Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T00:28:04.700Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Liberal Civic Education, Religious Commitment, and the Spillover Thesis: What Psychology Can Teach Us

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 November 2010

John L. Phillips  and
Laura McMillian
John L. Phillips*
Affiliation:
Brown University
Laura McMillian*
Affiliation:
Pepperdine University
*
Address correspondence and reprint requests to: John L. Phillips, University of North Carolina, Caldwell Hall, CB #3125, 230 East Cameron Avenue, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3125. E-mail: [email protected]; or Laura McMillian, Pepperdine University. E-mail: [email protected].
Address correspondence and reprint requests to: John L. Phillips, University of North Carolina, Caldwell Hall, CB #3125, 230 East Cameron Avenue, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3125. E-mail: [email protected]; or Laura McMillian, Pepperdine University. E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article addresses an idea central to liberal debates on civic education: the spillover thesis. Both egalitarian liberals and their religious opponents in these debates claim that liberal civic education creates spillover effects into the way individuals assess the meaning of their own lives. Some religious citizens fear that their politically reasonable conceptions of the good life are being undermined by education that emphasizes the practice of autonomous reasoning. Egalitarian liberals usually acknowledge this risk or cost, but deny that religious citizens should be given special dispensation from the burdens of autonomous reasoning. Some may even hope that conservative religious beliefs will be eroded by the practice of liberal civic education. This article disputes the spillover thesis. Given the best evidence available from the field of cognitive psychology, we challenge the notion that critical personal reflection about public matters is bound to spillover into critical reflection about private moral matters. On the contrary, the evidence suggests that human beings are usually well equipped to compartmentalize and are capable of reasoning in different ways depending on the context. Thus, reasonable citizens of faith are not necessarily unduly burdened by programs of civic education; nor are liberal programs of civic education necessarily going to lead us to a more secular society of autonomous thinkers. The article also speaks to a broader civic humanist tradition in political philosophy that includes Plato, Tocqueville, Rousseau, and Marcus Aurelius. For these authors, the success of a political enterprise is seen to crucially depend on the inculcation of a robust and comprehensive system of private virtue. For without private virtue, there is no public virtue. If we are correctly interpreting the available psychological research, private virtue need not be as crucially relevant for the success of common political enterprises. The inculcation of private moral virtue does not so clearly translate into making good leaders, voters, and public servants.

