Tags/Etiquetas:
DEMOCRACY EDUCATION: PEDAGOGY FOR TEACHING/LEARNING CONDUCT FOR PROMOTION OF THE COMMON GOOD
Principal author: Roy Wilson, EdD
Additional author: Karen Bohlke, EdD
Institution: Institute for Community Leadership, United States
Presentation form of the scientific results: Presentation
Symposium to which the paper applies: Formation in values and citizen education
Public education in the United States currently forms and promotes individual conduct that opposes self-actualization and democracy. Democracy, a process that unifies and promotes cooperation between human beings, recognizes the interconnectedness of all people. Democracy education consists of educational content and methodologies that form conduct developing acts and ideas progressing the common good, and diminishing arrogance and self-centric behavior often working against one’s own values and interests, and the values and interests of the common good. Democracy education is problem solving education based on struggles for peace, justice, and stronger democracy. Opposition to democracy in public schools is carried out primarily by implementing a pedagogy of greed and hyper-individualism, a pedagogy attacking cooperation and community and promotes racism, exploitation, and war.
Liberating teaching means teaching liberation; it also means liberating the act of teaching from the confines of anti-democracy educational systems. The interests of teachers and learners, as well as justice and democracy, are best served when the relationship between teachers and learners occurs in the context of the struggle for democracy.
In so far as democracy education develops virtues and characteristics required for promotion of the common good, it offers viable solutions to dehumanizing educational processes, systems, and outcomes.
US schools, mirroring lack of social cohesion created by rapidly accelerating national and global inequities, are increasingly ill-equipped to prepare students for meaningful integration in their own lives (Trumbull, Rothstein-fisch, & Greenfield, 2000; Wilson, 2002). The prospect of learning is fundamentally a social one. In the schema of increasing inequities and threatened eco-systems, it is also not a neutral one. Learning involves relationships and power. It either reinforces social dysfunction or it contributes to the creation of more cohesive social relationships and equitable power structures.
In theory, democracy should prepare young people for the kind of other interested conduct required for promotion of the common good—being a good parent, neighbor, co-worker or citizen (Dewey, 1916; Patrick, 2003). While equitable academic achievement is widely accepted as a laudable educational goal, perhaps nothing is more important for educational outcome than equipping citizens for meaningful and productive participation in society (Brameld, 1965). The teacher’s “primary task is not to teach mathematics or science or history. It is rather to teach human beings how to be human, how to grow into full, rich personalities living in concert with other personalities” (p.67). Education is for improving lives and leaving the community and world better than how it was found (Edelman, 1992).
Absent the practice of disinterested virtues, rationalization of passion and prejudice can lead to the justification of selfishness (Huxley, 1937). To apply this in contemporary context, youth today need access to dialogue and reflection about the inequities and problems facing society. Without objective understanding, which assists in developing other-interested virtues, the pains and pleasures of social dissonance hold young people captive. It requires strength of character and heightened consciousness to choose conduct that facilitates the development of the more mature, other interested-self, over the immediate gratifications of personal pleasure and development of selfishness. This paper supports the hypothesis that conduct that reinforces disinterested virtues such as honesty, amity, gratitude, generosity, and mutuality can be taught and learned. Further, the acquisition of these virtues leads toward development of an other-interested, or collectivist pro-democracy world view.
Public education is the primary instrument available to address inequities in society (Dewey, 1916). It should address disparities and teach citizenship, a generalist, practical, broad gauged, many sided capacity to act in the world as public leadership (Boyte, 1997). It should awaken purpose and meaning, unlock oppression and release the best in humanity. It should equip students with the skills, relationships, and resources to solve really difficult problems facing our society: hopelessness; lack of meaning; drug and alcohol abuse; societal violence; environmental unsustainability; use of force in problem solving; growing wealth divides and heightened dissonance, fear, and anger. Times of crisis in society lead to value disorientation and disintegrated personalities (Brameld 1950). Education should dedicate itself centrally to the task of reconstructing formative social patterns.
Democracy is a combination of science and cultural power; it is a process involving hard work, experimentation, sacrifice, intelligence, ethics, and faith. Democracy is how a people incubate, birth, and grow the ethic of love and compassion in ways that control economic and political power. Living democracy is not like “living the good life.” It takes disciplined individuals willing and able to live within the system of exploitation without acts of exploitation living in them. Democracy calls upon educators to work together seeking their more noble self. It requires wisdom. Perhaps how we “do” democracy is to study it in both scientific and cultural ways. To have democracy in the future, we must choose to study and practice it now.
