To provoke thinking and discussion, I will find a way to blend some of the quotes listed below (from the 2008 Montpelier Workshop #2) into my pedagogy in 2008-09. Please add to the list and/or suggest how to build these into class discussion, writing assignments, or projects/activities.
1. To make a polity is more difficult than to live within one. (Jeff Tullis)
2. (Concerning federalist and anti-federalist perspectives) What is a better attitude toward the world: imagination or judgment? (Will Harris)
3. What would it take to say “yes” to the Constitution, to become a founder in mind and heart? (Harris)
4. Hearken not to the unnatural voice which tells you that the people of America…can no longer live together as members of the same family; can no longer continue the mutual guardians of their mutual happiness…. (Jay, Federalist No. 2)
5. Citizenship is not a right, but a power. (Harris)
6. The truest nature of the Constitution is change, creativity, innovation, transformation. (Harris)
7. There was no tyranny in America. Principle, not tyranny, precipitated the Revolution. (John Kaminski)
8. (About thinking constitutionally) What is the quality of a question that makes the world disclose itself? (Harris)
There are many more question fragments in my notes, but I couldn’t resurrect them into wholes. Maybe you can help with such things as Will’s notion of the mind and the Constitution being commensurate, and add stuff I didn’t have the presence of mind to write down from lectures by Noah Pickus, Sue Leeson, and Ralph Ketchum. There is certainly more Harris and Tullis stuff to add as well. And also the implied questions emanating from the Montpelier portrait of Pan and the Nymphs.
–Mutter
Boyfiend! I love it! My favorite, though, is still “mutual guardians of [our] mutual happiness.” To me that’s constitutional thinking in a nutshell.
LP
Excellent post! I’ll consult my notes, as well.
“I’m digging this”, Larry!
MORE WORDS OF WISDOM (SOMETIMES PARAPHRASED):
1. If you frame it right, with the proper context, you can teach profundity. (Harris)
2. Remember the future. (Harris)
3. We are founded in debate. (Harris)
4. How would arguments about rights be different if we didn’t have a Bill of Rights? (Tullis)
5. Going to the Founders is a resource, not an authority. (Tullis)
6. No one can organize the way Americans can. We act in our lives in the image of our Constitution making. (Harris)
7. Defend, promote, and make the Constitution as a citizen. (Leeson)
8. The Constitution starts out as a lie, but people act as if it were true. We keep trying to make it true. (Harris)
9. James Madison was a Consitutional President in that he didn’t send troops into Hartford when the Federalists (potential secessionists) gathered. (Ketchum)
10. What are the qualities of the question that open up the world? You need to ask some duds. Make some mistakes. That’s part of scientific inquiry. (Harris)
11. All citizens need to be educated to potential leadership. (Harris)
ACTIVITIES:
a. Get students to incorporate Amendments into the (body of the) Constitution. Have them illustrate 1-3 Amendments. What’s challenging about it? Have they included the whole of the Amendment, or only a part?
b. Parallel the last paragraph of Federalist no. 14 with the Gettysberg Address.
c. Examine Madison’s “Vices” as an anti-Constitution.
d. Probe Madison’s work as solving the problems generated by Jefferson.
e. Ask yourself, as a teacher: What do I do that may be picked up by a student and used later to better the community?
f. Bring science into your classroom. Conduct an experiment and refresh the scientific method. Bridge into Constitutional theory.
g. Visit a local landmark. What does it offer to the community? Have students construct their own landmark. Study the D.C. Mall; is anything missing? How do the monuments and memorials make us?
h. Have students write a story in which they examine what the Germans call “Unhappened History”. A good focus might be the catastrophe that could’ve been had the Debates gone differently.
i. Run class meetings. Contrast difference when there is no framework or “President” through which to conduct the dialogue. Reflect upon the Debates and the way in which this order built a model for the Constitution.
j. Use a Venn diagram to compare/ contrast the “Source” citizen with the “Subject” citizen.
k. With James Madison’s Notes, pick 15 pages where the dialogue is really flying; try to figure out the qualities of argument between these people.
l. Have students see the citizen they would like to be. Have them brainstorm what skills and qualities they need to make themselves.
[Note: These ideas were suggested or generated from the NEH Landmarks Workshop at James Madison's Montpelier. Each task would be appropriate for either teacher or student, which speaks volumes for the quality of education advocated among the participants.]
