Seventh Ten Postings of Gravitas

The following list of titles and accompanying dates refers to past postings on the blog, Gravitas: A Voice for Civics Education, that have been deleted.  After each title and date, the entries below include the first paragraph of each respective posting.  If you care to receive a copy of a particular posting, send your request via email to gravitascivics@gmail.com .  One posting per request.

VARIED VIEWS OF EQUALITY

(April 4, 2011)

As I did with the natural rights construct, I begin my review of critical theory construct with my take on its moral view. On what basis does the theory define what good or evil is? As with the natural rights view, a good place to start is to see what constitutes justice for critical theorists. If you recall, the natural rights construct holds, as a trump value, the value of liberty. Liberty for natural rights advocates centrally defines what they see as justice. For critical theorists, the central ideal, their trump value, is equality. This does not mean all critical theorists discard liberty, but it does mean that when given a choice between the two qualities, for them equality wins out. Of course, as a trump value, placing equality in priority skews how advocates measure other social aspects. For example, many of them would argue that equality is a precursor for true liberty; that those who are on the short end of the equality stick have their liberty severely restrained.

THE MOST EGREGIOUS FORM OF ELITISM

(April 8, 2011)

In the last posting, I looked at American feelings regarding equality. I listed five orientations concerning equality that Americans have voiced during the course of our nation's history. Some of these orientations would sound foreign to many of us today, but at one time or another, each one was held by significant numbers of Americans. We, it can be said, have “advanced” beyond some of them. I will describe each of these orientations so that we can somewhat gauge what our own feelings are in relation to one or all of these ideal views of equality or inequality. After reviewing these different views, you might ask yourself: what do I think the preferred view of equality should be?

A “NATURAL” RESULT?

(April 11, 2011)

Critical pedagogues hold central to their moral view the value of equality. Before describing the exact nature of that commitment, I want to review what Americans have thought about equality. In the last posting, I reviewed the first of five orientations toward equality that I have noted in my reading of American history. That orientation was more a sense of inequality and a “justification” for the belief that not only was inequality a natural course of human existence, but also a condition that should be promoted through custom and law. I named that orientation genetic elitism in that it reflected the idea that superiority among humans was due to qualities inbred to those who have them. This type of thinking leads logically to the notion that “chosen” families should be given advantages that are not shared by those not so blessed. While a product of feudal thinking, the remnants of these beliefs survive today.

I WANT IT ALL AND I WANT IT NOW

(April 15, 2011)

American political thought has given prominent standing to the ideal or value of equality. Some attribute this bias to our Judeo-Christian heritage. After all, the belief in the soul, as an equal entity with all other souls, adds to our spiritual sense the notion that we are all equal before the Lord. Whether that extends to our material lives here on earth is another matter.

WHO'S RESPONSIBLE FOR SUCCESS?

(April 18, 2011)

Nine years ago, a prominent philosopher passed away. His name was John Rawls.¹ He thought and wrote about justice and his arguments have been used by what we currently call liberals or progressives. His main argument is best understood, I feel, by looking at what Rawls felt justice to be. He didn't give us a straight definition, but instead gave us a mental exercise.

LABOR IS LABOR IS LABOR

(April 22, 2011)

Over the last several postings, I have reviewed different views of equality that have enjoyed varying degrees of favor among the American public through the course of the nation's history. I have done this because I feel that with an understanding of how Americans view equality or, for that matter, inequality, we can talk more knowledgeably of how critical pedagogues address their moral positions regarding civic affairs. They hold as central to their moral position their trump value: the value of equality. And the way they seem to define this value constitutes the fifth orientation I am presenting in this posting.

A CRITICAL MORAL STAND

(April 25, 2011)

Unlike the natural rights construct, there is no singular moral view among critical theorists and critical pedagogues. I have pointed out that Marxian strains within this line of reasoning, to a large extent, sees the social forces dictating the conflict between entrepreneurs and laborers as mostly amoral. That is, there is not much moral consideration when people are just following their nature and promoting their personal interests that are defined by the position they happen to inhabit. History has placed people in such positions and they, along with all of nature, will just develop according to deterministic laws. For others, though, their commitment to the critical construct is based on more of a moral outlook. For example, those who follow liberation theology equate the inequality existing in developing countries to sinful behavior. What follows is but one view or argument supporting a moral position to which critical pedagogues might ascribe.

