#dialectic argument

[gravitascivics]

SUMMARIZING AN ARGUMENT FOR LIBERATED FEDERALISM, V

Since mid-December 2021, this blog has been making a dialectic argument.[1]  That argument was made with one aim in mind; that is to answer the question:  does a federalist perspective, in the form of liberated federalism, provide a legitimate and viable construct for the study of governance and politics in American secondary schools?  The segments of the argument, in dialectic form, are claims that four various approaches to civics education should be that subject’s guiding construct. 

The four approaches are parochial/traditional federalism (as a pre thesis), natural rights view (thesis), critical theory (antithesis), and liberated federalism (synthesis).  As one familiar with this form of argument can surmise, it ends up giving a positive response to the central question.  Yes, liberated federalism should guide civics education in American classrooms.

Any attention to the national political landscape through the media indicates that the nation is experiencing an exceptionally challenging period with a former president being charged in various courts with a number of suits and criminal crimes, a House of Representatives having a difficult time naming a Speaker of the House, a worrisome increase in politically related incidences of violence (including a physical attack on the husband of the then Speaker of the House), and general discourse among citizens that disregards respectful language and even indulges in threatening messaging.

There seems to be a growing concern for the levels of uncivil, violent, and criminal behavior that the nation is currently experiencing.[2]  No one institution can be held accountable for that state of affairs or be responsible for fixing it.  What is being proposed in this blog is admittedly a modest step – some might argue otherwise – in addressing the slew of problems facing the polity and the social makeup of the nation. 

But the step is seen as a viable one toward righting the wrongs.  As small as the step might seem to be, this blogger is not underestimating the problems and challenges in implementing this approach to civics.  He would like to leave readers with a sense of the importance of this general issue – that is, how Americans teach their young about the state of the nation’s governance and politics.

A brighter future for the nation is surely possible and one avenue toward that potential is through what is taught in schools.  This blog’s review of this argument was written under the assumption that curriculum content in the areas of government and civic affairs makes a difference and should be part of a general socialization pattern whose aims are a healthy, productive, and moral citizenry of the United States.

This blog will next stretch beyond this dialectic argument and address how the concerns of the argument affect interpersonal relationships.  Here, the blog will count on the work of the journalist, David Brooks.

[Here’s wishing everyone a joyous Thanksgiving.]

[1] Interested readers who wish to look up the postings that present the dialectic argument from its beginning, see Robert Gutierrez, “Dealing with Ideals,” Gravitas:  A Voice for Civics,” December 14, 2021, accessed November 14, 2023, URL:  https://gravitascivics.blogspot.com/2021_12_12_archive.html.

[2] From an extended literature, see, as an example, Kirsten Kukowski, “Overwhelming Number of Americans Frustrated by Incivility in Politics, But Conflicted on Desire for ‘Compromise and Common Ground,’” Institute of Politics and Public Service (April 24, 2019), accessed November 18, 2023, URL:  https://politics.georgetown.edu/2019/04/24/new-survey-overwhelming-number-of-americans-frustrated-by-incivility-in-politics-but-conflicted-on-desire-for-compromise-and-common-ground/.

[gravitascivics]

SUMMARIZING AN ARGUMENT FOR LIBERATED FEDERALISM, III

This blog has been about answering a question.  That is:  does a federalist perspective, in the form of liberated federalism, provide a legitimate and viable construct for the study of governance and politics in both middle schools (civics) and high schools (U.S. government)?  Federalism, in its more theoretical plain, is concerned with a lot more than structural arrangement among entities such as the US’ central and state governments.  In fact, it offers a whole way of viewing governance and politics.

It is an approach that reflects a congregational style in which the individual entities making up a polity take on a partnership role with the other entities in the arrangement.  With that, each entity has understood duties, responsibilities, and obligations – not necessarily mandated by law – aimed at initiating or sustaining the interests of the federated union.  In short, each is to behave in ways that support those interests even if it means sacrificing self-interests.

To answer the above central question, there are subsidiary questions.  As this and those postings that immediately follow are summary entries, these questions suggested themselves from the concerns of the analysis this blog has presented. They are:  How have the constructs guiding the teaching of American government and civics – since the beginning of the nation – evolved?  What have been the salient consequences of that development?  To what state should the development of a construct lead?  And how can the desirable state come about?

