FROM THE EDITOR
Alienation, Exploitation, and Connected Citizenship

E. Wayne Ross
SUNY Binghamton
 

        Few would argue with the proposition that democracy requires people
feel a connection to their fellow citizens. With this in mind, even a brief
survey of the social landscape in North America produces disheartening news
for the state of democracy. For example, what are we to make of the
depoliticized, apathetic, and cynical citizenry that set a record low
turnout at the polls in the 1998 congressional elections, where just over
one-third of those eligible voted? Or, what are we to make of the school
shootings in Flint, Lake Worth, Jonesboro, Paducah, ColumbineŠ?

        For social education to contribute to a flourishing of democracy we
must effectively respond to these (and other) manifestations of
disconnections among people. Our efforts must move beyond responding to
mere symptoms however, and get to the heart of the matter, which I believe
is alienation in society. We are generally indifferent to our alienation
from self, others, and the world in which we live and work. And while
periods of crises (individual and social) often produce an awareness of
alienation, success tends to numb us to any price we are paying
individually and collectivity for that success.

        In a speech to students at Yale University in 1964, Fritz
Pappenheim offered a series of examples and analyses of how people are
separated (alienated) from themselves, their fellow citizens, their
political communities and from the forces that shape the trends of our age.
His comments are relevant to us today, perhaps more so now than thirty
years ago. He observed that,

[M]any a person senses a split between his [sic] existence as a private
individual and as a citizen. This often engenders withdrawal from the realm
of politicsŠIt is easy to blame the young for their political apathy. But
their attitudes are not surprising. To many of them, any talk about the
political responsibility of citizens sounds totally phony. What can we say
to those young people who doubt that those who do play a role in our
political life are genuinely concerned about great political issues?
(Pappenheim, 1964/2000, p. 41, emphasis added)

This is the million-dollar question for social educators.

        From Magruder's American Government (1988), in a chapter ironically
titled "Government By the People" we learn,

[F]rom the very first day schools teach children the values of the American
political system. They very purposely work to indoctrinate the young and
train them to become young citizens. School children salute the flag,
recite the pledge of allegiance, and sing patriotic songs. They learn about
George Washington and Abraham Lincoln and other great figures of the
pastŠhigh school students' political knowledge is refined, often through
textbooks such as this one.

If this is a fair representation of how the social studies education
responds to Pappenheim's question, then our efforts are woefully
inadequate. Because, as Pappenheim further notes,

Political leaders and statesmen are often alienated themselves, and thus
deprived of an authentic relationship to the historical forces which shape
our age. They are therefore incapable of coming to grips with the decisive
issues of our period. Instead of really understanding historical trends,
they try to manipulate them and subject them to their designs and schemes,
which often have quite limited purposes. Political "leaders" become more
and more like public relations menŠtrying to find the right sales pitch.
(p. 41)

The political quid pro quo is now commonly accepted by all involved,
including political spectators, which may partially explain the decline in
political participation in the United States.

        Politicians, of course, have no special claim to this condition.
Nearly all of us are alienated from the situations in which we are involved
as well as from ourselves. We have a tendency not to relate to situations
as a whole or to the other person as a whole; "we tend to isolate that one
fraction which is important to us and remain indifferent observers of the
rest" (Pappenheim, p. 38). This division of thought is evident in schools
and universities as well as the media where people receive interpretations
of the world that betray a lack of understanding of the material
circumstances of our day. Take, for example, the contradiction of
"record-breaking expansion" of the U. S. economy and the wealth gaps among
Whites, African-Americans, and Latinos (Collins, 1999).1 Or the "triumph of
global capitalism" as opposed to the impact of neoliberal economic policies
on the global south, particularly Latin America (e.g., Magdoff, Wood, &
McNally, D., 1999; Petras & Veltmeyer, 1999).