SOME INFLUENTIAL SOURCES OF CRITICAL POLITICAL THOUGHT

(April 29, 2011)

In the last posting, I proposed a moral position for critical educators. I anchored that position claiming that critical educators have a commitment, as a trump value, to the value of equality. Equality, within this moral stand, is defined as a social and economic reality in which all citizens, by and large, enjoy equal levels of income and wealth. That reality is characterized with people either basically, to some significant degree, being equal in the ownership or access to material resources or, at least, meaningfully, a la Galtung's concern,¹ closing the gap in the rate at which they are advancing economically. This, if accepted, would be for critical pedagogues a moral stand and motivates what they strive for in their political and educational goals.

TEMPTING THE MARXIST SCENARIO?

(May 2, 2011)

A belated happy May Day! I offer this wish hoping to get you in the mood for what follows in this posting.

LANGUAGE AND PRAXIS

(May 6, 2011)

Recently on CNBC, Joe Kernen, co-host of Squawk Box, plugged his new book, Your Teacher Said What? He actually “co-wrote” the book with his daughter, Blake Kernen. The subtitle of the book calls for creating a fifth grade entrepreneur. He indicated the book was not an indictment of teachers; he likes his daughter's teachers, but feels that the image of business people, portrayed in schools, is often not sufficiently respectful. After all, business people, properly motivated by a profit motive, start businesses that create jobs, provide a product in demand, and garner a profit. Win-win-win! Society benefits from the enterprise. And I agree. But I am not a critical theorist or a Marxist or a critical pedagogue. They would find the claim that business interests are not being represented in our curriculum with sufficient respect or are even given a tarnished image as laughable. In this I also agree, somewhat. As I have argued through this blog and in a published work, the prevailing curricular view that dominates our social studies offerings is the natural rights construct. That construct, in its purest form, bolsters the theoretical and moral perspectives that serve as a foundation for our capitalist system. I would argue that our whole system of private enterprise is well fortified by what is taught in our schools.

CRITICAL POLITICS IN THE PRACTICAL WORLD

(May 9, 2011)

If you have been following this blog over the last several postings, you can probably figure out why critical theory and critical pedagogy have not caught on with either teachers in general or the professional segment of educators that provides services to school districts, state educational bureaucracies, or the federal government. I would also include the general public, but people in general are mostly unaware of critical theory or critical pedagogy. The extent to which anyone would follow the writings of critical scholars, and this writing varies greatly in terms of intensity or purity, is mostly limited to the scholarly practitioners in our institutions of higher education. Even there, the most ardent followers are primarily limited to particular fields such as curricular studies, educational philosophy, educational sociology, and educational political studies. But there are among us those who pursue political activity that, again to varying degrees, reflects the beliefs of the critical theory construct.

Sixth Ten Posting of Gravitas

The following list of titles and accompanying dates refers to past postings on the blog, Gravitas: A Voice for Civics Education, that have been deleted.  After each title and date, the entries below include the first paragraph of each respective posting.  If you care to receive a copy of a particular posting, send your request via email to gravitascivics@gmail.com .  One posting per request.

MOSTLY ON THE POSITIVE SIDE

(February 28, 2011)

As a teacher for many years, I had to evaluate student performance. These evaluations took many shapes, but whatever the form, I thought it prudent to take on as positive a tone as possible, even if the feedback to the student had to be mostly negative. I will take the same approach in commenting on the utility of the natural rights construct. Let me begin, therefore, with what I see as the positive aspects of using the natural rights construct as the main perspective for civics education.

