Skip to main content

Democracy, Education and the Need for Politics

Abstract

Even though the interrelationship between education and democratic politics is as old as democracy itself, it is seldom explicitly formulated in the literature. Most of the time, the political system is taken as a given, and education conceptualized as an instrument for stability and social integration. Many contemporary discussions about citizenship education and democracy in the Western world mirror this tendency. In the paper, I argue that, in order to conceptualise the socio-political potential of education we need to understand democracy in more political terms. This means that democracy can neither be seen primarily as a mode of associated living (Dewey), nor a model for handling different life-views (political liberalism à la Rawls and Gutmann). A third alternative is Gert Biesta’s notion of democratic subjectification. Even though Biesta identifies depoliticising trends in citizenship education policies, I argue that his alternative still fails to be a sufficiently political alternative. What is lacking in Biesta is the explicit attention to political causes and the kind of collective activities that define a democracy: the creation of one’s own laws, norms and institutions. This capacity of the collective to question and govern itself is put in relief by Cornelius Castoriadis’s notion of “the project of autonomy”.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. I would like to thank the anonymous reviewers, whose rich and constructive comments were of great help in improving the manuscript.

  2. Notwithstanding the fact that women and slaves were not acknowledged as citizens, Greek democracies were highly inclusive compared to other polities at the time. See, e.g., Hansen (1991).

  3. This idea was splendidly formulated by Pericles in his funeral oration for the Athenians who fell in the Peloponnesian war (Thucydides, The History of the Peloponnesian War, book II, 34–46).

  4. The belief in the ability to change society also has anthropological underpinnings, as discussed by Papastephanou (2014).

  5. The present discussion is complicated by the fact that the distinction is described in varying terminology, and that scholars sometimes use the terms politics/the political with almost opposite meanings. Chantal Mouffe, for example, uses the terms in a rather different way than I do here. In order to avoid misunderstandings, the term ‘politics proper’ is introduced.

  6. Papastephanou (2008) provides an eclatant analysis of this phenomenon seen through the lens of educational theory. Through an immanent critique, Papastephanou shows how Rawls’ political liberalism can be accused of harbouring comprehensive presuppositions that build on ‘particular’ presuppositions, thus drawing invalid conclusions.

  7. This is clearly a strongly politicized, even radical notion of democracy that is rarely found in real life. However, according to Castoriadis, the Greeks, and especially Athens in the sixth and fifth century BCE were driven by this kind of self-questioning and self-institution. The impulse for autonomy reemerged in early European modernity in the city states of Northern Italy and in the institutionalisation of Western liberal democracies (Castoriadis 1991a, 1997).

  8. The how-approach is especially close at hand for theories of deliberative and procedural democracy.

  9. Dewey's thought has traditionally had a strong position in the Nordic nations, who are often thought to be fairly advanced in democratic understanding, with high scores in the Civic Education study of the IEA http://www.iea.nl/cived.html.

  10. A key concept in this context is participation, where different forms of participation are treated as so many manifestations of ‘democracy’. As pointed out by Pérez Expósito, the result of mixing together different conceptions of participation in one and the same theory—as in most theories of citizenship education—is a muddled, apolitical conception of democracy (Pérez Expósito 2014).

  11. Confer footnote 5.

  12. Political processes and policy reforms are of course extremely important as well, but beyond the scope of the present discussion.

  13. Gutmann also acknowledges the deliberative democracy of Jürgen Habermas.

  14. A pregnant example is the creationist movement, claiming that the theory of evolution is just another belief system that should be taught as such. Climate change deniers represent another example.

  15. In her analysis of citizenship theory, Papastephanou criticizes Rawlsian political liberalism and even draws the conclusion that: “… the Rawlsian conception of education would produce an institutional apparatus for the perpetuation of inequality, unconscious of its role in social reproduction […] So the educational dilemma is either to cling to liberalism or to contribute to its reformulation” (Papastephanou 2008, p. 48).

  16. Indeed, Gutmann’s next major work was called Identity in Democracy.

  17. Questions about inclusion, exclusion etc. based on the category of identity are of course far from unimportant, but compared to the debates of the 1970s, attention to economic structures and political causes are curiously lacking. A similar concern, which is also not discussed here, is the conflation of politics and (legal and political) rights (see the works of Chantal Mouffe 2005, 2006).

  18. The terms vary slightly: in earlier policy literature it was knowledge, skills and values or attitudes, whereas competencies now seems to have taken the place of the latter.

  19. I have made a similar analysis in Straume(2010).

  20. Also printed in Biesta (2006), p. 122–123.

  21. I am not talking here about Deweyan instrumentalism.

  22. Rancière, on the other hand, approaches the notion of subjectivity through the category of equality, which he sees as a presupposition in all politico-social affairs, and for democracy in particular (Rancière 2006).

  23. In contrast, Pérez Expósito (2014) has brought a thorough criticism of depoliticising trends in citizenship education and set forth a politicised alternative with various examples of how students can be politically active in a school setting.

  24. Some contemporary examples would be injustice, poverty, wars, climate injustice, and a growing, neoliberal plutocracy.