The first two questions reflect the historical aspects of the analysis this blog has, since late 2021, been presenting.  That is an analysis of American governance and politics emanating from the central mental constructs that have guided those activities from the origin of the nation.  That history was summarized through the blog’s postings since that first one of this series, “Dealing with Ideals,” which was posted on December 14, 2021.[1]  It, the historical account, described and explained the evolution of the parochial/traditional federalist perspective and how it morphed into the natural rights perspective.

Included, though, were descriptions of political science theories or models that are associated with each historical period.  The theory of federalism, with a strong component of republican thought, was described utilizing the ideas of Daniel Elazar, Gordon Wood, and Donald Lutz, among others.  Their contributions helped present the general tenets of the federalist/republican view.[2]

When the analysis turned to the natural rights view, the blog shifted in its reliance on political science contributions, to the political systems model – mostly from the work of David Easton – and the structural-functional approach – the work of Gabriel Almond and G. Bingham Powell.  The two models were reviewed as basic disciplinary constructs which have served, under the natural rights era, as foundation for the current teaching of civics in the nation’s schools.

Challenging this dominant view, since the 1960s, has been the Marxian view, critical theory.  That view has softened the Marx influence with what has generally been the ideas of postmodernism.  Here, writings of Paulo Freire, Cleo Cherryholmes, Henry Giroux, and Michael Apple were utilized.  The central message of this approach has been to further a view of equality that it, the construct, holds as a trump value and advocates achieving equal results. 

In essence, it argues that levels of wealth and income should drastically approach equality across the workforce; that there should not be a “have,” as opposed to a “have not,” class of people.  Since no modern society has come close to this ideal, its actual realization – what that would look like – is a mystery.  Consequently, most content inspired by this approach seems to be lodged in describing how unequal or exploitive conditions are, especially in capitalist nations such as the US.

The synthesis, the adoption of liberated federalism to guide civics, contains the compromised position between natural rights and critical theory.  It advocates the re-emergence of federalism as the dominant view but is especially sensitive to the liberty and equality issues that natural rights and critical theory views stress in either their dominance or in their challenge. 

Here, the ideas of Philip Selznick, Amitai Etzioni, and Robert Bellah were central, as well as the cited writers of the federalist view.  As such, ideas and ideals of these contributors had a profound influence in the development of the proposed model, the liberated federalism model.  Stated as a simple assertion:  civics education should be guided by the liberated federalist mental construct.

[1] Interested readers who wish to look up the postings that present the dialectic argument from its beginning, see Robert Gutierrez, “Dealing with Ideals,” Gravitas:  A Voice for Civics,” December 14, 2021, accessed November 14, 2023, URL:  https://gravitascivics.blogspot.com/2021_12_12_archive.html.

[2] These writers should not be considered advocates of parochial/traditional federalism, but of the more generic view of federalism or its ideals.

[gravitascivics]

SUMMARIZING AN ARGUMENT FOR LIBERATED FEDERALISM, II

In this blog’s concerns for how current efforts in civics education has fallen short in encouraging a more engaged citizenry in the governance and politics of this nation – unless when confronted with some personally affecting issue (read abortion) – the blog promotes a different view to civics.  Currently, that discipline relies on the natural rights view.  That view promotes a highly individualistic orientation and does not encourage young students – maybe outside of voting – to become involved in those situations or concerns that confront local citizenries or, if ambitious, statewide, or national concerns.

          In its stead, this blog promotes the adoption of the liberated federalist view to guide the development and implementation of civics education.  The blog has done much to explain this view, but to summarize, the view or approach seeks to encourage students to have a federated view of their citizenship.  To be federated means to take on and feel a sense of partnership with each student’s fellow citizens – a communal view that strongly expects cooperation and collaboration among the citizens.

          The effort is guided by a central research question.  That is: does a federalist perspective, in the form of liberated federalism, provide a legitimate and viable construct for the study of governance and politics in both middle schools (civics) and high schools (U.S. government)?  The blog chose to answer that question from the perspective of the disciplines most involved theoretically:  history and political science with a strong sociology input.  The answer to this main question is, in part, hidden in the development of the nation, insofar as the nation today is a product of that history.

          That history can be characterized as a dialectic struggle between two perspectives:  parochial/traditional federalism and natural rights.  That struggle became a thing of the past in the years after World War II when natural rights ascended to the prominent position.  Today, the struggle is between natural rights view and critical theory (a Marxian view that places emphasis on equality as it defines that quality).  Therefore, this analysis set out to study the components of that struggle, ascertain the functions of each position, and strive toward a new compromised position that could benefit from the positive elements of both sides (natural rights and critical theory) of the dialectic argument.