Type
Articles
Information
Politics and Religion , Volume 4 , Issue 1 , April 2011 , pp. 27 - 48
Copyright
Copyright © Religion and Politics Section of the American Political Science Association 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Atran, S. 1998. “Folkbiology and the Anthropology of Science: Cognitive Universals and Cultural Particulars.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21:547–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atran, S. 2001. “The Case for Modularity: Sin or Malvation?” Evolution and Cognition 7:7–8.Google Scholar
Atran, S. 2005. “Adaptionism for Human Cognition: Strong, Spurious or Weak?” Mind & Language 20:39–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callan, E. 1996. “Political Liberalism and Political Education.” The Review of Politics 58:19–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cosmides, L., and Tooby, J.. 1994. “Origins of Domain Specificity: The Evolution of Functional Organization.” In Mapping the Mind, eds., Hirschfeld, L., and Gelman, S.. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 85–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deutsch, M. 1975. “Equity, Equality, and Need: What Determines Which Value Will Be Used As the Basis for Distributive Justice?” Journal of Social Issues 31:137–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eberle, C. J. 2002. Religious Conviction in Liberal Politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fiske, A. P. 1991. Structures of Social Life: The Four Elementary Forms of Human Relations: Communal Sharing, Authority Ranking, Equality Matching, Market Pricing. New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. 1998. “The Trouble with Psychological Darwinism.” London Review of Books, 20:11–13.Google Scholar
Freeman, S. 2007. Rawls. New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, H. 1983. Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Greenawalt, K. 1995. Private Consciences and Public Reasons. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gutmann, A. 1995. “Civic Education and Social Diversity.” Ethics 105:563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haney, C., Banks, W. C., and Zimbardo, P. G.. 1973. “Study of Prisoners and Guards in a Simulated Prison.” Naval Research Reviews 9:1–17.Google Scholar
Hartshorne, H., and May, M.. 1971. “Studies in the Organization of Character.” In Readings in Child Development, eds., Munsinger, H.New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 190–197.Google Scholar
Jones, E. E., and Harris, V. A.. 1967. “The Attribution of Attitudes.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 3:1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, E. E., and Nisbett, R. E.. 1972. “The Actor and the Observer: Divergent Perceptions of the Causes of Behavior.” In Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior, eds., Jones, E. E., Kanouse, K., Kelley, H. H., Nisbett, R. E., Valins, S., and Weiner, B.. New York, NY: American government: General Learning Press.Google Scholar
Larmore, Charles. 1996. The Morals of Modernity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lickel, Brian, Hamilton, David, and Sherman, Steven. 2001. “Elements of Lay Theories of Groups: Types of Groups, Relational Styles, and Perception of Group Entitativity.” Personality and Social Psychology Review 5:129–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lord, C. G., Ross, L., and Lepper, M. R.. 1979. “Biased Assimilation and Attitude Polarization: The Effects of Prior Theories on Subsequently Considered Evidence.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37:2098–2109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macedo, Stephen. 2000. Diversity and Distrust: Civic Education in a Multicultural Democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McConnell, Michael W. 2002. “Educational Disestablishment: Why DemocraticValues are Ill Served by Democratic Control of Schooling.” In Moral and Political Education, eds., Macedo, S. and Tamir, Y.. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mutz, Diana C. 2006. Hearing the Other Side. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okin, S. 1991. Justice, Gender, and the Family. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Prencipe, A., and Helwig, C. C.. 2002. “The Development of Reasoning about the Teaching of Values in School and Family Contexts.” Child Development 73:841–856.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rawls, J. 1993. Political Liberalism. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Ross, L. D. 1977. “The Intuitive Psychologist and His Shortcomings: Distortions in the Attribution Process.” In Advances in experimental social psychology, ed. Berkowitz, L.New York, NY: Random House, 173–220.Google Scholar
Ross, L., Bierbrauer, G., and Hoffman, S.. 1976. “The Role of Attributional Processes in Conformity and Dissent: Revisiting the Asch Situation.” American Psychologist 31:148–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherman, S. J., Castelli, L., and Hamilton, D. L.. 2001. “The Spontaneous Use of a Group Typology as an Organizing Principle in Memory.” Unpublished manuscript, Indiana University, Bloomington.Google Scholar
Spinner-Halev, J. 2000. Surviving Diversity: Religion and Democratic Citizenship. Baltimore, MD: John's Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Spiro, M. 1993. “Is the Western Conception of the Self “Peculiar” Within the Context of the World Cultures?” Ethos 21:107–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, S. E., Fiske, S. T., Etcoff, N. L., and Ruderman, A. J.. 1978. “Categorical and Personal Basis of Person Memory and Stereotyping.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36:778–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasi, J. 2002. “Civic Education and Ethical Subservience: From Mozert to Santa Fe and Beyond.” In Moral and Political Education, eds., Macedo, S. and Tamir, Y.. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Turiel, E. 1996. “Equality and Hierarchy: Conflict in Values.” In Values and Knowledge. Mahwah. N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 75–101.Google Scholar
Turiel, E. 1983. The Development of Social Knowledge: Morality and Convention. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wainryb, C., and Turiel, E.. 1994. “Dominance, subordination, and concepts of personal entitlements in cultural contexts.” Child Development 65:1701–1722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, D. 1982. “The Actor and the Observer: How are their Perceptions of Causality Divergent?” Psychological Bulletin 92:698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfe, A. 1999. One Nation after All. New York, NY: Penguin Books.Google Scholar