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.