        These divisions in thought are typical. We are almost always
interested in the portion of reality that can serve our ends, remaining
indifferent to the realities that "don't concern us" and, as Pappenheim
concludes, "the more we advance in this separation, the more we create a
split within ourselves." (p. 38). For example, as Pappenheim told the Yale
students,

I know a white minister in a small town in Alabama. He is as much opposed
to racial discrimination as are most of us in this hall. He has said to
friends: "To cling to segregation means to pay merely lip service to the
teachings of Christ." But when he was asked by a young student of theology,
"When are you going to implement the Christian gospel and open your church
to worshippers of all races?" His sad and resigned answer was, "You know as
well as I do that the day I did that I would not have a church left." (p.38).

        Are we like this minister when it comes to matters of social
education in schools and universities? When our curriculum and teaching
selectively avoid certain information, perspectives, questions, etc.
because these might create controversy--and/or negatively affect decisions
on our tenure or promotion--we create an inner division between ourselves
as educators committed to pursuing truth and our roles as hired employees.
This division also affects our connections with the others and the world in
which we live and work.

**********

        The world of alienation cannot be separated from the world of
exploitation. Any examination of alienation must recognize that its three
forms--alienation from self, others, and the world--are interconnected. In
addition, we need to understand and respond to alienation, not as a mere
psychological state, but as a condition that has social and economic bases,
making it central social education.

        In the early part of the twentieth century, Ferdinand Tönnies
(1957/1988) described two types of social relations. Associations that grow
out of calculation--Gesellschaft--in which individuals have figured out
that they can pursue their interests more effectively if they join to
together. Members of Gesellschaft are related to one another not as whole
persons, but only in a fraction of their beings (e.g., as teachers to
students; as consumers to producers; as stockholders in a corporation). The
second type of association-Gemeinschaft-does not arise from conscious
design, but is the result of belonging, solidarity, where people do not
consider their association with others terminated the moment it no longer
brings advantages (Pappenheim, 1964/2000).  "In the Gemeinschaft, members
are essentially united in spite of occasional separation," while "in the
Gesellschaft, members are essentially separate from each other in spite of
occasional or even frequent connection" (Pappenheim, p. 44).

        What has this got to do with alienation and social education? Life
in a world in which Gesellschaft is the rule is a world of alienation. It
is crucial to our work as social educators that we take stock of our own
associations and that we encourage the examination of associations among
citizens if we hope to create and sustain a democratic society. Thirty-six
years ago, Pappenheim noted that the forces of Gesellschaft were much
stronger than Gemeinschaft, today the victory of the former over the latter
seems almost complete. This fact is evidenced in education, for example, in
the seemingly odd alliance of teacher unions, U. S. Chamber of Commerce,
and National Governors Association in support of high-stakes testing,
standardized curriculum, and grade retention, which they have collectively
promoted in numerous full-page "Challenge Me" advertisements in the New
York Times over the past year (see also Mathison, Ross, & Vinson, in
press). It is also evidenced in union contracts that pit teachers'
pocketbooks against students' interests in pay-for-test-score plans or
routes to "excellence in education" that promote segregation of students
along race, ability, and language lines (see Ross, 1999; 2000b).

        In any attempt to reverse the strong trend of social relations
defined as Gesellschaft, we must also consider the economic structure of
world and the ways in which it impacts our associations with others and how
it fosters alienation. Our market-centered economy is a system of commodity
production. "A commodity is characterized by the split between its exchange
value and its use value; the exchange value becomes more important than the
use value, the intrinsic value" (Pappenheim, p. 45, emphasis in original).
We produce and sell commodities not because we have a inner relationship to
their intrinsic value but because we are interested in the exchange value.
And as Pappenheim makes clear, "there is a deep affinity between the
commodity and the type of association we call GesellschaftŠ"

As we are related only to one fraction of the commodity, the exchange
value, so also in personal associations we are related only to one fraction
of other individuals, not to their intrinsic value as human beings. This
parallel is more than coincidental. It indicates that an economy based on
dominance of exchange values engenders--we might also say demands--human
relations which are characterized by the trend toward Gesellschaft and
alienation. (p. 45)

