missed by reductionist logic. We even have a difficult time measuring success when it comes to schools. Who is responsible for a child's success or failure? Is it a current teacher, parents, administrative policy, neighborhood conditions, past teachers, etc.? Or is it a combination of factors with immeasurable levels of influence? Is success merely the performance of students on tests or is it a varied compilation of results that include beyond cognitive achievements strong families, safe neighborhoods, honest employees and business persons? All of these are emblematic of viable school systems.

I have already made the claim in this blog that positivist logic is the chosen approach of those who adhere to the natural rights construct – the prominent mental construct of our political and governmental thinking. As such, positivism plays an influential role in how we teach civics and government, as this posting, I hope, makes clear; that's good and bad. It is good in that it encourages our students to take a realistic look at political and governmental activities. There is value in measuring things including the processes and results of our political and governmental efforts. But we need to be vigilant of oversimplifying what we are looking at and remember these are human activities that are the most complex bit of phenomena we can study. We need to be vigilant against promoting an overly individualistic view of social life that feeds more narcissistic attitudes. Often, responsible social research calls for methodology that, while trying to be objective, remembers that what is being looked at is motivated by highly emotional factors. You can, for example, explain why a sports team wins a championship by looking at performance statistics – passing completion rates, batting averages, field goal percentages, greens in regulations, and the like – but you can gain understanding only by appreciating the human ambitions, teammate interactions, family support, and the like that escape the ability of the statistician to observe and measure. That's why we read both reports and scientific studies and why we also read novels.

1Selznick, P. (1992). The moral commonwealth: Social theory and the promise of community. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

2Ibid., p. 51.

A SERIOUS CASE

When evaluating an explanation of something – anything – one is naturally concerned with how extensive the explanation is. But an explanation, no matter how “factual” it purports to be, usually can't help to at least hint at an editorial comment. That is, the explanation nudges us toward forming a moral or biased position over the topic. Let us say I write that the reason the Trayvon Martin jury found George Zimmerman not guilty is that the state didn't prove his guilt. Many readers would be disposed to believe that I hold racist attitudes or that I pine for the “good old days” when people knew their places. Whether you, the reader, are a racist – a person who attributes human qualities on the basis of socially designated racial categories – or anti-racist, you will likely feel I am either a sympathizer or an antagonist to your beliefs, respectively. This is especially true of such topics as the trial where there are emotional positions either way. Each side of this case has built a narrative of what is believed to have gone down that night in which the teenager, Martin, was shot and killed.

One story centers on the idea that a well-conditioned youth pounced on an innocent man who was following the youth to find out what he was doing. Was the young man stalking about with criminal intent? That was, it is believed by Zimmerman's defenders, to be the concern of the neighborhood watchman. When pounced upon, punched in the face, and with his head being driven down to the concrete sidewalk, Zimmerman pulled out his gun – legally carried – and shot the youth in self-defense. This incident demonstrates why we need “stand your ground” laws.

The opposing narrative holds that this youth, with Skittles and a drink, was just walking around the neighborhood – in which he lived, at least part-time – and was accosted by this over-zealous, want-to-be cop. Tempers escalated, an altercation ensued, and, because of his prejudices, Zimmerman pulled out a gun and killed the young man. He might have believed Martin was about some criminal intent, but this was due to his bigoted attitudes.

The details of both of these narratives are sketchy at best since the only witness is the defendant. His story has not been consistent on all counts which his defenders claim is normal given the trauma of the incident but, to his detractors, demonstrates he is not telling the truth. What we know for sure is that a young person is dead at the hand of an armed man and that this youth was unarmed. We also know that the shooter had head and facial injuries that were not serious and that he had bits of grass along his backside and that his clothing on his backside was moist at the time he was questioned at the scene of the incident. Zimmerman is recorded voicing prejudicial comments when he called the police and he was instructed by the police person on the phone to not follow the young man. We know Martin was shot through the chest – one fatal shot. Except for the exact location of the incident, all the other “facts” were bits of interpretive analysis by “experts” of the physical evidence.

