Toward a Good Society in the Twenty-First Century

Principles and Policies

N. Karagiannis, J. Marangos, N. Karagiannis, J. Marangos

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2013
• Print ISBN: 9781137274731
• eBook ISBN: 9781137313621
• Topic: Economics
• Subtopic: Development Economics
• Index: Economics

Having previously defined a good society as a sustainable society with a high level of development, significant provision of meaningful jobs, and low levels of inequality and social ills, Toward a Good Society in the Twenty-first Century provides a wide range of principles and policies that would be necessary if we are to achieve a good society.

Part I

Education, Distribution, and Good Society

Chapter 1

Moral Education and the Good Society: An IMPACT for HBCUs

Denise Pearson

Introduction

My interest in the topic of moral education emerged while pursuing a master’s degree in conflict resolution, after completing master’s and doctorate degrees in education administration. A close examination of the three programs revealed strong cross-disciplinary connections from my perspective, although only loosely (if at all) associated across the curriculums. Coupled with nearly two decades of higher education experience—including teaching and administration—I have observed the behaviors of stakeholder groups throughout the educational enterprise and at times questioned their individual and collective moral reasoning, including my own. As such, this could not be treated simply as reflective practice, and a deeper study of relationships between these two disciplines continued to evolve. The idea of moral education and the good society is an extension of this pursuit of knowledge and meaning.

An immediate question became, how can you cultivate and sustain the good society in the presence of rising social conflict and educational systems in crisis? The social conflicts at the center of this discussion are not those interpersonal and group situations Coser describes as having the potential to contribute to the maintenance, adjustment, or adaptation of social relationships and structures (1957, 151). The social conflicts at the heart of this argument are those that interfere with individual rights to attain quality education—absent of fear, violence, and hostility in pursuit of one’s meaningful life. As a good education is deemed necessary to function freely and effectively in a democratic society, the notion of not addressing harmful relationships and structures has moral implications at its core.

Educators and philosophers differ on the purpose of education in society. Nonetheless, Huitt identifies three main purposes that are widely accepted, which include the development of a purpose for one’s life, the development of one’s character, and the development of competence (Huitt 2004). Similarly, Walsh claims that the role of education is the development of knowledge and competence, training of ability to think critically, and the development of character (Walsh 1990). At its nucleus, character has been defined as engaging in conduct and words that are morally appropriate, or refraining from inappropriate conduct or words, and consisting of that which can be observed, according to Wynne and Walberg (1984). Pritchard defines character, as reflected in one’s actions, as a complex set of relatively persistent qualities of the individual person (1988). It follows naturally that the purpose of all education, including moral and character development, should be reflected in the curriculum, beginning with learning outcomes. The purpose of educational programs is oftentimes carefully crafted in mission, vision, and values statements but falls short of being intentionally reflected in the actual curriculum. This compels some to question if the development of moral character in students is a role schools value and have accepted as a societal mandate.

This essay examines the nexus of education in a democratic society, the notion of the good society, and intentional moral development (educators influence moral development—even if unintentionally). The problem is well documented and the proposition of character education carries little risk but has the potential to offer relief to societal problems that reflect flaws in character development as manifested in our schools and communities.

The issue of morality is wrought with robust controversy. While philosophers, researchers, psychologists, educators, and others have contributed to the debate about the meaning of morality, there is no consensus and the dialogue continues. Are there universal moral codes that apply in all situations, or can we identify and pursue those that will allow citizens to peacefully coexist in a democracy? What is the role of schools in the development of moral character? Who defines what is moral, and how do you protect against imposing one group’s values upon another’s? Furthermore, what’s the difference between moral behavior and convention? Which should be the primary focus of character education? These questions and others will be explored here.

While the debate about morality and education’s role in character development continues, discussion about what constitutes appropriate curricular at various stages of the K-16 educational system is also considered. In the end, this essay will focus on character development at the postsecondary level, offering perspectives with possible implications and opportunities for the nation’s 103 historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs).

Problem and Thesis

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts or evidence. John Adams (In White [2006], 28)

A singular definition of the good society does not exist. However in its simplest terms, the good society allows its members to be good or to do the good. It is a society that values personal development and virtuous behavior by its members. Consequently, the good society is concerned with relationships with other members within the community, however broadly or narrowly defined.

Sociologist Amitai Etzioni’s definition of a good society insists on a focus on the term “community,” which he defines as consisting of two elements: “A web of affect laden relationships among a group of individuals, relationships that often crisscross and reinforce one another—rather than merely one-on-one or chainlike individual relationships; and a measure of commitment to a set of shared values, norms, and meanings, and a shared history and identity—in short, to a particular culture” (1996, 2).

A broad-brush scan of the environment exposes incidents involving a wide range of harms experienced by community members across the country every year, particularly schools, underscoring the importance and timeliness of this book. Some data is antithetical to the notion of the good society using any definition. For example, the National Center for Education Statistics conducted comprehensive research investigating school crime and safety. The culminating report was divided into five separate and well-defined categories: (1) violent deaths at school, (2) nonfatal student victimization—student reports, (3) violence at schools—public reports, (4) nonfatal teacher victimization at school—teacher reports, and (5) school environment. The report reveals alarming information including statistics that show that in 2001, students between the ages of 12 and 18 were victims of nearly two million nonfatal acts of school violence with the majority (62%) being thefts. A larger number of serious victimizations (rape, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault) occurred away from school in communities.

