#dialectic struggle

[gravitascivics]

FROM PAROCIAL FEDERALISM TO NATURAL RIGHTS

This blog, with the last posting, completed its outline of the parochial federalist view of governance and politics. It did so from the perspective of an advocate for that construct.  In doing so, it showed the merits of incorporating it as the central construct for the teaching of American government and civics at the secondary level.

         The emphasis has been to both explain the construct as a republican theory that reflects the commitments of the founding generation of Americans around the time of the American Revolution, and as a structural foundation, in which compacts have brought layers of governmental arrangements together in a non-centralized structure which respects the integrity of each level.

         Combined, the construct is not only interested in the factual elements of the nation’s governmental system, but also in the normative questions or responsibilities and duties that citizens are expected to accord that system. As such, the construct is seen as directly addressing the perceived levels of disaffection and dis-attachment characterizing many of today’s youth in how they meet those responsibilities and duties.

         In addition, the blog provided a critique of that construct by this blogger that emphasizes the narrowness of its view when it comes to identity factors. The construct, through its influence on the American public and demonstrated through the years of its dominance, contributed to dysfunctional racism and xenophobic attitudes that undermined its claims of support for equality and liberty.  Such influence proved to be very costly in terms of human life (including a heavy death toll in a civil war), property loss, and in its effects to dash human ambitions.

         This blog now transitions from the thesis of an overall dialectic argument to the antithesis – which is currently situated in a thesis position.  That would be the natural rights construct. It will be described and explained as a current dominant view.  As with the parochial federalist view, it will be presented by a sympathetic eye – as if this reviewer is an advocate.  He will do the best he can in that endeavor.

           Its full title is natural rights/liberalism perspective and the following approach, as just indicated, will be presented as if it should be the foundational construct for the teaching of American government and civics at the secondary level. In general terms, the reasons for this argument will be that this perspective legitimately and viably promotes the interests of good citizenship and natural liberty.  That argument employs the language of freedom often voiced by many of its advocates as a gift from God.

That is, liberty is being defined as the freedom to do what one wants to do while respecting others to have the same and being amenable or supportive of a prevailing sense of transactional interactions with others.  Within these broad parameters, schools’ curricular treatment of government and politics will promote an approach to government that leaves such determinations over duties and responsibilities to individuals.  All reasonable and legal options from which to decide will be considered legitimate and in the purview of the individual.  

Therefore, this basic curricular choice avoids any attempt, either directly or by suggestion, of any preference for political values, ideals, ideas, other than for liberty, to the individual student. For it is up to individuals to determine the type of citizens they will seek to be, only restrained by legal boundaries.

As with the parochial federalist review, this presentation of the natural rights perspective will attempt to answer the same research questions.  Overall, the concern is:  does the natural rights view provide a legitimate and viable way to study government and politics at the secondary school level, i.e., in middle schools and in high schools?  There, the targeted courses would be civics and American government, respectively.

             This overall question leads to subsidiary questions. They are concerned with those issues associated with the comparison between the natural rights perspective, dominant today, and the federalist perspective, which is promoted in this blog. These views, in many ways, are at odds not only concerning how governments should be described and explained, and how politics should be conducted, but about how people should behave in accordance with that governance and in their – especially political – interactions with each other.  

With that, therefore, the following subsidiary questions are offered:

 1.    How has the construct guided/evolved in the teaching of American government and civics?

2.    What have been the salient consequences of that development?

3.    To what social arrangements should the development of this construct lead?

4.    How can desirable social arrangements – a la the precepts of the construct – come about?

 In addition, they steer one’s attention to how Americans should proceed into the future – the espoused aims for those upcoming years.  

Through a description of the historical development of the effects of the two opposing perspectives, a clear comparison will be attempted.  This analysis will be guided by the above subsidiary questions as they relate to the commonplaces of curriculum.

The commonplaces of curriculum were developed by William Schubert[1] and include the subject matter, teachers, learners, and milieu.[2]  Each of these commonplaces will serve as the divisional categories of the following postings in much the same way they organized this blog’s review of the parochial/federalism construct.

[1] William H. Schubert, Curriculum:  Perspective, Paradigm, and Possibility (New York, NY:  MacMillan Publishing Company, 1986).

[2] They 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 with a particular curriculum.  

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

[gravitascivics]

CRITIQUE OF PAROCHIAL FEDERALISM, I

This blog has been in the first phase of an extended argument by using the dialectic model offered by Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and made commonly known by Karl Marx.  That is, at any given time, a major or array of clashes is taking place, and, in Hegel’s case, those reflect opposing ideas. These are summarily known as dialectic struggles.  