To transform education, educators study and practice changing themselves. Human beings change by struggling and organizing for external change (Dewey, 1984). Conduct change leads to character growth, and an elevated character raises consciousness (Heard, 2008). One’s consciousness reflects the height of one’s character. A selfish and possessive character permits a narrow consciousness that detects very little outside the personal needs or desires of the beholder. An other-interested, community-centered character engenders a wider, more inclusive view. One’s character obtains from conduct. Behavior that forces violence or indifference upon others produces low character, that kind of character that permits only short-sighted, narrow consciousness. On the other hand, behavior that permits inclusion and cohesion ignites higher character that, in turn, allows a wider and deeper worldview or consciousness. When one is considered a “good” person (or an efficient one, or a careful one), it is not because s/he does not act, at times, in a “bad” way (or inefficiently or carelessly). Individuals are given these qualifiers by others because others perceive a preponderance of their conduct as either more positive or more negative.
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. teaches that no one is born either good or bad (King,1963). Everyone is born with the potential to act in both a good and a bad way. What defines us is the general pattern of our behavior. No one is so good that they don’t do some acts of evil, and no one is so evil that they don’t do some acts that his or her peers would not consider good. Essence and character are determined by what one does, and how one acts. To model dignity, teachers of all disciplines carry out their conduct and curriculum honoring the necessity of a people to know and understand the past, and to know why and how to participate in the future. To insert democracy, as an end and a means, into education requires persons desirous and capable of defying current social norms and becoming a transformed nonconformist. Dr. King points out,
This hour in history needs a dedicated circle of transformed nonconformists. Our planet teeters on the brink of atomic annihilation; dangerous passions of pride, hatred and selfishness are enthroned in our lives; truth lies prostrate on the rugged hills of nationalism and materialism. The saving of our world from pending doom will come, not through the complacent adjustment of the conforming majority, but through the creative maladjustment of a nonconforming minority. (King, 2010, p. 18)
Dr. Du Bois sketched out the economic and political terrain of America over a century ago when he said the problem of the century was the problem of the color line (Du Bois, 1994). Dr. King further defined the topography of America’s chronic illness. He did so by highlighting the need to rapidly begin the shift from a “thing” oriented society to a “person” oriented society (King, 1967a, 1967b). When machines and computers, profit motives, and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered. A civilization can flounder as readily in the face of moral and spiritual bankruptcy as it can through financial bankruptcy (King, 1967b).
The prognosis held by Du Bois and King reveals deeply rooted obstacles, but they are not immutable. Dignified teaching not only reveals the nation’s weaknesses, it also brings light and meaning to the history of struggle that defines the positive qualities and nobility of a people. Educators are confronted with a choice, a conundrum for some, and a clear pathway for others: Either we educate, or we mis-educate. In the context of democracy and social responsibility teachers either assist in the development of their own wisdom and that of students and community, or they teach to prepare themselves and students to achieve a level of technical competency without necessarily knowing 5 what to do with such knowledge (Kelley, 1947). Democracy education calls for the development of the wisdom and capacity to overcome racism, consumerism, and violence in all its forms. Education holds the power to develop the wisdom necessary for us to control our technological power and our technical training.
Technological aptitude without inner realm wisdom creates, in Dr. King’s words, “guided missiles and misguided men” (King, 1968, p.172). Those who’ve created atomic and nuclear weaponry, and those who’ve developed the technology that inherently increases the gap between the rich and the poor, and those who’ve constructed the system of finance capital that runs the government and ruins the hopes and dreams and economic capacity of working people—most of them are well-educated college graduates. The vast majority of them are technically trained experts whose lack of wisdom brings humanity closer and closer to calamity. For these reasons, the people need and deserve a field of study dedicated to continuously exploring the universe of human development, one that experiments with why and how to advance the practice of democracy. Democracy education, a democracy-centered educational approach, bases all academic studies on research and study of, and experimentation with the theories and practices of democracy. As recognized by civil rights organizer and historian Jack O’Dell, all fields of study, from the humanities and social sciences, to natural and applied sciences, because they commence from the realm of human cohesion and collective progress, emanate from those qualities inherent in the human longing for health, happiness, and an openness characteristic of democracy (Singh, 2010).