PROTECTING AGAINST NIHILISM

(March 4, 2011)

“Those who tell you 'You can have liberty without morality or morality without religion' are leading you down the road of despotism”¹ is a quote from George Washington. I wish I could agree with this sentiment completely, but I do agree with an important aspect of it. I can't go with the notion that one needs religion to be moral and to avoid despotism, but I feel that as a society, we need a significant number of people, well over a majority, to have a strong sense of morality – a sense that has a well established and coherent view of what constitutes a good society and what constitutes a bad one. In addition, that moral view needs substance and a narrative, a story depicting what goodness is. We as a people need to share the central tenets of that morality. 

 

1Quoted in Fears, J. R. (2001). A history of freedom. A transcript of a course produced by The Teaching Company, p. 76.

LIMITS OF POSITIVIST STUDIES

(March 7, 2011)

A quick review of what this blog has attempted to do, up till now, is to give an overview of the natural rights construct. The claim was made that this construct is the overarching view prominent in American civics and government instruction. Beginning with its fundamental moral position which reflects a preference for traditional liberalism, the blog argued that that position emphasizes the centrality of the individual and his or her rights to decide and act as he or she basically believes to be correct. The postings then reviewed the construct from the perspective of its theoretical view of politics and government; i. e., the political systems approach. Next, the blog reviewed the basic methodologies which are ensconced in the behavioral approach with its relied upon protocols. Then the blog showed what the construct has meant to civics education. Last, the blog has begun a critique of the construct. So far, I have critiqued its moral posture.

SHORTCOMINGS OF PURELY RATIONAL ASSUMPTIONS

(March 11, 2011)

In the last posting of this blog, I critiqued positivist studies. Researchers who ascribe to the natural rights perspective mostly rely on positivist methods. My main concern in that posting is that positivist research, due to its ahistorical bias, shies away from confronting factors or elements of reality that do not lend themselves to quantitative measures. I wrote, as example, the problem such an approach would have with dealing with the issue of security versus freedom. Another concern, along this line, is how the political systems model, the basic theoretical foundation of the natural rights construct, analyzes phenomena into its component elements.

LOSING THE IDEAL?

(March 14, 2011)

The last posting introduced an attribute one can associate with the natural rights construct. That is, the natural rights construct encourages one to view political and, to a great degree, social interactions as being the product of marginal analysis – weighing marginal or extra benefits against marginal or extra costs of doing something. If the marginal benefits are greater than the marginal costs for a person considering an action, then that person will do that action.

THE “UNUSUAL” ACT OF ASSOCIATING

(March 18, 2011)

Have you noticed the public workers, mostly teachers, organizing and demonstrating in Wisconsin, Ohio, and Indiana? I have and I find these demonstrations hopeful. I am not going to argue that the demonstrators are right in their demands. That's not the point or even the question I am addressing in this posting. What I am drawing your attention to is the mere fact that these people are acting as a collective. It might be these collectives have been organized too late for the goals they seek. A voting block in the last election might have been more effective. But the power of organized political action in our democracy cannot be overestimated. These demonstrations are newsworthy not only in relation to the issues they are addressing, but that their formulation bucks a trend.

AN ELUSIVE BALANCE

(March 21, 2011)

Before getting into the “meat” of this posting, I feel I need to share some personal information. In my first five years of formal education, ages six to ten, I attended a school in New York City where there was a liberal use of corporal punishment. I don't talk about it much and I am not engaging in a boohoo session. I mention this because I know what it means to be young and subject to unreasonable bullying by adults. I never experienced bullying by cohorts, but the fear of older people taking advantage of younger ones is one I can empathize with and hold in utter contempt.

NATURAL RIGHTS CONSTRUCT REVIEWED

(March 25, 2011)

I have dedicated a series of postings to present the basic view of politics and government that prevails in our civics classrooms around the country. The decision to portray our government through this theoretical base has not been made by teachers. It has been made by those in authority who have decided which textbooks to adopt. I have personally been involved in this process in the state of Florida. States engage in truncated procedures to determine what texts will be used; I will probably explain this process at some future date.

