Recently, I've been debating the question of kids saying, or being required to say, the Pledge of Allegiance. I have also been reading the book, Total Truth by Nancy Pearcy. She provided what I thought might be an interesting and profitable way to recast the question. Much of the debate involved the contunuum between autonomy and society or collectivity. It's the discussion of the individual good, rights and responsibilities in opposition to the common, collective or social good, rights and responsibilities.
Does a child have a right to refuse to say the Pledge of Allegiance? Does a child have enough responsibility to say it? Does a society have a right to require that a child say the pledge? Does society have the responsibility to make absolutely sure that that child understands the pledge, understands his right (or lack thereof) to refuse to say it, and has ample opporunity to refuse? Does society have equal responsibility with every other potential decision the child faces? Does the "good" of the individual (however defined) outweigh the "good" of society (again, hwoever defined)? Or, does the good of society outweigh the good of the individual?
For the autonomous person, the good of the individual always outweighs the good of society (at any level.) At the other end of the spectrum is what I'll call the Hive Mind - the good of the society always outweighs the good of the individual to such an extent that there is no longer a separate individual good. Drawing an analogy from Star Trek, this is the Borg. I suspect my inability to develop a comparative analogy for the anarchic nightmare that is the opposite of the Borg/Hive Mind nightmare reveals a tendency in me toward the autonomous end of the sprectrum (though how far in that direction I go, I have yet to determine. I am also unsure whether the source of this autonomy is the American independent spirit or the even more ubiquitous desire to be "like God.")
There are two general lines of questioning to be explored here. The first is wehter or not there is apoint where the ideal balance between the needs, desires, rights and/or responsiblities of the individual and those of the society is found. If so, where is it? I doubt there is a universal tipping point of this sort. I beleive the issues must be resolved in a case by case basis, as with the Pledge discussion. It should be considered also that in addition the "good" of the individual or the society, and the harm of the individual and the society, there is a range in which the individual or society neither benefit nor suffer; there is a neutral territory.
The second line of questioning is where one finds the solution to the problem presented by each opinion. In Total Truth, the author refers to Rousseau's philosophy as being archetypal of autonomy. As I understand it, for Rousseau, society or civilization was evil and the solution was the state, whose job it is to control the society, but not the individual. The closest I can come to the other position is a variation of one in which privacy is seen as the origin of evil. In this case, the solution was the revolutionary overthrow of individualistic oppressors and the establishment of a collectivistic, socialist or communistic society. To whom doews the society turn to combate the "evil" of individualism? The model on which I based this variation looks to society itself.
Are these models accurate? I the example of the pledge, those who subscribe to the "society" model, who believe that children should say the pledge, that we should be patriotic, etc., seem to me to be those most likely to vehemently reject the idea of establishing a socialistic or communistic state. They are, at least stereotypically, of a Conservative persuasion. Those who subscribe to the "autonomous" model are stereotypically of a Liberal persuasion. I expect them to be in favor of a more socialistic state and of "politically correct" language, which regularly suppresses the very autonomy they appear to be championing in this case. The situation seems counter-intuitive.
What's going on, then? Am I working from stereotypes that are that off-base? Is the debate not ultimately Liberal vs Conservative? Have I chosen the wrong models? Can the models not be applied in individual situations? The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that the problem is with the premise: that the debate is based on the continuum between autonomy and society. Certainly anyone reading the debate would reach the same conclusion.
Two possible (and not mutually exclusive) solutions come to mind. The first is that no group is pure. For both the Liberals and the Conservatives there are issues seen as best resolved by autonomy and issues seen as best resolved by a socialistic or collectivisitic approach. In short, we have returned to the first question of this post. The second is that the issue under debate was not accurately defined. Is the dilemma really autonomy vs society or is it merely being presented as such? Is it a conscious, deceptive tactic, a taught behavior/response or natural? The answers may depend on the individual making the argument.
Is the dilemma autonomy vs society? If the subject of the debate were changed to "should our children be permitted (or required) to" speak in favor of some Liberal agenda point would those both sides suddenly fall silent? In fact, they would reverse roles, assuming what is more traditionally their positions.
The answer may lie in the differing approaches taken by the opponents. Those who speak in favor of children saying the Pledge express authoritative universals. The Pledge is good. All children should say the Pledge. When they speak in favor of some other agenda point, do those who oppose the pledge use authoritative universals? I suspect that they present positive role models demonstrating the behavior. They show value for the behavior and the reason for it. They equate the behavior and the reason for it with intelligence, sophistication, and social benefits. They make the behavior and the acceptance of the reason for it desirable. Once they have built value, then they begin to pronounce negatively with regard to its absence. In other words, the Conservatives approach the issue objectively and through facts, while the Liberals approach it subjectively, through values and feelings.
Putting aside the sense that Conservatives might have that it is "right" to approach the subject of the pledge factually, historically, etc., perhaps the better approach would be to use the media to make it popular and attractive, sophisticated, cool, etc. to say the Pledge.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/yt-LPbIls0iOnI/red_the_pledge/
No comments:
Post a Comment