At a given time, there is the dominant view, the thesis, the counter position, the anti-thesis, and the eventual resolution, the synthesis.  This blog, for some time now, has been reviewing the thesis that existed going into the period of World War II.  That thesis was a more liberal version of parochial/traditional federalism which by that time had become somewhat softened by the late 1940s but was being challenged by a more moderate form of natural rights.  

This blog has taken up this ongoing struggle as the natural rights advocates were mounting, in a mostly un-reflected fashion, a winning challenge to the dominant view.  The result was a shift toward a softened version of natural rights thinking. Simplified, the version states that people have the right to form their own values and goals and the right to pursue them as long as they do not hinder others having the same rights.  

This blog takes up this dialectic progression as the last gasps – as a dominate ideal – of the parochial federalist position – one that argues for

·      a view of governance and politics as best conceptualized as the product of a compact among the citizenry, and

·      in which each citizen is a partner and has the responsibilities and duties to promote and defend the welfare of the national partnership.  

That compact is the US Constitution.  

With a review of that thesis completed – written from the perspective of current day conditions – this blog will now present a critique of that thesis and provide its – the blog’s – position as to whether parochial federalism should be reestablished as the nation’s dominant social/political purview of governance and politics.

This blogger is an advocate of federalist principles.  As such, most of the sentiment expressed by parochial federalism’s ideals and goals are judged to be legitimate and correct for the reasons stated in its defense, which was the topic of the last twenty-five postings.  There are, though, some major reservations held by this blogger.  He feels that in both substantive areas and in areas having to do with pedagogic applications, the traditional federalist approach has serious limitations.

The upcoming postings will be dedicated to those concerns.  By way of previewing this postings’ content, the following reservations will be explained:

 ·      The definition of rights and the definition of individual integrity are vague and as such, subject to extensive abuse.

·      The designation of person is not addressed.

·      Structural guarantees for the protection of a non-centralized system are wanting.

·      There is a hereditary assumption – favoring the descendants of Western European nations – to the dynamic elements of the federalist model which discourages current definitional development.

·      There is a lack in the global view within the traditional federalist perspective.

·      There is no accounting for meaningful ethnic/racial/nationalistic diversity.

·      There is a lack of flexibility for diverse classroom approaches.

·      Communal dimensions are limited only to geographic types.

 Historically, there has been a social/political context one needs to understand to appreciate this critique.  From the earliest colonial period, ideal government on the North American continent has been associated with majority rule.  With a strong religious foundation, separate communities formed.  That American experience has had a strong congregationalist character.[1]  A lot of that social bonding was organized around religious practices, but that trend of late – resulting from growing social developments over the years – has been diminished in that less than half of the population is so engaged today.[2]  

In short, while the federalist spirit contained elements of individual integrity,[3] these ideals were ill defined and in practice were subject to extensive abuse by today’s standards.  While one can cite through the years those leaders or thinkers who harbored more liberal sentiments and well-thought-out arguments promoting more inclusive beliefs, values, and aims, overall, the American public was extensively parochial along various lines.  These lines included race, nationality, ethnicity, and regionalism.

By way of completing this concern, while the shift to natural rights overall has advanced more inclusive beliefs and practices – documented by the enactment of such laws as the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965 – today’s political environment is rife with exclusionary elements as demonstrated by the level of polarized politics (highly characterized as identity politics) with which the nation is currently dealing.

But to pick up the historical development, the early trend of exclusion became institutionalized.  Local communities could be and often were highly oppressive to any signs of unusual behavior or actions which went counter to overly sensitive moral standards. Actually, local restraints are not unique to the American experience.  

Perhaps America, with its isolated communities of the eighteenth and nineteenth century frontier experience, had a more intense version of a very human condition in which local values and procedures are highly intolerant of non-conforming beliefs and ways of being.  Writes Robert Nisbet:

 Much of the argument of the individualist with respect to the nature of freedom derived from the apparent fact that the most intellectually creative ages in history have been ages of the widespread release of individuals from ties of traditional values and relationships … the individual escaping his social group, his class, family, and community.  Such relationships may give security but do not excite the imagination.[4]

 The implication is clear.  Such eras of tolerance and liberal acceptance in history are the exception, not the rule.  In America, the rural communities that dotted the landscape as settlements stretched westward institutionalized strong moral codes of behavior – codes that could be oppressive, priggish, and insulting to individual integrity.