        Because exchange value permeates every realm of our lives we must
confront its impact on our work as educators. Its most explicit
manifestation in education is found in standards based educational reform
practices, which reduce students to their test scores and demand that
teachers implement curriculum conceived by people who have little or no
knowledge of local school communities. Exchange value induces teachers to
compromise and forget some of their values and goals (not necessarily for
increased salary, but for career considerations and job security). As
Pappenheim recognized, "many teachers tend to impart primarily factual
knowledge. The reason may be that they are reluctant to impose their values
on the thinking of their studentsŠ

I have a hunch, however, that there may be still another motive, not
necessarily a conscious motive, for focusing on factual knowledge. The
teacher may become aware that it is safer not to get involved in discussing
the burning issues of our time; from the point of view of job security it
may be wiser to resort to a certain neutrality--often conceived as
"objectivity"--and to confine himself [sic] to transmitting a type of
factual knowledge which at the same time is uninspiring and stifling to the
student's curiosity. (Pappenheim, p. 50)2

        How then do we keep our values and still teach? First, we must
realize that we cannot overcome alienation within world of alienation.
Secondly, we must confront the implication of this first principle, which
has been so clearly laid out in the work of Noam Chomsky (1999) and many
others, including Marx, that is-democracy requires that people feel a
connection to their fellow citizens and it is impossible to be a proponent
for participatory democracy and at the same time champion capitalism and
the worlds of alienation and exploitations it creates. Thirdly, we must
take action to foster the bonds among our fellow human beings and build up
institutions that enable us to identify our ends with others, our shared
interests, as complete persons in Gemeinschaft.
This is an arduous task, but one within our means. We mustn't forget,
however, that choosing to build connected relationships with others and
true participatory democracy also means responding to the ruthlessness of
the enemies of a democracy that recognizes the sovereignty of the people.

Notes

        1 Collins (1999) reports that in 1995, the median African American
household had a net worth of $7,400 (compared to $61,000 for Whites). The
median net worth excluding home equity was $200 for African American
households (compared to $18,000 for White households). One in three African
American households had zero or negative wealth. Latino households were
worse off, with a median net worth of $5,000 including home equity and zero
otherwise. Half of Latino households in the U.S. have more debt than assets.

        2 Pappenheim does not promblematize the concept of "factual
information", for more on this see Ross, 2000a.

References
Collins, C. (1999, September/October). The wealth gap widens. Dollars &
Sense, 225, 12-13.

McCleneghan, W. (1988). Magruder's American government. Needham, MA:
Prentice-Hall.

Magdoff, H., Wood, E. M., & McNally, D. (1999). Capitalism at the end of
the millennium: A global survey [Special issue]. Monthly Review, 51(3).

Mathison, S., Ross, E. W., & Vinson, K. D. (in press). Defining the social
studies curriculum: Influence of and resistance to curriculum standards and
testing in social studies. In E. W. Ross (Ed.), The social studies
curriculum: Purposes, problems, and possibilities (Revised Ed.). Albany:
State University of New York Press.

Pappenheim, F. (2000). Alienation in American society. Monthly Review,
52(2), 36-53. (Original work published in 1964)

Petras, J., & Veltmeyer, H. (1999). Latin America at the end of the
millennium. Monthly Review, 51(3), 31-52.

Ross, E. W. (1999). Re-segregating schools. Z Magazine, 12(4), 8-10.

Ross, E. W. (2000a). Redrawing the lines: The case against traditional
social studies instruction. In D. W. Hursh & E. W. Ross (Eds.) Democratic
social education: Social studies for social change (pp. 43-63 ). New York:
Falmer.

Ross, E. W. (2000b). The spectacle of standards and summits. Z Magazine,
12(3), 45-48.

Tönnies, F. (1957/1988). Community and society. New Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction.