Sunday, October 20, 2013

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.







No comments:

Post a Comment