Thanks, Hobbes. Along with all of your other competencies, you also have a helluva memory!
I take good notes. JM would be prouda me.
Mind if I banner Jay’s Fed no.2 quote as well..? I think that’s a great idea and will serve as tremendous thread for my school year.
I think Jerry’s big question deserves a place on the list: Is it JUST?
Excellent, Puck. But what is meant by JUST.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/just (I don’t know how to hyperlink it–note to self: LEARN!)
just
1. guided by truth, reason, justice, and fairness: We hope to be just in our understanding of such difficult situations.
2. done or made according to principle; equitable; proper: a just reply.
3. based on right; rightful; lawful: a just claim.
4. in keeping with truth or fact; true; correct: a just analysis.
5. given or awarded rightly; deserved, as a sentence, punishment, or reward: a just penalty.
6. in accordance with standards or requirements; proper or right: just proportions.
7. (esp. in Biblical use) righteous.
8. actual, real, or genuine.
Hey! It hyperlinked itself! And I’m content to use the dictionary definitions–they seem to converge on WHAT is right rather than WHO is right.
Hey Puck,
Thanks for the definitions. They are broad and probably need to operationalized in a political context, right? I’m in Vancouver right now and about to head out on the West Coast Trail. Will respond further later.
Mutt,
All the best on your Pacific trek! Say hey to the “ghost” bears for me!
Mutt, you’re very observant. Have fun observing nature! Hobbesie, what’s a ghost bear? I’m woefully uninformed!
Today I’ve begun a 2-week math, science, and technology institute–it’ll be good for me to think from this perspective. If I’m out of touch for a bit though, you know why!
LP
Wow… I’m just taking off the cobwebs here.
Ghost bears are the white grizzlies found in British Columbia. They’re pretty cool because they’re known to actually swim underwater to catch salmon rather than just “fishing”. Some mammals and birds develop culture! The million-dollar question: does culture lead to evolution?
I was watching a show the other night on baboons and stress. Nasty creatures. Often war-like and violent. However, when a disease ravaged one band, the mean aggressive baboons tended to die off because no one cared for them. Now, that’s illuminating in itself, but it gets better. Since then, the tribe of peace-loving females has successfully assimilated young, violent males into the band. Overall, the band is far-less violent than other studied bands.
Now, this suggests a cultural change leading to evolutionary change might be possible. If stress kills the stressed, we are left with the more mellow fellows. Has this and is this happening with humans as well?
I’d love to hear thoughts.
“2. (Concerning federalist and anti-federalist perspectives) What is a better attitude toward the world: imagination or judgment? (Will Harris)”
Is there a chance this quote could be put in it’s context of discussion? I would love to hear more.
Thanks!
This is complicated and I’m not sure I’m up to the task.
The design of the new Constitution was such a radical departure from the Articles of Confederation, and was as a whole unlike any structure of government that had previously existed (though it borrowed some ideas from “ancient and modern confederacies,” as well as some of the existing state constitutions), that it was itself an act of imagination–primarily Madison’s imagination–to create it. Similarly, it took an act of imagination on the part of the citizen of the time to understand and support the proposed Constitution. They had to imagine a stronger, more unified, more stable, more secure America along economic, military, political, etc. lines. Other terms that go along with the “imagination” theme are “innovation” and “scientific/experimental.” Clearly the Constitution was an innovative political structure. Scientific/experimental because the Constitution might be viewed as a hypothesis with American history as something like the data collection phase in which the hypothesis (embodied in the Preamble) is tested for (dis)confirmation each day, every week, each month, each election cycle, each century, etc. I better stop here. Doubt if this is helpful. It would be great if some of the heavyweights (like Stepwinder, Maximus, Puckermom, and others) weighed in for lucidity.
And I’ll leave the “judgment” part of your question to the rest of the gang, too. Mutter
Mutt makes terrific points. I love the analogy of history as the data! Is imagination, then, the Constitution, while judgment is the history..? When we judge we’re analyzing data; them, do we take that data back–through discussion, voting, representation, petition–to adjust our use of the Constitution?
What then of bad programming within that operating system? Well, these bugs must be worked out or chaos unfolds. If the bug’s caught soon enough, the virus might be stopped. However, if the correction’s not made then the system crashes, i.e. the Civil War.
When government works well, imagination of our nation’s promise proactively steers us toward a sound productivity. Looking back can work, I think, for a time; but, ultimately, without movement the car sinks in the yard.