This case is ideal for the purposes of teaching about several federalist principles. One is local involvement by citizens; two, is the principle of equality and to the degree that citizens hold other citizens within a sense of “partnership” in a federal arrangement; three, the adversary model of trials in our judicial system, and four, the belief in innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt – of particular interest here would be the relatively high bar such a standard represents.

For example, if I were teaching this topic, I would stress that a “not guilty” verdict does not mean that the members of the jury necessarily believe the Zimmerman narrative, but only that the Martin narrative was not proven by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt. This latter point is important because common punditry on TV seems to emphasize that the jury did not believe the state's contention against Zimmerman. This is not necessarily true. Using a lower standard of belief, the jury might very well believe in what the prosecution presented. But when they applied the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard, they could not in good conscience accept that narrative. This understanding is essential if we are to hold to our belief in the reasonable doubt standard. This whole concern points out how unnatural it is for us to live by such a standard. We naturally want to either believe or disbelieve in a narrative. But, as Plato reminds us, belief lies somewhere between ignorance and knowledge. We should remember, in all of this, that it is possible to be wrong even when we believe in something beyond a reasonable doubt. The history of overturned convictions provides testimony to this probability.

I am glad to see that the case has been the stimulus for a national consideration of our attitudes toward race. I appreciate President Obama's language the other day emphasizing that the trial is over and that it was conducted according to our established procedures. Given this and given the fact that the trial has generated such an emotional response, we should take the time and effort to discuss our racial beliefs and attitudes. If the shooter were black and the deceased white, would we honestly believe in the narrative we have chosen to believe? This is a good test of how non-racial our attitude is about the case. As a matter of fact, a good way to introduce the topic in a classroom is to present a news report of the event with the race of the subjects reversed and see how students initially react to the shooting. Perhaps some time needs to pass for this bit of classroom trickery to work.

A FEDERAL NUCLEAR OPTION?

In the news of late, there has been an ongoing story regarding the Senate of the United States. The majority leader of that body has been threatening to change the rules of the Senate to put a crimp in its filibuster practice – a change known as the “nuclear option.” The filibuster is a procedural strategy by which a minority can prevent a bill or presidential nomination for a particular governmental position from being considered, debated, and voted for yea or nae. In short, the filibuster permits a minority of senators to stop what the majority wants to approve unless the majority can get sixty out of the hundred senators to vote for cloture. A lot of the coverage emphasizes the obstructive function the filibuster plays in stopping legislation. One can reasonably argue that the current use of the filibuster is seriously hampering the political system from functioning; that is, through the excessive practice of the filibuster, the Congress has not been able to address serious problems such as high levels of unemployment. Whether this is true or not, one can agree that carrying on a filibuster by a minority of senators can effectively stop desired policy by the majority. Under the current rules, many say, it is too easy to conduct a filibuster and it does not extract enough of a cost on those participating.

How does the filibuster rate as a federalist practice? One of the attributes of a federated system I have identified in this blog – particularly a liberated federalist system – is that its policy forming process, through an appropriate structure – at the national level, that would be the Congress – should seek as much consensus as possible. This is especially true at the national level since the resulting policy will affect a wide diversity of local conditions across our national landscape. Consensus, by its very nature, means that policy has to be acceptable to varying populations and interests. This demands a narrow acceptable range of policies. Proposed policies that are at significant variance from the mean of political opinion should be discarded. So if a proposal can be judged to be outside the main body of acceptable public policy, the process is legitimately within its federalist bounds to obstruct the acceptance of such policy even if the majority is seeking it.

Now you might ask: how can the majority of elected officials strive to implement policy outside the mean of public opinion? Don't these politicians depend on getting votes from people to keep their jobs? And won't those people look on these politicians with disfavor if they are voting for unpopular legislation? The answers are yes in each case, but it's not all that simple. In fact, it is complicated on several dimensions. For example, look at our farm policy. One might argue that socialism is unpopular in the US, but we regularly vote for socialist policies. Our farm legislation, that calls on a strong government presence in the agriculture industry, is very popular among citizens who would otherwise vehemently be opposed to socialism. They just don't see subsidizing farmers, particularly large corporate farmers, as examples of socialism, but it is. All of this suggests that a lot of what is favored and what is not is highly subject to language manipulation. Effectively symbolizing what one wants can be very useful in framing issues and in proposing policies – useful to those who are seeking otherwise unpopular policies.

