Monday, November 5, 2007

A (quick logic) for civic education

What is civic education (in a formal sense) meant to be? Forming responsible members of the collective? Creating individuals more likely to engage in pro-social behaviors?

At the heart of the concept of civic education is the notion that the state has an interest in the moral development of its citizens and that moral reasoning is central to the development of citizenship. To investigate this idea, it is first necessary to deconstruct the concept of "moral reasoning". First, it is a process. Moral reasoning is first, an active experience. Whether you consider the constructivist approach to moral development of Kohlberg and Piaget, or even a less explicitly defined stage theory, moral reasoning connotes some sort of cognitive activity.

Second, most philosophers, sociologists, and political scientists, to the extent that they agree on the subject of moral reasoning, agree that there is some sort of conscious undertaking whereby abstract concepts are synthesized into a more complete framework to shape the actor's actions. The substance of this framework is less frequently agreed upon (is it values centered or not?).

Finally, moral reasoning is a process with an internal locus of control. Though moral reasoning may be spurred on in its development by external factors, the procedure is ultimately internal. Thus, I would argue that part of developing a coherent, consistent moral logic is essential to developing an empowered individual. From this, I would argue that moral "agency" is essential to the development of a moral citizen. This concept comes from Robert Coles' (1986) work on the moral development of children. Coles argued that moral development occurs from the experience of the moral dilemmas of one's daily life, not from viewing the dilemmas of others (Kohlberg). Through experience and feedback, particularly from adults around them, children use and develop a moral framework with themselves at the center of it, not on the outside looking in.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Okay,

First and foremost: What is an "Internal locus of control?"

Second: I like your thoughts on development of morals, but are morals not taught to us by the collective, or society. I view society's norms as morals. Should I?
Who is to say what is morally right or wrong. Is it set in stone? This reminds me of a story...my mom worked for a couple years at dorthea dix mental hospital in NC back in the day. She said the one person that scared her the most was a man who was seemingly fine, but would always comment, I was sane before they put me in here, now I am crazy. I always wonder if "Crazy" (Not a great term) people are not crazy, but simply going against society's moral or ethical behavior.

I am on a tangent, but hey, I am commenting.

Wouldn't You Like to Know said...

Andy raises an interesting issue, and he also touches on it in his own blog: how do we deal with conflicting messages about morals and values from different social institutions? If your family says that A is wrong but society at large says that A is right, what is the process by which individuals reconcile these values.

While I don't know how much a personal anecdote works here, my brother's experience in deciding to join ROTC speaks to this conflict, and goes directly to an issue of service. My father, being an aging hippie (aren't they all?) is very anti-military, and so it was a big problem for him when my brother told him of his intention to join the ROTC program at his college. My family has no military experience anywhere in our family tree, so it was quite unusual for him to pursue such a path. Where a conflict occured in a conception of "moral" action and behavior though, "society's" view (it could be argued) won out over the family's view (although not all of us in the family shared the exact same perspective of my father.)

How does tangential anecdote relate to civic education? On the one hand, it indicates that certain social values can sometimes trump the values received through family. Another thing that it may indicate is the need to harmonize the message across social institutions. Just my two cents :)