HURTFUL CONTRADICTION

(March 28, 2011)

Some final thoughts on the natural rights construct.¹ All constructs developed by the human mind have contradictions. For example, does Christianity believe that the road to heaven is through giving up earthly riches (“It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom.” Matthew 19:24)? Or does it believe, as the adherents of prosperity theology claim, that riches are among the benefits God bestows on the faithful (“I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more.” John 10:10)?² This, to me, is a contradiction.

 

1Not really; I'm sure I will find occasion in the future to write more about the natural rights construct.

2Adherents of prosperity theology cite John 10:10 as supporting their claims.

THE ANTITHESIS

(April 1, 2011)

Quite a few postings ago, I began to write about the natural rights construct. I mentioned early on that while that construct has become the dominant view of our civics curriculum, those who adhere to it do so to varying degrees. In an attempt to be clear about what constitutes this view, I didn't emphasize this aspect of its dominance. To do so might have muddied the waters while I was trying to explain what the construct is. I have now basically explained the theory, so let me restate this fact: those who support the construct vary in how supportive they are.

VARIED VIEWS OF EQUALITY

(April 4, 2011)

As I did with the natural rights construct, I begin my review of critical theory construct with my take on its moral view. On what basis does the theory define good or bad, virtue or evil? As with the natural rights view, a good place to start is to see what constitutes justice for critical theorists. If you recall, the natural rights construct holds, as a trump value, the value of liberty. Liberty for natural rights advocates centrally defines what they see as justice. For critical theorists, the central ideal, their trump value, is equality. This does not mean all critical theorists discard liberty, but it does mean that when given a choice between the two qualities, for them equality wins out. Of course, as a trump value, placing equality in priority skews how advocates measure other social aspects. For example, many of them would argue that equality allows for true liberty; that those who are on the short end of the equality factor have their liberty severely restrained.

Fifth Ten Postings of Gravitas

  The following list of titles and accompanying dates refers to past postings on the blog, Gravitas: A Voice for Civics Education, that have been deleted.  After each title and date, the entries below include the first paragraph of each respective posting.  If you care to receive a copy of a particular posting, send your request via email to gravitascivics@gmail.com .  One posting per request.

DETERMINISTIC POLITICS?

(January 24, 2011)

For those of you who might not be familiar with the term, determinism is the idea that we do not really have control over our actions – that we are deceived into believing we do because we are conscious of going through some mental “decision-making” process before we act. Of course, the exception to this process is when we react to an unexpected change in our immediate environment. This would be the case, for example, if you suddenly looked up and saw a ball headed for your noggin and you duck. I'm always curious that while watching a baseball game, from time to time, a foul lined ball will shoot directly backward. The people sitting behind the plate duck when that happens even though they know a fence is there to protect them. Obviously there is no decision-making; there is just reaction.

A FLOATING ORGANISM

(January 28, 2011)

To date, in this blog, I have shared with you the basic tenets of a construct that I believe provides primary guidance over what is mostly taught in our civics classrooms around the country. I call the construct natural rights. I have identified its main moral positions as those associated with traditional liberalism. Specifically, it holds that liberty is a trump value; that the individual has the right to define his or her own views and ambitions and, short of interfering with others' right to do likewise, to behave in accordance with those views and ambitions. According to this construct, no other right or value is more important in the public sphere than liberty. The construct also contains a view of politics and governance. This view mostly relies on the political systems model which had prominence within the scholarly discipline of political science during the middle of the last century. For the most part, researchers who ascribe to this position rely on scientific protocols to do their work. As outlined below, the more progressive educators of our school systems – a relatively small number of teachers – incorporate these methods in their instructional plans and introduce secondary students to the research techniques associated with the political systems model.

A NATURAL RIGHTS DIRECTION IN OUR CURRICULUM

(January 31, 2011)

Over the last few postings, I have been reviewing the elements of the natural rights construct. This construct serves as the main view of politics and governance among our citizens and guides civics instructional efforts in US classrooms. In order to present these elements, I have used the following questions to guide me: What should the basis of civic morality be? And what is the nature of politics and government? A review of the last handful of postings will reveal answers to these questions from the perspective of the natural rights construct. In this posting, I want to begin answering a third question: What should the elements of civics curriculum be? Included in this question is the concern over what the civic role of schools should be. Since it is impossible to totally segregate these topics – moral outlook, perspective of politics and governance, and elements of civics curriculum – I have already given hints as to what the answer of this last question is. I want to now begin targeting this curricular issue more directly.

