PREMISE 1__SEC 4__
THE DIFFERING SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL CONTRACTS
One dimension in man's experience is his relationship to and within the human pack. Darwinian adaptation to the physical environment has inclined man to be fusionist (the I-F dimension) or to reach a civilization’s mold that will favor a individualistic framework for family or individual.
We hypothesize among other societal differences that the more fused tribalist groups may be distinguished from the more individualist groups by differences in a social contract; it has a long history but is still basically current.
The fused tribal social contract entails merging the self within the group’s amorphous boundaries. The self is relinquished and disavowed. Both physical and emotional boundaries are fluid. Everything is everyone’s business. In return, the citizen's needs are to be taken care of by the superiors. This was most graphic in the western feudal vertical serf-lord relationship and is current in many Arabic, Asian and African countries. The basic decisions and necessities of life are the family-tribe's responsibility. To surrender the self and serve the tribe’s or family’s instructions and derive the attendant rewards from them are both considered appropriate and often demanded.
The post individualist tribe social contract emphasizes the self of each citizen. Social and legal rights and boundaries (both physical, legal and emotional) as well as responsibilities, exist along a horizontal plane. Government, parents, schools are there to do for the person what they cannot, in particular circumstances, do for themselves.
The goals are ever greater self reliance, independent decision making, "self actualization", and competence in whatever sphere. In turn, the society benefits from each citizen doing his or her thing. Rather than "everything being negotiable" the rights, privileges and responsibilities are enumerated. Overt praise and external rewards and praise are secondary and not common. Humility and self-derived satisfaction motivate.
Esteem in the adult is built through an inner filter and internalized in the individual’s character.
Is it a coincidence that there are vastly differing attitudes and practices in the field of education between the northwestern and many countries in the southeast?
In the following article several northwestern attitudes and principles are displayed. Please note:
1 - the distrust of intrusive government that can be rightfully remedied by individual freedom.
2 - the underlying emphasis on the citizen's political independence but also his obligations to the group by cultivating the "self"
These are in contrast to a top down, "follow the leader" approach..
Not only the gender discrimination so prevalent in tribal pre-industrial societies, but even the education of boys are strictly governed not for the rights and benefit of the student but for training and tribal indoctrination.
The intersection of governance , economics and social attitudes is well illustrated by the following written by Elena Segarra in 2013 but quoting Thomas Jefferson in the 18th century.
18th CENTURY ADVICE: Thomas Jefferson on Education Reform
Elena Segarra / April 14, 2013 , in THE DAILY SIGNAL
“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be,” he wrote in a letter to a friend.
Jefferson understood that freedom depends on self-government: the cultivation of self-reliance, courage, responsibility, and moderation. Education contributes to both the knowledge and virtues that form a self-governing citizen. By proposing a bill in Virginia that would have established free schools every five to six square miles, Jefferson sought to teach “all children of the state reading, writing, and common arithmetic.” With these skills, a child would become a citizen able to “calculate for himself,” “express and preserve his ideas, his contracts and accounts,” and “improve, by reading, his morals and faculties.”
Jefferson viewed this basic education as instrumental to securing “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” for Americans because it helps an individual “understand his duties” and “know his rights.”
Once taught reading and history, people can follow the news and judge the best way to vote. If the government infringes on their liberties, educated citizens can express themselves adequately to fight against it.
By providing equal access to primary schools, Jefferson hoped to teach children “to work out their own greatest happiness, by showing them that it does not depend on the condition of life in which chance has placed them, but is always the result of a good conscience, good health, occupation, and freedom in all just pursuits."
While Jefferson supported the idea of public education, he would not have placed schools under government supervision. Instead, he argued for the placement of “each school at once under the care of those most interested in its conduct.” He would put parents in charge.
"But if it is believed that these elementary schools will be better managed by…[any] general authority of the government, than by the parents within each ward, it is a belief against all experience.… No, my friend, the way to have good and safe government, is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to every one exactly the functions he is competent to....”
During his lifetime, Thomas Jefferson had little success with his efforts to reform the American education system. Yet the principles he promoted hold true today: Our freedom depends on delivering a quality education to future generations. As we honor Jefferson’s birthday, let us also heed his advice and enable parents to make more of the decisions regarding their children’s education."
There is no mention of a religious, political, or even nationalistic educational agenda. No tribal mention or concern. The concern is the individual and his/her growth and development which will eventually benefit this society of responsible individuals.
continued in THE PREMISE II _ section 1