References

  • Arendt, H. 1989. The human condition. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biesta, G.J.J. 2003. Demokrati – ett problem för utbildning eller ett utbildningsproblem? Utbildning & demokrati 12(1): 59–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biesta, G.J.J. 2005. Against learning. Reclaiming a language for education in an age of learning. Nordic Educational Research 25(1): 54–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biesta, G.J.J. 2006. Beyond learning. Democratic learning for a human future. Boulder Co: Paradigm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biesta, G.J.J. 2007. Education and the democratic person: Towards a political conception of democratic education. The Teachers College Record 109(3): 740–769.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biesta, G.J.J. 2010. How to exist politically and learn from it: Hannah Arendt and the problem of democratic education. Teachers College Record 112(2): 556–575.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biesta, G.J.J. 2011. Learning democracy in school and society: Education, lifelong learning and the politics of citizenship. Rotterdam: Sense.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Biesta, G.J.J. 2013. Learning in public places: Civic learning for the twenty-first century. In Civic learning, democratic citizenship and the public sphere, ed. G.J.J. Biesta, M. de Bie, and D. Wildemeersch, 1–11. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Börhaug, K. 2004. Ein skule for demokratiet? Norsk pedagogisk tidsskrift 88(2–3): 205–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Börhaug, K. 2005. Voter Education. The political education of Norwegian lower secondary schools. Utbildning och Demokrati 14(3): 51–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Böyum, S. 2008. What is a political theory of education? Nordisk Pedagogik 27(1): 30–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carr, W., and A. Hartnett. 1996. Education and the Struggle for Democracy. The politics of educational ideas. Buckingham/Philadelphia: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castoriadis, C. (1987). The imaginary institution of society (trans: Blamey, K.). Cambridge: MIT press.

  • Castoriadis, C. (1991a). The Greek Polis and the Creation of Democracy. In Philosophy, politics, autonomy (translated and edited by: Curtis, D.A.). (pp. 81–123). New York: Oxford University Press.

  • Castoriadis, C. (1991b). Power, politics, autonomy. In Philosophy, politics, autonomy (translated and edited by: Curtis, D.A.). (pp. 143–174). New York: Oxford University Press.

  • Castoriadis, C. 1997. Democracy as procedure and democracy as regime. Constellations 4(1): 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castoriadis, C. (2010). A society adrift: interviews and debates 19741997, ed. Escobar, E., Gondicas, M., Vernay, P., (trans: Arnold, H.). New York: Fordham University press.

  • Cusset, F. 2003. French theory: Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze & Cie et les mutations de la vie intellectuelle aux États-Unis. Paris: Découverte.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. 1997. Democracy and education. An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York: Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (nd) Creative democracy: The task before us https://www.aacu.org/meetings/annualmeeting/AM13/documents/WyeReadingsDewey_CreativeDemocracy.pdf.

  • Dewey John: The later works 1925–1954, Vol. 14, electronic version https://www.aacu.org/meetings/annualmeeting/AM13/documents/WyeReadingsDewey_CreativeDemocracy.pdf.

  • Gutmann, A. 1999. Democratic education, 2nd ed. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutmann, A. 1987. Democratic education. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. 1995. Reconciliation through the public use of reason: Remarks on John Rawls’s political liberalism. The Journal of Philosophy 92(3): 109–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, M.H.H. (1991). The Athenian democracy in the age of Demosthenes: structure, principles, and ideology (trans: Crook J.A.). Oxford: Blackwell.

  • Heater, D. 2004. A history of education for citizenship. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Masschelein, J., and P. Simons. 2008. The governmentalization of learning and the assemblage of a learning apparatus. Educational Theory 58(4): 391–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masschelein, J., and P. Simons. 2002. An adequate education in a globalized world? A note on immunization against being-together. Journal of Philosophy of Education 36(4): 565–584.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mouffe, C. 2005. The return of the political. London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mouffe, C. 2006. On the political. London/New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ober, J. 2008. Democracy and knowledge. Innovation and learning in classical Athens. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papastephanou, M. 2008. Philosophical presuppositions of citizenship education and political liberalism. In The Sage handbook of education for citizenship and democracy, ed. J. Arthur, I. Davies, and C. Hahn, 40–56. Los Angeles: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Papastephanou, M. 2014. To mould or to bring out? Human nature, anthropology and educational utopianism. Ethics and Education 9(2): 157–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pérez Expósito, L. 2014. Rethinking political participation: A pedagogical approach for citizenship education. Theory and Research in Education 12(2): 229–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rancière, J. 2006. Hatred of democracy. London/New York: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ravitch, D., and J. Viterittis. 2001. Introduction. In Making good citizens, ed. D. Ravitch, and J. Viterittis, 1–14. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, J. 2005. Political liberalism. Expanded edition. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruitenberg, C. 2010a. Conflict, affect and the Political: On disagreement as democratic capacity. Factis Pax 4(1): 40–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruitenberg, C. 2010b. Learning to articulate: from ethical motivation to political demands. In Philosophy of education 2010, ed. G. Biesta, 372–380. Urbana, Il: Philosophy of Education Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spring, J. (1980). Frigörelsens pedagogik. En grundbok. Stockholm: Federativs. Translated from the English: A primer of libertarian education [1975].

  • Stitzlein, S.M. 2011. Teaching for dissent. Citizenship education and political activism. Boulder Colorado: Paradigm Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Straume, I. 2010. Politikken og det imaginære. Cornelius Castoriadis' bidrag til et politisk danningsbegrep. Doctoral dissertation, The Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Oslo.

  • Wolin, S.S. 2004. Politics and vision. Continuity and innovation in Western political thought (expanded version). New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ingerid S. Straume.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Straume, I.S. Democracy, Education and the Need for Politics. Stud Philos Educ 35, 29–45 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-015-9465-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-015-9465-4

Keywords

  • Democracy
  • Educational theory
  • Politics/the political
  • Project of autonomy
  • Gert Biesta
  • Cornelius Castoriadis