NATURAL RIGHTS CURRICULUM AND ASSESSMENT

(February 4, 2011)

I have characterized the natural rights construct, our dominate view of politics and governance, as a highly objectified perspective. Given that this construct is the central theoretical foundation for what is taught in American civics and government classes, it has a profound impact on what our young people are exposed to in terms of content and values. This influence is felt in a variety of ways. Influences range from the content found in most textbooks to national attempts at assessing how well schools perform in this subject area. The federal government has a hand in this latter effort. It funds the Center for Civic Education and, through the Center, the Educational Testing Service. Jointly, they produce the National Assessment Educational Progress (NAEP) testing program known as the Nation's Report Card, which includes testing in civics.

THE AIMS OF A NATURAL RIGHTS CURRICULUM

(February 7, 2011)

These last few postings have addressed the question: what should the civics curriculum (including the civic role of schools) be? The overall trend in our schools, where the natural rights construct has been the predominant mental construct guiding those schools' efforts in civics, has been to promote a consumer orientation to citizenship. I detect in the literature, produced and promoted by natural rights educators, the following goals:

• teach the structural components of government (the parts of the government like the Presidency)
• teach a view of government as a subservient institution which attempts to satisfy the collective interests of individual citizens
• teach the philosophical basis of government’s role as defender of individual rights
• convey the legitimate needs of government to encourage and facilitate degrees of support among the populous in order to maintain political stress to manageable and even useful levels
• portray a realistic account of politics within the nation so that students will be able to reasonably interact with governmental agencies and offices to pursue their political goals and objectives
• express the technical nature of political activity with ample respect for political expertise held by professionals which includes elected officials and bureaucrats

CAN NATURAL RIGHTS BE NEUTRAL AND COMMUNAL?

(February 11, 2011)

There has been criticism concerning the level of individualism characterizing our civics curriculum. I have attributed, through these postings, some “blame” for this individualism on a particular view of politics and government, the natural rights construct. Ironically, a scholar who has recognized the communal role that civics should hold and promote is John Patrick. I write ironically because he has had both enormous influence on the work of the Center for Civic Education and in the Center's role assisting in the National Assessment Educational Progress (NAEP) testing program known as the Nation's Report Card and which reflects the assumptions of the natural rights construct. In addition, Patrick has co-authored a widely used civics textbook based on a natural rights perspective.

NEUTRALITY DEFINED

(February 14, 2011)

In the last few postings, I have written about the neutrality of the political system. This language might be confusing. You might ask, don't elected officials go to their legislative and executive positions with platforms that promote a certain set of policy positions that, once they are elected, they try to implement? Does this not reflect a bias, a position? Isn't neutrality the opposite when someone or some group avoids taking a positions?

W-X-Y-Z

(February 18, 2011)

The title of this posting does not refer to a radio or TV station (I think there exists both a radio and TV station with those call letters). My reference to W-X-Y-Z is a shorthand way to designate different types of politicians. The letters result from formulating a two by two grid in which, along the horizontal plane, we gauge a politician's motivation and, along the vertical plane, we gauge his or her overall strategy. The grid forms four cells, hence W-X-Y-Z.

HIS WAY WAS THE HIGHWAY

(February 21, 2011)

When I was young, growing up in Miami, Florida, I remember the exciting prospect of an expressway being built through the eastern part of the city. Interstate 95 was constructed and it promised to revolutionize our ability to travel north and south. What I wasn't aware of at the time was the human cost that “improvement” meant in the lives of thousands of people. Later in life, especially during the racial disturbances of the eighties, I learned how I-95 disrupted African-American neighborhoods like Overtown.