          This blog presented the product of that analysis in the form of a dialectic argument.  The components of the argument were:

Pre thesis – the parochial/traditional (republican) federalism perspective presents a viable and legitimate theoretical construct for the study of civics at the secondary level.  This view was prevalent from the colonial days to the years just after World War II.

The thesis – the natural rights perspective presents a viable and legitimate theoretical construct for the study of civics at the secondary level.  Has been prevalent since the years after World War II.

The antithesis – the critical theory perspective presents a viable and legitimate theoretical construct for the study of civics at the secondary level.

And the synthesis – the liberated federalist perspective presents a viable and legitimate theoretical construct for the study of civics at the secondary level.

The next posting will pick up on this development and identify a list of subsidiary questions one can ask of this historical development.

[gravitascivics]

SUMMARIZING AN ARGUMENT FOR LIBERATED FEDERALISM, I

Regular readers of this blog know that it has for some time presented a dialectic argument.  That argument promotes the adoption of liberated federalism as the guiding mental construct or model in developing and implementing a civics curriculum in the nation’s schools.  The last posting completed a review of commonplaces of curricular development – a contribution by William Schubert.[1]  That was the commonplace, milieu.  And with that, the blog ends the argument.

What remains is a summary of this argument that will be offered in this and one or two more postings.  More specifically, up to this point, the blog did the following:  it reviewed the argument’s assumptions relating to relevant individual decision-making; it then listed a set of constructed elements which have been identified by Philip Selznick;[2] and those elements were then arranged into a model.[3]

          That model is proposed as the foundational construct for the liberated federalism approach in the instruction of American government and politics at the secondary level.  The argument stressed that the model is, first, one suitable for instructional purposes, but not for purposes of professional political study.  The argument then reviewed the commonplaces of curriculum identified by Schubert about how each related to the liberated federalist perspective.

          So, this blog has conducted an analysis to arrive at an answer to a research question.  The question is:  does a federalist perspective – in the form of liberated federalism – provide a legitimate and viable construct for the study of governance and politics in both middle schools (civics) and high schools (U.S. government)?  As just indicated, the overall approach to this study was to institute a dialectic argument according to the method provided by Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (as described by Harry B. Acton[4]).

          Following the “thesis-antithesis-synthesis” format, the synthesis (conclusion) holds or reveals the answer to the research question; that being that liberated federalism is suitable.  It is not only suitable to guide civics education curriculum but also to address the identified problems this blog argued that one confronts with the current prevailing construct.  This other construct, the natural rights view, currently guides what schools offer in terms of civics. 

Summarily, the argument is that natural rights steers civics to an excessively individualistic, self-centered disposition among students.[5]  Instead, liberated federalism, a more communal view, addresses this shortcoming and promises to assist in encouraging a more engaged citizenry by utilizing more local governing and political conditions and problems.  The aim is to further, among students, federated attitudes, and values.

Upcoming postings will point out the reliance that a dialectic study has on historical knowledge – its evolutionary character.   In addition, the postings will refer to how each prevailing construct during the course of American history – i.e., parochial / traditional federalism, natural rights view, critical theory, and liberated federalism – addresses the main procedural modes of instruction and curriculum development that each view encourages.

In leading to the adoption of liberated federalism, certain questions should be addressed.  Among the questions are inquiries concerning practical matters with the implementation of the liberated federalist approach and how that would relate to the current prevailing view.  With those questions reviewed, the blog will offer a commentary on the relevance of what is being proposed and on the challenges to its implementation.  And with that, the blog will complete a summary of the argument.

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

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

The teacher is the professional instructor authorized to present and supervise curricular activities within the classroom setting. 

Learners are defined as those individuals attending school for the purpose of acquiring the education entailed in a particular curriculum.

Milieu refers to the general cultural setting and ambiance within the varied social settings found at the school site.

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

[3] Robert Gutierrez, Toward a Federated Nation:  Implementing National Civics Standards (Tallahassee, FL:  Gravitas Civics Books, 2020).  For a graphic representation of the model, see page 230.

[4] Harry B. Acton, “Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich,” in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Paul Edwards (New York, NY:  The Macmillan Company and The Free Press, 1967), 435-451.

[5] For an extensive presentation of this claim, see Robert Gutierrez, From Immaturity to Polarized Politics:  Obstacles in Achieving a Federated Nation (Tallahassee, FL:  Gravitas Civics Books, 2022).  Available through Amazon and other booksellers.