         This posting ends with a fairly telling citation from 1960 when there still existed residues of parochial/traditional sentiments among American households,

 The social life of these Park Foresters [typical 1950s suburbanites] embodies the same principle.  Their parties must be modest but show some signs of originality in the kind of food served and entertainment provided.  There are periodic waves of food fashions so that the household is never completely at a loss for acceptable new dishes.  [David] Riesman’s concept of “marginal differentiation” expresses well the kind of “individuality” that Park Forest encourages.  Wandering too far from the margin brings penalties, as the housewife who was discovered reading Plato and listening to The Magic Flute learned.  In this community, even the ways of “being different” are standardized.[5]

 This simple description of suburban life in the 1950s captures the extent in which social norms were able to control individual life and its choices.  This element of this critique will continue in the next posting.

[1] Seymour Martin Lipset, American Exceptionalism:  A Double-Edged Sword (New York, NY: W. W. Norton and Company, 1996).

[2] Scott Neuman, “Fewer than Half of U.S. Adults Belong to a Religious Congregation, New Poll Shows,” NPR (March 30, 2021), accessed July 6, 2022, https://www.npr.org/2021/03/30/982671783/fewer-than-half-of-u-s-adults-belong-to-a-religious-congregation-new-poll-shows.

[3] Daniel J. Elazar, “Federal Models of (Civil) Authority,” Journal of Church and State, 33 (Spring, 1991), 231-254.

[4] Robert Nisbet, The Quest for Community:  A Study in the Ethics of Order and Freedom (San Francisco, CA:  Institute of Contemporary Studies, 1990), 208.

[5] Maurice R. Stein, Eclipse of Community:  An Interpretation of American Studies (Princeton, NJ:  Princeton University Press, 1960), 206.

[gravitascivics]

LOOKING INTO IT, PART II

This blog’s attempt to analyze the dialectic struggles between parochial federalism and the natural rights view and then the natural rights view and critical theory continues with a further description of the methodology it will use.  To date, the last posting identified the contributions of G. W. F. Hegel and Joseph Schwab.  If not read, the reader is encouraged to do so.  This posting moves on.

         And it should be initially mentioned here that parochial federalism, while a voice from the past, is not totally extinguished from current political concerns and discussions.  The more recent forms of this tradition include the arguments of the religious right, advocacy for an academic rationalist curriculum[1] in schools, and support for the “choice” position in schooling.

These last expressions of this view will be further addressed in an upcoming evaluation of this construct.  There, this blog will ask:  what would be the consequences of readopting the parochial federalism view?  Perhaps, a prior question can be:  is this possible, and if so, at all likely?

         Once the parochial federalism perspective is presented and evaluated, the natural rights perspective will be described, analyzed, and evaluated.  This will consist of a review of the current political culture and the effects of the dominance of the natural rights view on society and the nation’s schools. Again, the subsidiary questions[2] that were used to analyze parochial federalism will be used to study the natural rights view.  The presentation will emphasize the opposition this antithesis posed in the late 1940s against the thesis, parochial federalism.

         That presentation will conclude with an evaluative statement that describes modern forms of the natural rights perspective. Currently, this perspective can be found in such advocacy as that favoring self-esteem curriculum and consumerist views of governmental services including education.

         The dialectic analysis of the struggle between the two constructs will conclude with the development of a synthesis which will abstract from the thesis and antithesis those elements that resolve the struggle.  It will do so by reflecting on the favorable position that the individualistic cultural bent has had on the nation since World War II.  Yes, the nation maintained its federal structural arrangement, a definite, tangible remnant of federalism, but its heart was and still is elsewhere.

         Today, that synthesis is being challenged by yet another perspective, critical theory.  But this dialectic struggle, to date, has not captured a national stage.  It has of late gained some recognition by the arguments concerning critical race theory – which not all advocates of critical theory recognize as being a form of their perspective.[3]  

With this struggle, one does not have the advantage of looking back to its twists and turns but faces the challenge of making sense of an ongoing struggle. What is hoped by this blogger is that it is enough of a struggle to motivate the populace to consider yet another perspective, a newer version of federalism.

If this be the case – and this blogger will assume that it is – and a liberated federalism emerges as the new synthesis, as this blogger hopes that it does, it will combine the communal elements of parochial federalism and the integrity afforded to the individual which is central to the natural rights view.[4]  The synthesis must overcome the inherent consequence attached to parochial federalism, i.e., its exclusion of minority groups – those people of non-European descendancy – in the partnership it promotes.  Also of concern is the excessive individualism one associates with the natural rights view.

As for critical theory, this blogger sees it fondly, but at bottom, considers it a counterproductive view in that it promotes an unrealistic view about how wealth is created and increased.  Since this blog has not commented much on critical theory, it will keep its powder dry regarding this view for now.

In addition, the use of Schwab’s commonplaces (subject matter, teacher, learners, and milieu) allows the inquiry to analyze historically the effects of the opposing constructs.  By identifying foci of educational practice, this blogger can take a more expansive view than that which is allowed according to social science  modes of inquiry.  