But of course, all of this is subject to being subjective. What's outside the bounds in one person's perspective is all-American in another person's view. And all of this is starting to affect how we see our government. While government and government officials are generally no strangers to discontent among the citizenry, current polls indicate a seriously low “favorability” toward our congress and our congresspeople. One poll rates North Korea above the US Congress. How does such sentiment affect a future possibility when our congress has to pass legislation that calls for sacrifice? This can be potentially a serious situation and Congress needs to be highly sensitive to the effect low favor-ables have on its ability to function under challenging crises.

Now I might be making more of this than what is merited. The history of bad-mouthing our congress is long and robust. But that does not mean it should be an issue that our legislators should ignore. We all know about Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington conducting a talking filibuster in the Senate. Many have called for the re-institution of the talking filibuster. Sen. Rand Paul the other day conducted one to showcase his opposition to the confirmation of John Brennan as CIA director. There he stood for hours until nature forced him to cease his symbolic gesture. Perhaps that re-institution as a necessary form of filibustering – as opposed to an opted form – will be the proper balance between banning the filibuster and leaving things as they are. My point here is not to go over all the ins and outs concerning the filibuster, but to explain that one of the supportive arguments of the filibuster – one mostly ignored – is that there is a sense that structural elements that are in place to slow the policy making process are elements to further the process's deliberative quality and to strive to as much consensus as is possible. Hence, any options that are to be considered in changing that process should be sensitive to, one, keeping a meaningful level of deliberation and, two, encouraging consensus. Both of these aims would be furthered by deliberative processes that are not undue obstacles and by language that doesn't aim at obscuring what is being sought, but is clear and aboveboard.

A STEP TOWARD REASONED ARGUMENT

One of the more difficult things a civics or social studies teacher does is to conduct a discussion that becomes contentious. When dealing with young people, debates solicit comments that reflect emotional positions. These positions, in turn, often mirror the beliefs of parents. When those beliefs also, for one reason or another, satisfy the aesthetic proclivities of the student, then this generates a lot of emotion directed toward defending the position. While I am not stating that students might not have rational reasons for their arguments, chances are that for many students, these stated conclusions have little or no thought-out bases for them.

This kind of thing doesn't happen every day. The issue under discussion in a particular lesson has to meet certain conditions before the class will engage in this kind of arguing. From my personal teaching experience, I remember being almost overwhelmed when I introduced the issue of abortion one day. Opinions came quickly and furiously with not much tolerance for opposing ideas. This was the case on both sides of the question: should abortions be allowed under the law? My training called for me to ask, in response to a stated position, a Socratic question or two in order to get the student to reflect rationally on his or her position. The aim was not to convince students of a particular position, but to have them reflect on whatever their position was. I tried. But I have to admit that I was not very successful in getting much reflection that day. What I did get was a lot of heated, unfounded conclusions with contempt for those who did not agree.

Needless to say, I had better days. I think, though, that one thing that could have helped me or any teacher in a similar situation was to understand the various ways that arguments could be organized. Philip Selznick¹ identifies two ways: the use of axiomatic rationalism and the use of positivist rationalism. I will make some comment on axiomatic rationalism in this posting and address positivist rationalism in a future posting.

Axiomatic rationalism, in its purest form, relies on ideas and the mind to search for the truth. This is opposed to relying on real experience. Let me demonstrate. Do you believe individuals have rights? If your answer is yes – and I would be shocked if it weren't – why do you say yes? An argument for this position which relies on ideas and does not refer to reality would be arrived at by a continuous string of whys until the respondent finally says that's just the way he/she feels about it. Logic takes you just so far. There comes a point at which one has to rely on a postulate or assumption about life or the nature of the real. Every ideology or philosophical system at some point has to ground itself in such an unprovable postulate or assumption. Take Marxist belief in dialectical materialism. Yes, Karl Marx traced a history of mankind to make the point that all social development was based on class warfare, but was the case really made? Could it not be the fact that changes in our social history have been the result of other conflicts – those of ethnicity, religion, cultural proclivities, and the like or by non- conflicts such as innovations like social media? But if one allowed for these other factors to be considered as fundamental ones and as influential in a manner outside an economic perspective, the whole Marxian ideology falls apart. The extent to which one needs to accept dialectical materialism in order to be a Marxist is quite high and that type of commitment is using axiomatic rationalism in the end.

