The Responsibility of Our Shared Pursuit

CONTRIBUTOR: Jeff Hausman, AVLI Founder & President

Happy 250th birthday, America. A few weeks ago, I was fortunate enough to attend an excellent conference on civic culture and discourse put on by Sphere Education Initiatives in Washington D.C. Much of the conference was an unpacking of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution in our modern times, and as the week went on I was compelled to consider our exploration through the complimentary lens of Catholic Social Teaching (CST). Recognizing that I am neither an historian nor theologian, I humbly submit the following reflections and what I see as an important thread related to our work in education.

Let’s start by talking about rights. The Declaration of Independence speaks of the self-evident truths that we all are created equal and are endowed with the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It goes on to suggest that the sole purpose of government is to support these pursuits. Self-evidence assumes immutability and it follows, then, that the associated rights are based on “natural law” which concludes that right and wrong exist in nature (not in human social constructs) and can be found through human reasoning. Thomas Aquinas takes this one step further by positing that natural law is the human manifestation of God’s Eternal Law. Thus, the rights expressed are part of God’s universal plan in which we all share. 

But rights in and of themselves are meaningless without our active participation. Rights hold value only to the degree to which they are exercised, and this is where Catholic Social Teaching makes an important contribution - noting that as you claim your rights, you have a responsibility to safeguard those same rights for others. This isn’t a small matter because if we really believe in the claims of the Declaration, our responsibilities extend to ALL people, not just some.  Most certainly, those responsibilities begin at home with family before extending to our local communities, and then further outward to larger society. Still, there is no point of total diminishment. All are created equal, and the common good is the common good. Thus, our responsibilities extend to all peoples in some limited way.

Key questions, then, are what constitutes “the common good” and where do the limits of our responsibilities extend? What responsibilities do we have for the persons across the street, across town, on the other side of the country or world? What responsibilities do we have to non-citizens versus citizens? It’s certainly reasonable to conclude that the responsibilities differ, but if natural law is the rulebook, there can be no sensible exclusions.  

This is where the debate lies and reasonable people should not only be able to engage in such discourse, but they should be excited about doing so. Unfortunately, we know that’s not the case. Debate in the classical sense makes us uncomfortable as the arguments of others often seem completely foreign, disingenuous, or worse. How did we get here?  

Recently, I was reminded by my colleagues of the parable of the blind men and an elephant, a tale whose origins date back at least 2,500 years. This provides me some level of consolation, noting that to a large degree our struggles are not new.  The premise of the parable is that we humans have a tendency to claim truth based on our limited, subjective experience, and we find validation from others with similar claims (those feeling the same part of the elephant). More importantly, we discount the legitimate claims of others whose experiences differ.  This is classic tribalism. One thing that has changed, however, is the degree to which language has been studied to optimize its influence. This is the stuff of algorithms and, within the realm of politics, coalition mobilization - keeping tribes firmly ensconced. At this point, it’s the science of persuasion versus our collective reflective practice, and science is winning. 

I get the sense that we all recognize this, but none of us know what to do about it. This appears to be having a noticeable effect on teens and tweens where statistics show a decline in aspects of cognitive risk taking such as defending a position, and participating in ambiguous discussions. While many view this as a dire sign (and it very well might be), I wonder if what we might be seeing from these youngsters is nascent reflective practice. They witness the titanic clash of perspectives on topics big and small, they recognize their limited knowledge and experience, and they are compelled to proceed with caution. Perhaps what is manifesting as disengagement is really a struggle to wonder - a skill that has largely been marginalized by the certainty of the age of the algorithm.  

To wonder requires one to hold onto doubt; to find amusement in small things; to entertain random thoughts long enough for them to find purchase among other disparate musings; to ask, and ask, and ask again. Mostly though, wonder takes humility, the strength to be vulnerable, and the capacity for self-forgiveness for those times when wonder’s journey ends fruitlessly. That’s hard.

For the five days of the Sphere conference, two hundred educators grappled with how best to foster civic engagement and constructive dialogue. On the final day, we were treated to a keynote presentation by Erec Smith entitled Understanding Each Other - Language and Rhetoric. One thread from the talk focused on empowerment theory and the “mattering instinct” all humans possess. Once again, my thoughts turned to Catholic Social Teaching and its foundational focus on human dignity, particularly in its framing of the right to life.  

In America, the right to life is about human thriving through the pursuit of the American Dream while CST calls us to consider thriving as a function of its component parts - food and water, clothing, shelter, basic medical care, work, community, and religious freedom. Together, this provides a compelling vision of a society grounded in liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  The missing ingredient seems to be another principle of CST, solidarity - working together to animate a shared call. 

In America, that shared call is found in the opening few words of the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union…”.  Note the word more.  It doesn’t say “a perfect Union”. No, the framers of the Constitution recognized the same thing that Church leaders did when drafting the CST principles: that ours is a flawed world inhabited by imperfect people. Thus, what both documents attempt to do is to codify a way of proceeding. Guided by the enumeration of our rights, we as individuals are able to pursue a better version of ourselves and, by extension, a better version of society.

Recognizing that we will always be a work in progress should compel us to deeper levels of solidarity and cooperation. However, it’s important to recognize that solidarity doesn’t mean harmony. Living in community invites conflict and difficulties, and it’s in the midst of such experiences where solidarity exists. For without trial, there’s no need to pursue a shared call.   

This is why civil discourse is such a necessary skill that warrants explicit attention in schools, understanding that it’s much more than simply being polite. In her beautiful reflection, Cristy Guleserian states, “Developing both courage of conviction and discernment is crucial as students define their values amidst new ideas, challenges, and opposition.” Sphere developed the AWARE Framework as a guide for teaching civil discourse. Assert: State your own clear view, opinion, or argument on the topic without attacking others. Wonder: Be curious about other people. Ask why they hold their views and consider how their life experiences shape their perspective. Accept: Acknowledge that disagreement is normal and accept that valid reasons exist for why someone might see an issue differently than you do. Respect: Value other people enough to really listen and let their points challenge or expand your own thinking. Establish: Find common ground, shared goals, or a clear summary of the core values and main points at play. 

Note within the framework the connection to wonder. Wondering in this sense is about seeing and being seen. It’s the stuff of mattering. Dignity. 

As we approach another school year, it’s important to recognize the ways in which our actions as teachers, parents, grandparents, and neighbors impact the lives of our kids. The responsibility lies with us to not only teach about the rights they possess as cherished, uniquely endowed individuals, but to articulate and model the responsibilities they have for safeguarding those same rights for all. Fostering through practice the skill of civil discourse, while difficult, may be one of the best gifts we can provide our children. Far too few of us are good at negotiating difficult conversations, so our early attempts may not go as hoped. However, there’s a good chance that the more we intentionally practice civil discourse with our children, the more skilled and civic minded we become as well. 

I previously mentioned Ms. Gulersian’s reflection which is grounded in the Prayer of St. Francis. For those not familiar, I am sharing that prayer here as it’s always been one of my favorites. Peace to you.

---

vol 7 issue 7