THE ABSENCE OF A BALANCING ACT

(February 25, 2011)

In this blog, I have been reviewing what I term the natural rights construct. I have outlined this perspective's moral and theoretical foundations and reviewed its methodological approach. Next, I want to critique this construct. I have, through these postings, previewed what I find lacking with the construct, but starting with this posting, I will more directly express my judgments on its the utility.

 

Fourth Ten Postings of Gravitas

The following list of titles and accompanying dates refers to past postings on the blog, Gravitas: A Voice for Civics Education, that have been deleted.  After each title and date, the entries below include the first paragraph of each respective posting.  If you care to receive a copy of a particular posting, send your request via email to gravitascivics@gmail.com .  One posting per request.

UNAVOIDABLE DEBATE

(December 20, 2010)

I have been conveying in this blog what some might consider a natural conflict within our politics. This conflict has been there since the beginning of the republic and it has taken different guises. This national conflict is our form of the age old fight between the different economic classes. Our version might be a bit milder than what has been experienced in other nations. There are probably different historical reasons for this deviation. Perhaps what we have cannot be expressed as pure class warfare, although some would argue that it is. Within different institutions, this tension takes on varied forms, but it is there and we should recognize it for what it is.

THE DEBATE BETWEEN CIVICS EDUCATORS

(December 24, 2010)

A review of previous postings of this blog shows references to a debate among civics educators. Both sides of the debate – proponents of the natural rights construct and proponents of the critical theory construct – are briefly defined in the last posting of this blog, “Unavoidable Debate.” I think you should be aware of this debate because of the role it plays in obstructing the promotion of civics education in our schools and among the general public. A divided field does not yield a position of strength from which its advocates can compete for either funds or a more prominent position in our schools' curricula.

Natural Rights' Basic View of Morality

(December 27, 2010)

We often wonder what makes others “tick.” An example might be: why does a neighbor not bring in his garbage cans or bins after the sanitation truck makes its weekly visit? Speculation might range from laziness to a deep-seated animosity toward the neighborhood.¹ When such a question involves professionals performing their duties, assuming sufficient levels of conscientiousness on their part, one is probably safe to assume that decisions reflect some moral belief, some notion of right and wrong. These notions can range from beliefs concerning a work ethic to how these acts might affect people. Based on this assumption, I will begin describing the content or substance of the moral outlook of the prevailing civics curricular construct, natural rights. By reviewing what I see as its advocates' moral position(s), we can begin to understand what makes them “tick” in making their curricular choices.

1Just want to be on the record; this is not a problem in my neighborhood.

WHEN DO YOU HAVE THE RIGHT?

(December 31, 2010)

One of my favorite shows from the current crop of TV fare is Men of a Certain Age. It stars Ray Romano of Everybody Loves Raymond fame. Given the topic of my last posting on traditional liberal morality, the show's last episode had a timely plot line.

AN EXTRAORDINARY QUALIFIED SUCCESS

(January 3, 2011)

I want to take one more bite at this topic that I have been addressing in this blog; that is, the moral implications of natural rights construct. If you have never thought about the natural rights construct, much less its moral implications, but found something familiar with what the last two postings described, there is a reason. The moral element of the natural rights construct is the moral foundation of a capitalist or free market economy. In future postings, I will give my critique of free markets, but here I want to sing its qualified praises.

THE NATURAL RIGHTS APPROACH TO POLITICAL CONTENT

(January 7, 2011)

The last few postings have described what natural rights advocates believe to be the basis of civic morality. I have outlined that their view of civic morality centers on valuing individual liberty as a trump value. That is, individuals should be allowed to determine their own values and goals and to have the rights necessary in order to live in accordance with those values and to pursue, through their individual efforts, the fulfillment of those goals. Those beliefs serve as a moral foundation for their civic and political views.

INPUTS, OUTPUTS, AND FEEDBACK

(January 10, 2011)

The natural rights construct is currently the prevailing view of governance and politics which guides the curricular choices of civics educators. A civic construct answers a variety of questions. Among these questions are what is the basic moral position one should take in regard to political and governmental affairs and what is the theoretical understanding of politics and governments. I have argued that this construct promotes a traditional or classical liberal moral stand. As for its view of political and governmental reality, the construct adopts a political systems perspective.

REQUISITE FUNCTIONS

(January 14, 2011)

The prevailing view guiding civics education in American classrooms, the natural rights construct, uses the political systems model as its main theoretical approach to the study of political reality. Based on the work of David Easton, the political systems model views politics as a competitive process engaged by citizens who, when moved by atypical conditions, vie against each other for governmental favor(s). The model outlines this process by distinguishing inputs, conversion, outputs, and feedback.

POWER

(January 17, 2011)

In the last few postings, I have been reviewing what the political world looks like through the natural rights perspective. That construct's basic outline of politics is best represented by the political systems model. As far as a theoretical view, the political systems model was central for political scientists during the decades of the mid Twentieth Century. Shortly, I will proceed with an overview of the methodology this approach promoted and how those methods reflected the general adoption by these scholars of behavioralism. I will proceed in small doses, not so much for your sake, but for mine.

FURTHER OBJECTIFYING POLITICS

(January 21, 2011)

Up to date in this blog, I might have left you with the impression that civics instruction around the country regularly portrays an image of government in which people try to outdo each other to get favorable policy decisions. That is not true and I didn't exactly write that. If only civics and government classes were that interesting. What I was trying to convey is that civics and government classes have a descriptive foundation. In government there exists all these “branches” of government, bureaucratic departments and offices, and all of these people outside government who seek government action, such as voters, interest groups, and political parties. The image presented: the political system is a big machine with a multitude of parts. All the juicier stuff of intrigue, power plays, deception, and the like is left to novels or the more partisan pundits on TV.

 

Third Ten Postings of Gravitas

The following list of titles and accompanying dates refers to past postings on the blog, Gravitas: A Voice for Civics Education, that have been deleted.  After each title and date, the entries below include the first paragraph of each respective posting.  If you care to receive a copy of a particular posting, send your request via email to gravitascivics@gmail.com .  One posting per request.

LACK OF POLITICAL KNOWLEDGE AND SOCIAL CAPITAL

(November 15, 2010)

In previous postings, I have written favorably about the ideal of social capital. Using a paraphrased version of Robert Putnam's definition I have described the ideal as a societal quality characterized by having an active, public-spirited citizenry, egalitarian political relations, and a social environment of trust and cooperation – it speaks to communal bonds and cooperative interactions. I believe public school curriculum should actively promote this quality. Two ways schools can do this is to impart political and governmental knowledge and to promote citizen participation in governmental affairs, especially at the local level.

A MEASURE OF EFFECTIVENESS: RATES OF CRIMINALITY

(November 19, 2010)

In previous postings, perhaps I have been a bit subtle. I have written about how our young citizens have not acquired meaningful levels of political knowledge, although some might find the levels higher than those found in other countries. I have pointed out that there has been a lack of civility among the young and the population in general, although some might feel uncomfortable with including civility as a topic in our schools' civics curriculum. I also made the case that many citizens have not been adequately engaged in our political process and those who have participated have engaged in what has been called “extraordinary politics;” that is, political behavior that is disruptive and divisive. Let me be clear: we need to do a better job with civics education. I would like to add one more area that I believe is related to civics education but seldom considered.

A DEFAULT CONSTRUCT

(November 22, 2010)

Earlier in the history of this blog, I introduced the idea of a construct. I defined a construct as an overarching theory that one holds over some topic. A construct is to some degree an organized set of explanatory and descriptive ideas, visions, and emotions that makes meaning of some aspect of life. If I were to mention family, you would picture in your mind an entire array of ideas – some descriptive, some explanatory, and some emotional. The compilation of these ideas constitutes your construct of family. In addition, one element of a construct might include some sort of narrative that contains all of the elements in a story, perhaps not well developed, but with enough substance to function as a boundary to what belongs in your construct and what does not.

