The Role of Individual Negation in Enabling Social Capital, Moral Education, and Citizenship Education.

Social capital, moral education, and citizenship education are three big ideas fundamental to the health of any democratic state. Yet exactly what these terms mean is a source of much contention and divergent thinking. Bringing some clarity to the three might help the cause of bolstering their prominence in educational discourse and reform. Therefore, in this essay I explore the underlying form of social capital, moral education, and citizenship education, which I characterize as “the negation of the individual. ” Demands for effective citizenship and moral education, and the ultimate building of social capital, abound. One of the most important and troubling of all human tasks (and hence a challenge of educators) is to be able to know what it means to live the virtuous life (Purpel, 1991, 309), which includes arriving at an ethical theory that is both teachable and inherent in all curricula. Although the inclusion of a wide-variety of subject matter into the school day has resulted in a scarcity of time for moral education, Dewey suggested “if other studies do not correlate well with this one, so much the worse for them—they are the ones to give way, not it” (1893, 60). Dewey was not merely suggesting the centrality of ethics instruction for the school day, but rather an interpenetration of perspectives of the world in which we are all members. The teaching of ethics in this way ranked higher in importance to Dewey than any other subject for “the subject-matter of ethics must furnish the measure of others studies and not vice versa” (1893, 61). Central to a successful moral citizenship education is, as Dewey noted, the fashioning of individuals into a group, which implies the value and necessity of sociomoral experiences (Osterman, 2000). Our ability to foster social capital, within schools and beyond, depends upon many of the same requirements necessary for successful moral citizenship education. Social capital is fundamentally based on the engagement of individuals, which is often promoted through the development of selfless, altruistic, reciprocal, and trusting behaviors. Because the school is an institution erected by society to maintain and advance the welfare of society, we must ensure that the social aim remains in focus (Dewey, 1909, 7). As with moral and citizenship education, social capital is fundamentally based on the negation of the individual. One problem that jeopardizes our educational goals is nascent extreme individualism, cynicism, and narcissism within our society. For example, our communities overwhelmingly believe individuals are less honest and moral than a generation ago and far too prevalent are institutions that enable individualism and competitive spirits, rather than finding commonalities and collaboration (Osterman, 324). Teachers are cognizant and concerned with this growing self-interest (Kohn, 1997, 433) thereby highlighting the need for a paradigmatic change in our society, one that would re-emphasize a common vision. Within this context, the focus of schooling should not be the present one of competition, content mastery, individualism, and success, but rather one of cooperation, common goals, harmony and temperance (Purpel, 1991). In short, we need to allow for students to recognize that they are individuals within society, which necessitates the recognition of each individual’s social relations and responsibilities involved in conjoint life (Dewey, 1909). The Negation of the Individual The common thread of social capital, moral education, and citizenship education is the negation of the individual. What is meant by “negation” is not a pejorative concept, but is rather a state of being where one realizes the interconnectedness of all individuals and their mutuality. This negation is fundamental to the necessary altruism, trust, and reciprocity that enable social capital, reflective morality, and the enlightened and responsible dispositions requisite for citizenship education. The eminent Japanese ethicist, Watsuji Tetsuro, based his seminal ethics text, Rinrigaku, on the premise that ethics is the “order or the pattern of thought which the communal existence of human beings is rendered possible . ethics consists of the laws of social existence” (1937, 11). Much of Tetsuro’s work focused on the essence of existence as not being an individual, nor a complete part of society, but rather “in between. ” It is the between that suggests the necessary negation of the individual. The Japanese term ningen (individual) is a term of great significance for social capital, moral education, and citizenship education, because it denotes this negation and is suggestive of the irrevocable unity of the individual and society. The notion of an isolated individual who is predominately concerned with their own tastes and pursuits is a spurious one, suggests Tetsuro, because an individual only exists as part and parcel of the structure of the past, present, and future. An occidental orientation typically divides the world into an object/subject duality, but Tetsuro suggests that in order to attain self knowledge and realization we need to step out of ourselves and recognize our connection to others (Carter, 1996, 334). The idea of individual negation corresponds with the thinking found in the Progressive Era, whereby the self was considered something always in the state of becoming, never final or fixed (Dewey, 1932). For example, Dewey (1916) recognized that “the individual in his isolation is nothing” (94) and sought to further the “interest in community welfare” (Dewey, 1909, 17) among students by realizing the illusory conception of the self. This is a central tenet of sociomoral education and Dewey’s conception of reflective morality. The inability of the self to “abstract itself from the particular social role . so as to reflect upon itself as an individual qua individual, rather than qua family member or member of this or that social group” (Tetsuro, 347) is therefore a daunting challenge for educators. The Japanese conception of the self as incomplete apart from society suggests that “true morality is the forgetting of the self” (332) and the awareness and connection with all, which corresponds with the desired state of affairs for social capital, moral education, and citizenship education. Social Capital The nebulous nature of social capital undermines attempts to recognize its underlying form of individual negation. At its inception, the term ‘social capital’ and defined it as “a byproduct of a wide variety of social relations; it inheres in the structure of relations between persons and among persons” (Wallis, Crocker, and Schechter, 1998, 256). The Committee for Economic Development (CED) indicated that information sharing, reciprocity, values and norms that maintain social order are features that define social capital (259). Putnam further outlined the method of attaining and describing social capital and clarified the core idea as the “connections among individuals—social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them” (Putnam, 2000, 19). Putnam extended his definition by emphasizing that social networks have value and contain elements of engagement, volunteerism, friendships, trust, and community life. In short, social capital is about the experiences that build connections (Wallis, 1998, 327-8). Common to these definitions is the interrelatedness of individuals predicated on their ability to reach out from the self. Perhaps the greatest detriment to social capital is the selfishness of extreme individualism. Selfish approaches to society are not necessarily wrong, for they further our goals and enhance our happiness. Rather self-interest is problematic when we fail to consider the rights and claims of others. The kind of selflessness we need to explore sprouts from the negation of the individual and the awareness that consequences of actions necessarily involve others, as well as the realization of mutual inclusiveness. Tetsuro suggested that the way in which we teach selflessness, benevolence, and compassion is through the unity of the individual and society. Altruism and reciprocity also represent fundamental tenets of social capital. As with selflessness, the negation of the individual underscores the development of altruistic and reciprocal actions. Altruism is not only an important indicator of social capital but also of civic duty. One way of availing oneself of altruistic behavior seems to be organizational involvement and building smaller communities, where there is less alienation, anomie, and anonymity, and where a purely individual existence is an untenable proposition through more social points of contact. What happens in small environments, where altruistic acts are more visible and reciprocity easily facilitated, is a willingness to intervene and involve oneself in communal betterment. Reciprocity is not only the foundation of social capital, but also for citizenship education. Reciprocity enables participation and engagement in a democracy and the “willingness of opposing sides in a democratic debate to agree on the ground rules for seeking mutual accommodation after sufficient discussion” (Putnam, 340). One can only come to know what their own good is when they contrast it with the good of others (Osterman, 350), and it is the business of public schools to begin to build these social and reciprocal relationships. Trust represents yet another core feature of social capital. Trust not only lubricates social life, but it is necessary for bridging and bonding people and groups. The benefits of trust include increased volunteerism, philanthropy, engagement in community affairs, honesty, and tolerance. These benefits, in turn, perpetuate further trust that reinforces other attributes of social capital and citizenship. Trust suggests that “our fates are linked” (Putnam, 288) and it demands of us to widen our lens and the universe of o