Let me provide another example. I have made the point that currently our nation holds as the primary political construct the natural rights construct. One of the philosophical writers who provides a thought out argument supporting this construct is the late Robert Nozick. In answering the question I offered above – do individuals have rights? – he gives a well thought out argument supporting the yes position one would expect. He does such a good job that he lays out an entire defense for libertarianism. Yet, his argument relies on a fundamental assumption; that is, each of us is a separate being with a sacredness attached to that separateness. Due to that sacredness, it is unjust to take from some to benefit others as with welfare programs that are run by government through their coercive power to tax in order to pay for such programs. But why should we believe in this notion of sacredness as Nozick defines it? Why can't a sense of sacredness just as easily be used to defend welfare in the sense that the needy, because of their sacredness, deserve the basics of life? This simplifies the argument, but my contention is that at some point Nozick has to rely on an unprovable assumption. As Selznick writes:

The postulational method is at best pseudo-naturalist. It may invoke aspects of experience and may claim empirical support for various presuppositions, generalizations, and conclusions. But the postulates are not truly open to scrutiny, and the conclusions rest on chains of reasoning insulated from patient study of variables and contexts.²

So what does a teacher take away from all of this? He or she should spend some time organizing a discussion so that statements of fact – those that relate to experiential reality – are distinguished from postulates and assumptions. Students can have exercises that have them do this kind of analysis for given arguments. For example, take a famous historical document – such as the Declaration of Independence – divide it among small groups and have students go through the sections they have and determine which are statements of reality and which are postulates and assumptions. Nowhere in the document, for instance, is the statement, “all men are created equal,” proven or subject to scrutiny – it's self evident. Perhaps being able to make such distinctions should be a prerequisite to engaging in normal discussions and debates. At least then students can have an intellectual tool necessary to distinguish between statements not based on evidence – but perhaps on raw emotion – and conclusions not based on reasoned arguments.

1Selznick, P. (1992). The moral commonwealth: Social theory and the promise of community. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

2Ibid., p. 49.

WORK SOCIALIZING POLITICAL VALUES

How do you see work? I'm sure it's more than just a place to hang out from early morning to early evening. Nothing defines us more to others than what we do for a living. At any social gathering, one of the first questions asked is: what is it you do? Work doesn't just allow us to put food on the table and a roof over our heads; it goes a long way in determining how we think of ourselves and how we think of others. Work also plays important roles in how we see power, authority, responsibility, collaboration, politics, and related social characteristics.

In political science, there is a branch of the discipline that is dedicated to explaining how people acquire their ideas regarding politics and government. That branch is political socialization and usually the scholars who delve into this area of interest focus on families, communities, and schools. But there are other socializing agents in society and they do affect how one sees his/her government or politics. These can be the media, churches, and the world of employment. There is a reciprocal relation when it comes to work. Some of us are attracted to more authoritarian environments, while others feel they must work at jobs that allow a great deal of latitude. In both cases, initial preferences are further reinforced and legitimized by the expectations of the workplace. I was a teacher who was, on a day to day basis, physically constrained – one school building I worked in didn't even have windows. My son, on the other hand, has a job that has him traveling all over Tampa. Now, were we attracted to our respective employment due to our personalities, or did the jobs affect the persons we eventually became? Probably the effect goes both ways.

George Lakoff¹ writes of two views concerning employment and both, I believe, relate to how an individual sees both government and politics. He writes about how we tend to form metaphors in our minds to make sense of the world we live in and this includes how we make sense both of the world of work and of the world of politics we encounter. In terms of work, Lakoff identifies the Work Reward metaphor and the Work Exchange metaphor. Each reflects different views of power, authority, and legitimate accounting.