THE FUNCTIONS OF A CONSTRUCT

(November 26, 2010)

“From my perspective” is surely a saying we all have heard and usually know what it means. But have you really thought about the implications of such a sentiment? The “glasses” we wear affect us in countless ways. For one, we often project our view on to others or we see as naive or stupid perspectives that don't jive with ours. In a more proactive sense, reflection on our perspectives can be a very useful thing. In determining what one wants to accomplish in a given area or how to accomplish it, a person is well served in having an overall theory of the targeted concern. This is true only if the construct, our overall view, proves truthful and of practical utility.

JUDGING A CONSTRUCT'S UTILITY IN CIVICS EDUCATION

(November 29, 2010)

As I have intimated in previous postings, I am going to look critically at two prevailing constructs to which professional civics educators adhere. In the last twenty years or so, there has been a debate in the field as to which construct should be prominent – natural rights or critical theory.

EXCESSIVE INDIVIDUALISM

(December 3, 2010)

We all have our private lives, our conditions of employment, and our individual ambitions. Yet we all share the role of citizen.  We often pay little concern to this last mentioned area of life. But how often do we become concerned when this social-political arena and its consequences affect those more personal concerns? When it does anger is often the emotion we express – when those “impositions” arise. Frankly, I believe we too often have an unrealistic view of those outside forces. We see them as out there and reflective of some people trying to take unfair advantage of something or other. Usually the word politician comes readily to our lips and we see that world as distasteful, but this reaction should be foreign to the citizens of a republic. Hopefully, these postings will encourage you to take a more active role and that through exercising your citizenship, you will see a more realistic and exciting realm of life.

INDIVIDUALISM AND COLLECTIVITY AS IDEALS OF OUR FOUNDING

(December 6, 2010)

In the last posting, I brought up the issue of excessive individualism. Current right wing advocates often make the claim that the US Constitution is firmly based on the principle of protecting the individual against just about all intrusions by government. For example, on the television show, Q & A, broadcast on C-SPAN, April 26, 2009, Christopher Hitchens, contributing editor of Vanity Fair, made the claim that the American Revolution was based on individual rights and that that bias was later codified in the US Constitution under the provisions of the Bill of Rights. In the future, I will review more extensively the prevailing ideals of the Revolution's generation. But for now, let us look at some of the language with which we are familiar to test this proposition by Mr. Hitchens.

A BASIC CIVIC DYNAMIC

(December 10, 2010)

Ideals expressed without context usually sound so good and so right. For example, a person should just be able to do what he or she wants to do and should have the right to do so. Or, a person's well being is dependent on others doing what they should do. If expressed independently, each of these statements makes sense and sounds right. But, even by expressing them one after the other, we intuitively feel that each is more complicated and not categorically – no matter what – correct.

TWO SIDES TO THE LEDGER

(December 13, 2010)

When political policy favors collectivist aims, such as with Social Security, citizens are well served to be wary that such decisions are threats to individual liberty. After all, Social Security is a mandated insurance program funded by mandatory taxes. If you like it or not, upon employment (with some rare exceptions), law dictates that you participate in the program. The fact that Social Security is so popular shows that not all limits on liberty are hated or seen as oppressive, at least by the vast majority of the citizenry.

THE LANGUAGE OF ASSUMPTIONS

(December 17, 2010)

You find yourself in conversation about a subject you are not necessarily an expert on, but about which you have some familiarity. The person you are talking to expresses an opinion that sounds out of left field, but speaks with much conviction. You understand what the person is saying, but it sounds wrong to you. Example: I was at a very interesting meeting the other day attended by local politicians of one of the major parties. One person, a woman who was expressing opinions much in line with the sentiments of the group, said the opposition party just did not care about people. She stated that the opposition merely cared about the rich that was all. I assumed she was saying that since the opposition party, according to the conversation, was willing to sacrifice governmental policies that benefited lower and middle income people in order to secure benefits for the rich. What she was really saying was that that party doesn't want government to care and this is reflected by the governmental policies (or lack of them) it supports. The discussion proceeded under this expressed assumption.