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.