Before getting into each metaphor, let me remind you of a recurring theme in this blog; that is of the accounting we naturally engage in as we interact with others. This accounting takes place when one person does a good turn for another. When this happens, the giver of the good turn accrues a credit from the receiver and the receiver takes on a debit. The amount of each is affected by several factors – for example, whether the good turn is solicited or unsolicited. A solicited favor earns the receiver an even greater debit than otherwise would be the case, but even when not solicited, a debit is accrued. Think about it: your next door neighbor comes over with a platter of food for you as a good gesture. You, in good spirit, accept the platter. Even if you didn't enjoy the food, you will probably go on about how good it was the next time you see the neighbor. Beyond that, you will feel that you “owe” the neighbor a good turn in the future. That's just the way it is.

When you get a job, there might be some initial sense that the employer is doing you a favor. If nothing else, he or she is ending the ordeal of looking for work – a task so disagreeable that I always unreasonably felt, along with moving, it should accrue a paycheck. So after you land the job you begin to work. How do you see your employer? That's what Lakoff addresses.

Lakoff describes the Work as Reward view as one heavily ensconced in the idea of a superior-inferior relation. You work and the employer rewards you with pay. Simple. When so defined, the relation between you and your employer is one noted by deference for the employer's wisdom, authority, and ability to not only issue reward, but also punishment for disobedience. This latter aspect can even include being fired. The metaphor is supported by a vertical, hierarchical view of management in the workplace. Under such an understanding, one is encouraged to view politics as a top-down oriented activity. There are those in power and those not so empowered. One's responsibility is to get along, do one's part, and get paid – I mean get rewarded.

On the face of it, one is tempted to say, of course, one works and one gets paid; what else is there? The Work as Exchange metaphor has an important, albeit subtle difference from the Reward metaphor. In that alternative view, the socialization it promotes can be meaningful. First, work is seen as a value. That is, the worker approaches his or her job not so much as accepting a good turn, but as providing a good turn by offering his or her valuable skills. The worker, in this metaphor, does not relinquish his/her labor, but provides it so that an exchange can take place. The employer possesses his/her money and that is what is exchanged for the valued labor. Under what conditions? The conditions are negotiated before the exchange takes place and are contracted under an agreement. The contract can be formal and written – it usually is – or it can be verbal. All such conditions, such as promotions, are viewed in this light. Pay is not a reward; it is an element in an exchange. The exchange is totally voluntary. There is no sense of obedience. If the worker is dismissed, he or she is not so much punished; rather, the employer has refrained from his or her voluntary participation in a continued exchange. The worker, in like manner, can leave employment not to punish the employer, but because the worker no longer wants to voluntarily take part in the exchange. Instead of a superior-inferior relation, the exchange view places the parties on a more equal standing.

Now you might say, bottom line, the results are the same whether one holds a Reward or Exchange metaphor. But I think that if a place of employment opts for language of Reward or, instead, a language of Exchange, especially for young workers, the socializing effect can be different. For a political, mental construct that promotes a metaphor of shared and voluntary participation – as is the case with liberated federalism – the metaphor of Work Exchange is more conducive. It more readily lends itself to expecting horizontal authority structures and to clear and spelled out working conditions.

While politics in the workplace is usually not addressed in civics classrooms, I think there is a place for it. Work can be introduced as an institution that can help encourage active participation in the political modes of the polity – both locally and nationally. Of course, not all work sites can be the paramount of openness in regard to workplace politics. The military readily comes to mind as a place where hierarchical authority is essential. But all enlightened leadership is an example of more open communication and decision-making given the restraints that define the nature of the work and of the responsibilities with which the workplace is charged. Probably some of the factors that might allow for a more exchange-oriented metaphor would include the level of creativity called for in the work. But again, all job types need not hammer on the employees' heads how “inferior” they are, but instead would benefit by communicating the integrity and dignity that the employees deserve. Such workplaces promote federalist values.

1Lakoff, G. (2002). Moral politics: How liberals and conservatives think. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.