Democracy is a means, not a fixed destination. Humanity, as far as we can tell, will not arrive at perfected democracy, for democracy, like all social entities, evolves through the complexities of forward, then-backward, then-forward motion, and continues on in ever changing forms (Dahl, 2001). Many Western philosophers perceive democracy as a conclusion, a fixed destination. The movement toward democracy ebbs and flows. It is not consistent (Padover, 1973). Specific efforts at democracy can be arrested and the motion toward democracy can be pushed back. The evolution and development of democracy is by no means an automatic process that steps ever forward. It suffers periods of decay and death.
The primary aspect of all processes is the inherent conflict between distinct forces. The dynamics of a process, whether it is receding or advancing, speeding up or 6 slowing down, result in a dialectical tension between the simultaneous attraction and repulsion of the powers of opposing force (Engels, 1976). Among human beings today the most basic conflict pits the forces of expansion against those of constriction; it is a battle between the forces of greed and segregation, on one hand, and on the other, the forces of cooperation and integration (see Appendix A: Collectivism and Individualism). The restrictive social construct entices an egotistical stance toward humanity, while the inclusive generates an other-interestedness that positions the individual within the interconnectedness of humanity. These conflicting forces utilize various forms of power in order to promote and protect their respective capacity to direct society.
In the United States the most basic assumption regarding democracy limits it to a process. Most people see voting as the most notable aspect of democracy, but it is a very small part. Democracy includes many other processes such as campaigning, balancing powers, negotiation and litigation, demonstrations, popular education and organizing, and basic civil and human rights. It includes the quality of human relationships. Economic relations, for example, are qualitative conditions directly related to democracy (Barber, 2004). Gender relations, race relations, cultural and religious relations—all form a qualitative aspect of democracy. Opportunity as a condition or a social quality also can and should be manifested in the theory and practice of democracy. Democracy is inclusion. Anti-democracy is exclusion (Laski, 1935). Democracy determines how we use the land and natural resources, such as water, wind, minerals, timber, and oil and gas. Communication also defines itself in the theory and practice of democracy: Who controls the airwaves? Who controls the print and electronic media? Who controls the internet? Jason Benlevi, a high-tech guru from Silicon Valley, points out that computer development has been based on private profit, and this profit is generated by either one or the other, or both, of the following sources: Public dollars paid to tech companies for military purpose; or money consumers (Benlevi, 2011). Democracy includes social, political, economic, and cultural relationships, which means the theory and practice of democracy deals with the quality and quantity of those aspects of relationships we call human: love/indifference, integrity/self-serving, honesty/untrustworthy, and humility/arrogance. Democracy concerns itself with values that unify and combine. Anti-democracy projects theories and practices that divide and disintegrate.
However one defines democracy, democracy is held together by real people (some who have gone before us, and some who are living now) weaving divergent and polarizing forces into some palatable form of social cohesion—like water molecules and the mighty, flowing river (Wilson, interview, 2013). As divergent interests collide and coalesce, in the end, social relations define the formal and informal laws that shape our lives. Democracy education provides opportunity for advancement of conducts and patterns to guide us through the evolutionary necessity of co-habitation of this planet.
On a practical basis we stand at the edge of a cliff. We could wipe out humanity and the species as we know it. We don’t have enough information about how to arrest war making and climate change behavior. We can’t just wave a wand and all of sudden achieve peaceful relations, rational use of resources, alleviate pollution, and have neighborly relations reign. This (pedagogy) is important because justice demands it. The historical human experience demands it. Love demands it. Meaning demands it. (Interview, Feb 26, 2010, Wilson)
This paper advances the role of teaching and learning for the common good, defined by formative development of conduct, character, and consciousness in support of the forward march of democracy.