Schools are not the only source of evidence that compel observers to question assumptions about the good society and moral education. In a study conducted by the National Alliance to End Homelessness, it was noted that the country’s homeless population increased by 3 percent between the years 2008 and 2009. The report indicated that while the majority of people classified as homeless received some sort of assistance (e.g., food and temporary shelter), 40 percent of them “lived” in places such as cars and on the street. It is instructive to note that these statistics do not account for the underreporting of homeless youth, evidenced by the fact that 35 percent of communities across the country reported that there were no homeless youth in their community in 2009, suggesting the moral problem of homelessness is considerably more pervasive (National Alliance to End Homelessness 2011). These statistics call into question the social compact of protect and serve held up by law enforcement agencies across the country.

In many communities, the issue of police brutality is a serious and major issue that lends itself to the study of moral character, with implications for the good society. The National Police Misconduct Statistics and Reporting Project reported 5,986 cases of recorded misconduct, which resulted in 382 fatalities and $347,455,000 in settlements and judgments between April 2009 and June 2010. African American communities are the subject of many of these studies (2011).

As a final point to help frame the sense of urgency, I contemplate the issue of domestic violence, which like the aforementioned facts, threatens any common notion of the good society and questions our collective sense of morality. Data obtained from the Domestic Violence Resource Center reports that one in four women have experienced domestic violence in her lifetime. Women of all races are almost equally vulnerable to violence by an intimate partner. Although intimate partner violence reportedly affects people regardless of income, people with an annual income below 25 thousand dollars are at a three times higher risk of intimate partner violence than people with an annual income over 50 thousand dollars (Domestic Violence Resource Center 2012). The positive correlation between education and earnings is widely documented and will be discussed later. The goal here is to again point out the potential role of education in mitigating socials problems that have connections to moral reasoning capacity. The facts are indisputable and they illustrate deterioration of the good society. This would suggest moral and character discrepancies, and schools are positioned to assume a more deliberate role in reversing certain patterns of behavior on behalf of the good society for all citizens.

For centuries, education has played a key role in the development and maintenance of democratic and moral societies. So, why are our social institutions not determinedly seizing this opportunity to affect deep change on behalf of building a moral and just society in the twenty-first century? Are we rejecting the notion that moral education is a public issue with implications in a democracy although data suggests that it is a public issue? Higher levels of education correlate to lower unemployment and poverty rates, which positively impacts tax revenue. Additionally, college graduates are civically engaged at higher levels, they consider others’ perspectives more readily, and in general, have healthier lifestyles (Baum and Ma 2007). So, what’s the problem and solution? Moral education is no more the panacea than the construction of more jails. However, its transformational potential is more likely than purely retributive approaches to address moral wrongs.

Given current social realities, any serious discussion about the cultivation and maintenance of the good society is considered incomplete in the absence of a critical examination of education in a democratic society and its role in the creation and sustainability of any such society. Furthermore, as the quality and effectiveness of American educational systems continue to be contemplated, stakeholders should be compelled to consider the issue of morality—morality of students, teachers, parents, and contiguous communities. The current state of society discussed thus far endangers the good society, and public schools are squandering in large numbers the opportunity to contribute to its realization. This lack of action and neglect is in itself immoral and calls into question our collective character as a society. Meanwhile, schools are not safe, students’ physical and psychological safety is questionable, and teaching and learning are diminished. In essence, students’ ability to develop into contributing citizens of a democratic society, and personal and communal freedoms are compromised—that’s the essence of the problem.

This essay attempts to construct an argument for a moral education renaissance to promote a durable good society. The timing is ripe for such advocacy when you consider the facts. The thesis is many of the problems that challenge the realization and sustainability of the good society are in part the result of our institutions’ (particularly schools’) failure to act on the realization that our interdependent lives are shaped by educational policies and the degree to which we as a democratic society can shape these policies for the better. Instead of cultivating a sense of common purpose and community, we continue to adopt extreme positions of individualism and act primarily out of self-interest. This is reflected in the resistance to moral and character development as a core learning outcome in K-16 education. Nonetheless, the good society without developing members of good character is hard to conceive.

Opposition to the notion of moral education should be expected and welcomed in a diverse and democratic society. Many educators, policy makers, and others see moral education as covertly bringing in religion through the back door, threatening the separation of church and state. Some educators are reluctant to embrace character education because they don’t see it as a mandate to deal with issues of morality or character, which is supported by the fact that there are only a few teacher education programs that deal directly and substantially with the subject.

Morality

The study of morals concerns the whole character, and the whole character is indistinguishable from the individual in all their actions and expressions. The moral and the social quality of individuals are not separate from each other, and the school should exist as an extension of the community where social perceptions and interests can be developed. As such, the learning in school, including moral and character development, should be continued outside of the school. A narrow non-communal view of morals may be responsible for the failure to recognize that all the aims and values that are desirable in education are themselves moral.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy provides a historical account of important developments in philosophical perspectives about moral character. Much attention is given to the views of Plato, Aristotle, and Karl Marx, with Marx accepting Aristotle’s perception that virtue and good character are based on one’s sense of self-esteem and self-confidence. Plato believed that a person’s soul is divided into three parts of desire: the rational (logical reasoning), the appetitive (instinctive desire), and the spirited (inner nature) (The Stanford Ency...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Tables and Figures
• Foreword
• Preface
• Introduction
• Part I   Education, Distribution, and Good Society
• Part II   Sustainability, Ecology, and Good Society
• Part III   Economic Development, Employment, and Good Society
• Part IV   Civic Institutions, Freedom, Time, and Good Society
• List of Contributors
• Index