[Note: If the reader has taken up reading this blog with this posting, he/she is helped by knowing that this posting is the next one in a series of postings. The series begins with the posting, “The Natural Rights’ View of Morality” (February 25, 2020, https://gravitascivics.blogspot.com/2020/02/the-natural-rights-view-of-morality.html). Overall, the series addresses how the study of political science has affected the civics curriculum of the nation’s secondary schools.]
In previous postings, this blog describes the efforts social studies leadership undertook through what was called the New Social Studies. By way of a quick reminder, that initiative was timed shortly after the Soviet Union’s launching of Sputnik, the first man made orbital satellite. Generally, the reaction took many forms including one in which various American institutions promoted a significant push in the nation’s schools to emphasize science.
In the social studies – including civics courses – that materialized in what was called the New Social Studies. There, not only was the scientific method highlighted but the various subjects became more objectified and lacking in normative concerns. This mirrored shifts in various social science disciplines like political science and its adoption of the political systems model (also described in previous postings).
The leadership in social studies aimed its efforts at convincing teachers to implement an instructional strategy known as inquiry, which in turn heavily relied on the scientific method. Overall, that leadership failed at getting teachers to adopt scientific modes of study to their teaching. But that does not mean the effort totally failed.
In terms of what this current series of postings aims to accomplish, the reader should take into account two areas in which the national concern for science did have large impacts. One area was how the various social sciences changed. In political science, this development coincided with what Harold Lasswell started in the 1930s. That political scientist caused a stir mainly with his proposed definition for politics. He defined this central concept or factor as follows: “who gets what, when, how.”[1]
He writes in the preface of his famous book the following:
The interpretation of politics found in this book underlies the working attitude of practicing politicians. One skill of the politician is calculating probable changes in influence and the influential.
This version of politics is not novel to all students of social development. Yet it is constantly in danger of attenuation.[2]
The general thrust of his book portrays an elitist account of politics in general, but with a focus on American politics. A reader of this work walks away, to the extent Lasswell is successful, with a sobering view of politicians devoid of sentimentality or much hope for a shared sense of communality. As its title suggests, politics is a no-nonsense business of government that determines the distribution of public assets.
Initially, Lasswell’s work did not have the influence it would eventually have. That latter development begins in the 1950s and with the nation’s shift to more scientific concerns in the 1960s. No political scientist garners more credit for this change than David Easton.[3] Reviewing Easton’s main contribution, in terms of this series’ aims, his work facilitated political science’s shift toward a more scientific approach of study.
Those who deal with this matter identify Easton’s introduction of his model for the study of politics as central. He introduced the political systems model in the early fifties. Again, that is reviewed in previous postings, but generally the model describes a system noted for its depiction of a circular process.
That is, it denotes citizens (individually or through some interest group arrangement) feed demands and supports into the system. The system then converts those inputs into outputs of public policy usually in the form of laws and regulations. Once issued, the output is subject to review by the populous that then engage in feedback, that is, communicated judgements that then can be new demands and supports. This, again, is described in previous postings.
A side note should be emphasized: if one approaches the typical civics teacher and asks about the political systems model, he or she will probably not know what that is. Even those who received a degree in political science might not be familiar with the above language. The political systems model no longer enjoys the dominance it once enjoyed, but among all political science programs, it is still quite influential. In addition, most civics teachers received a degree in history or took a concentration in history, not in political science.
The point here is that Easton’s work led to a more “scientific” approach to political science. And in how this development affected civics, the subject matter became more objectified, less concerned with justice, and less aimed at promoting a civic society. Instead, it became more of a report about how participants pursue self-interest within structural elements of government.
Initially, political systems approach with its related behavioral studies were meant to imitate the natural sciences in their approaches. Those engaged with this effort anticipated successes in social sciences that those natural sciences experienced starting in the nineteenth century and straight through the twentieth century. But alas, no such success was being achieved.
Consequently, the political systems approach broke down into various derived approaches like cybernetics, public opinion studies, conflict theory studies, political sociology studies, comparative politics studies, political economy studies, etc. In addition to this diverse, more specific areas of research, older methodologies are currently held in higher regard than they were in the late twentieth century.
They include philosophic and historical methods. In addition, more recently, one finds hermeneutics studies (interpretive analyses) enjoying respected standing within the discipline. But all of that has little to no effect on civics instruction. Instead, that instruction has maintained a structural view of government and this blog in upcoming postings will give the reader an adequate taste of what that subject material looks like.
Through the developments associated with Sputnik and the coincidental influence of Lasswell and Easton, authors of civics textbooks took up the mantle in what they chose to include in their books. One can make a general observation – and this blog will do so in more detail in the near future. - that by simply reviewing what the currently utilized textbooks contain one gets a good view of what and how civics is taught today.
Currently, that would be looking at such best-selling textbooks as Magruder’s American Government or Glencoe United States Government: Democracy in Action. But as for the leadership of social studies, there has been a lingering effort among professional, teacher organizations to uphold the New Social Studies’ instructional format as being progressive and interactive.[4]
This is promoted to replace traditional teaching methods that have students receive instruction in a more passive fashion and known as didactic methods. Inquiry, on the other hand, calls for students to employ interactive modes of study in which they discover information and form conclusions regarding civic problems. Practically all teachers ignore these calls for change in teaching methods.
This reluctance to change might be offset with all the new technologies that have befallen the typical classroom, especially in the more affluent school districts. Easy access to the Internet probably encourages teachers to assign research topics, but in the understanding of this writer, the general process of dispensing information is still through lectures and demonstrations.
An Internet review of the prevalence of didactic teaching practices reveals that there are those who defend and promote the didactic style of teaching. This blog’s position on this issue is that didactic teaching, while it can be used to solicit from students’ higher levels of thinking, the usual result is that students are expected to recall (a low level skill and highly dependent on an individual’s inherent ability to remember) information.
While a lot of what is argued in this blog can be said to favor interactive, open, or student-centered instructional approaches, it does not rule out the ability of some teachers to be effective “didactic” teachers. When this writer taught, didactic style was the prevailing form of teaching. Since the technology factor is at play, it is difficult to say what prevails today, but from the evidence to which this writer is privy, he believes didactic teaching still dominates.
[1] Harold Lasswell, Who Gets What, When, and How (New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1936). Current distributor of this book is Papamoa Press. Also access through online site, https://www.google.com/books/edition/Politics_Who_Gets_What_When_How/UlekDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover , accessed April 16, 2020.
[2] Ibid., n.p. (Preface).
[3] David Easton, The Political System (New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 1953) AND David Easton, A System Analysis of Political Life (New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1965).
[4] See National Council for the Social Studies, Preparing Students for College, Career, and Civic Life C3. This writer has a critical review of these standards in recently published book. See Robert Gutierrez, Toward a Federated Nation: Implementing National Civics Standards (Tallahassee, FL: Gravitas/Civics Books, 2020).