Collectivism, or other-interestedness on the one hand, and individualism on the other, are widely recognized as the most important aspects of culture and communication impacting the highly human relational fields of psychology, social work, and education. In the field of education, collectivity is attracting recognition as a determinate consideration impacting educational outcomes, and classroom management. We hold out hope that public education in the US can help address current dilemmas. This hope is embodied in the belief that a people hold the potential for other-centered conduct and character. This is, we admit, a very tall order. Indeed, public schools in the US, for the most part, have never played a role in addressing social problems much less permit themselves to be of, and for, the people. Schools have played the opposite role. They function as the primary social agency responsible for the lack of action, and consistent regeneration of social division. Schools prepare most students to oppose their own enlightenment, their own liberation that might lead toward civic and political participation.. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in his Riverside Church speech in 1967, voiced an eloquent call for the study of democracy. “These are revolutionary times. All over the globe men are revolting against the old systems of exploitation and oppression and out of the wombs of a frail world new systems of justice and equality are being born” (Washington, 1986, p. 242). He insisted that we must make democracy real and follow through on the revolutions that we initiated. Our only hope today lies in our ability to recapture the revolutionary spirit and go out into a sometimes hostile world declaring eternal hostility to poverty, racism, and militarism. (Washington, 1986, p. 242)
Disciplined and dedicated educators are necessary to place public education within the effort for democracy. Dr. King was hopeful, but not overly optimistic. He cautioned,
The world now demands a maturity of America that we may not be able to achieve . . . It demands that we admit that we have been wrong. . . The situation is one in which we much be ready to turn sharply from our present ways. (Washington, 1986, p. 239)
Democracy also calls for agile and emotionally strong educators, ones that take seriously the call to change the self. Reality has bestowed upon educators in America the need for their “realization of the capacity of the self to measure up to its fullest, most satisfying powers in cooperative relationship with other selves” (Brameld, 1976, p. 93). Teachers cry for teaching completely full of meaning; and students, for study that is real.
Barber, B. R. (2004). Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age. Los Angeles:University of California Press.
Benlevi, J. (2011). Too much magic: Pulling the plug on the cult of tech. San Francisco, CA: Contrarian Books.
Boyte, H.C. (1997). The meaning of citizenship. Kettering Review, winter, 55-62.
Brameld, T. (1950). Ends and means in education: a mid-century appraisal. New York, NY: Harper & Brothers.
Brameld, T. (1965). Education as power (p. 146). New York, NY: Holy, Rinehart and Winston.
Brameld, T. (1976). The teacher as world citizen. Palm Springs, CA: ETC Publications.
Bohlke, K. (2004). How does self-forgetfulness assist in the development of a collectivist worldview? (Master’s thesis). Antioch University, Seattle, WA.
Capra, F. (1997). The new web of life. New York, NY: Anchor Books.
Dahl, R. (2001). How democratic is the American Constitution? New haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. The Philosophical Review (Vol. 25, p. 735).
Dewey, J. (1984). Individualism old and new. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
DuBois, W. E. B. (1994). The souls of Black folk. New York, NY: Dover Publications.
Edelman, M. W. (1992). The Measure of your success: a letter to my children and yours. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Engels, F. (1976). Dialectics of nature (8th ed). New York, NY: International.
Greenfield, P. M., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (1994). Cross-cultural roots of minority child development (pp. 1-37). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Heard, G. (1942). Training for life of the spirit. New York, NY: Harper & Brothers.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Huxley, A. (1937). Ends and means. New York, NY: Harper & Brothers Publishers.
Kelley, E. (1947). Education for what is real. New York, NY: Harper & Brothers.
King, M. L. (1963). Letter from Birmingham jail. Retrieved March 24, 2012, from http://heinonlinebackup.com/holcgibin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/davlr26§ion=3
King, M. L. (1967a). The trumpet of conscience. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
King, M. L. (1967b). Where do we go from here? Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
King, M. L., Jr. (1968). Chaos or community: Where do we go from here? Westminster, London, UK: Penguin Books.
King, M. L. (2010). Strength to love. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.
Laski, H. (1935). Democracy in crisis. Chapel Hill: University of North California Press.
Lodge, G. C. (2009). Ideology and national competitiveness. Journal of Managerial Issues, XXI(4), 321-338.
Padover, S. K. (1973). Sources of democracy. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Patrick, J. (2003). Essential elements of education for democracy: What are they and why should they be at the core of the curriculum in schools. October 16, 2003 in Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.
Shore, B. (1996). Culture in mind: Cognition, culture, and the problem of meaning. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Singh, N. (Ed.), (2010). Climbin’ Jacob’s ladder: The Black freedom movement writings of Jack O’Dell. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psychological Review, 96(3), 506–520.
Trumbull, E., Diaz-Meza, R., Hasan, A., & Rothstein-Fisch, C. (2001). Five-year report of the Bridging Cultures Project. San Francisco, CA: WestEd. Retrieved from http://www.wested.org/bridgingcultures, February 16, 2013.
Trumbull, B., Rothstein-fisch, C., & Greenfield, P. (2000). Bridging cultures in our schools: new approaches that work (pp. 1-11). San Francisco, CA: WestEd.
Washington, J. (1986). A testament of hope. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Wilson, R. (2002). Leadership poetry workshop: Creating peace and strengthening democracy. Kent, WA: Institute for Community Leadership.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Comment *
Name *
Email *
Website
Post Comment