“Everything that happens [in school], everything that could influence a student, is assumed to fall within the four commonplaces.”[5]  And the commonplaces are broad elements of what transpires in schools.  Therefore, operationalizing Schwab’s commonplaces does not rely on what is usually utilized in social research - that being distinct variables or factors and how they relate to each other (usually in correlational relationships).

The commonplaces are more holistic and probably more nuanced than what are usually highlighted in most social research approaches.  Actually, the four commonplaces interact with each other and among themselves; for example, teachers interact with teachers.  The commonplaces can be defined as follows:  

 ·      Subject matter refers to the academic content presented in the curriculum.  

·      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.

 These foci will be the conceptual targets or points of comparison these commonplaces highlight.  

Throughout these points, Aristotle’s categories of causation – state of affairs, interactions, situational insights, and capacity to act morally – will also be used to engender specific questions of inquiry.  More specifically,

 ·      The state of affairs refers to the actual conditions found at schools, as opposed to abstracted or hypothesized relations between factors or variables. Of particular concern will be dilemmas caused by adherence to one construct as opposed to another.

·      Interactions refers to social encounters affected by respective constructs.

·      Situational insights are interpretations of encounters gleaned from analysis(es) of practice.  

·      Capacity to act morally will be assessments of practices as judged according to good citizenship and social capital.[6]  

 These categories will be used freely to suggest questions for the analysis of the various elements that make up the struggles under study.

         The above indicates various sets of concerns that reflect deeper analysis as the study progresses.  The reader should not look for each set he/she progresses through the analysis that follows, but informed that this blogger is applying them as he sees fit.  It is his responsibility to present the analysis in a logical and cogent manner. Hopefully, the reader will judge the presentation as being so.

And with that, enough for the methods to be used.  As one goes through what follows, one should keep in mind that each construct will be given its due without much criticism, at least initially. There will be an evaluation of each, and this blogger might not be able to remind the reader that he is holding off on that critique as each is being reviewed.  But make no mistake; this blogger supports what he hopes will be the last synthesis, liberated federalism.

[1]

Academic rationalism is an approach or orientation to curricular plans that relies on traditional sources and their contribution to formulating rational human minds.  It emphasizes content that has endured or stood the test of time. See “Academic Rationalism,” Encyclopedia of Curriculum Studies, ed. Craig Kridel (Sage reference, n.d.), accessed March 8, 2022,

https://sk.sagepub.com/reference/curriculumstudies/n2.xml#:~:text=Academic%20Rationalism,-In%3A%20Encyclopedia%20of&text=Academic%20rationalism%20is%20an%20orientation,of%20the%20rational%20human%20mind . 

[2] Presented in the last posting, they are:  1. How has the construct that guided the teaching of American government and civics evolved? 2. What have been the salient consequences of that development? 3. To what social arrangement, according to its tenets, should the development of a construct lead? 4. How can that desirable social arrangement come about?

[3] Given that critical theory – which has taken various forms and has relied on a variety of scholarly constructs – is generally in all its forms an evaluative approach to culture.  Politically, it has centered on Marxian claims of institutional practices of exploitation.  What follows is a general description of critical race theory:

Critical race theories combine progressive political struggles for racial justice with critiques of the conventional legal and scholarly norms which are themselves viewed as part of the illegitimate hierarchies that need to be changed. Scholars … challenge the ways that race and racial power are constructed by law and culture. One key focus of critical race theorists is a regime of white supremacy and privilege maintained despite the rule of law and the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws. Agreeing with critical theorists and many feminists that law itself is not a neutral tool but instead part of the problem, critical race scholars identify inadequacies of conventional civil rights litigation.

Taken from “Legal Theory:  Critical Theory/Critical Race Theory,” The Bridge (Cyber Harvard Education, n.d.), accessed March 8, 2022, https://cyber.harvard.edu/bridge/CriticalTheory/critical4.htm .

[4] See Jeffrey Reiman, “Liberalism and Its Critics,” in The Liberalism-Communitarianism Debate, ed. C. F. Delaney (Lanhan, MD:  Rowman and Litttlefield Publishers, Inc., 1994), 19-37 AND of interest as to the more responsible view of individualism see “Jung’s Individuation Process,” Soul Therapy Now:  Know Yourself, Heal Yourself (n.d.), accessed March 6, 2022, http://soultherapynow.com/articles/individuation.html .

[5] William H. Schubert, Curriculum:  Perspective, Paradigm, and Possibility (New York, NY:  MacMillan Publishing Company, 1986), 301.

[6] Robert Putnam characterizes social capital as having an active, public-spirited citizenry, egalitarian political relations, and a social environment of trust and cooperation.  Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 2000).