Lived Democracy in Education

Young Citizens' Democratic Lives in Kindergarten, School and Higher Education

Rune Herheim, Tobias Werler, Kjellrun Hiis Hauge, Rune Herheim, Tobias Werler, Kjellrun Hiis Hauge

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2021
• Print ISBN: 9780367542160
• eBook ISBN: 9781000475784
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

This book outlines the notion of 'lived democracy in education', bringing together interdisciplinary educational research on young citizens' democratic practices in kindergartens, schools, and teacher education.

Presenting both theoretical and empirical studies, and drawing on a variety of approaches, the book investigates participatory education practices where young learners are given the opportunity to influence a course of action or a discussion through expressing arguments, information and critique. Lived democracy in education is understood as opportunities for young learners to influence a decision or line of thought through enacting the values of freedom of speech and equality, and the book shows how such opportunities can be positioned in educational practices. Chapters also investigate what kind of pedagogical situations promote lived democracy and what qualities are present in these situations.

The book will be of interest to academics, researchers, graduate students and post-graduate students in the fields of educational theory, educational philosophy and democracy in education concerning several school subjects.

1 Introduction Exploring and defining lived democracy in education

Tobias Werler and Rune Herheim

DOI: 10.4324/9781003088233-1

In this chapter, we discuss and present the core ideas of education for democracy and use them as the backbone of arguments developing a new notion for education practice and research: lived democracy in education. We also elaborate on notions and questions regarding the operationalisation of the idea of lived democracy.

Democracy is an important achievement of modern societies. As paradoxical as it may sound today, democracy was for a long period not a generic mandate of a school’s curriculum. While education was seen as important for the development of a democratic society in the second half of the nineteenth century (Dewey, 1916), the experiences of the Second World War in particular gave many countries the impetus to include democratic education in schools. Education for democracy became included in schools as a means for transforming state and society. Since then, public education in the Western world has played a major role in developing democracy.

From democracy to deliberative democracy

Democracy is a term integrated in both political and educational language. Especially in the Western world, the idea of a democratic society is in general supported by its citizens, and many nations characterise themselves as democracies. The term democracy thus comes with a positive valence; however, as the history of political philosophy reminds us, there are various definitions of, and ideals associated with, democracy.

Primarily, democracy is a pragmatic procedure in political and public everyday life to clarify various stances on societal problems. In elections, alternative courses of action are put to the vote, each vote counting equally. The minority must accept that the majority wins, and submit to the decision. Fundamental to this perspective is that inequality may result from equal voters. Locke (Two Treatises of Government, 1689) understood democracy as liberalism, where political parties compete for votes, trying to convince the voters that their desired opportunities will be given. In this view, democracy is not for the common good, but for power acquisition. Rousseau (On the Social Contract, 1762) included the common good in his development of a republican model of democracy. The model was built on an idea of the general will (volonté générale) of the people, where consensus, peace and harmony are achieved through the exchange of opinions and shared norms. The common good then determines the realm of politics, participation practices and how power is legitimated, enacted and practised.

Habermas (1994, 1996) was opposed to both the liberal and republican model. From his perspective, the greatest deficiency of liberal democracy was the lack of solidarity and competition-oriented communication. He criticised republican democracy for its narrow political discourses, allowing little room for pluralism and making consensus difficult. Given the indissoluble pluralism of people’s political values and interests, Habermas suggested overcoming the obstacles of such modes of democracy by applying a proceduralist view: deliberative democracy.

Like other forms of democracy, deliberative democracy builds on universal human rights, but more emphasis is put on discourse and argumentation. Three kinds of discourse are decisive for political decision making (Habermas, 1994): the pragmatic discourse, which weighs between interests and finds compromises; the ethical-political discourse, which serves to answer the question of what is good for a community; and the moral discourse on what is just for all people. Habermas found communication, as an alternative to administrative power, to be a crucial feature. If democratic praxis follows those principles, then there is room for solidarity, and political decisions do not result from competition but from argumentation about the goals and values of politics.

Democracy's link to education

Deliberative democracy has been criticised as having overly high expectations of rationality and reason, that the search for consensus ends in disagreement, that people are not able to undertake discourses and that talk is overvalued (Ottmann, 2006). Education has increasingly been recognised as an arena in which people can learn to live in a democratic society and thereby overcome such challenges. Narratives such as freedom in education (Tolstoy, 1972), the self-activity of the child (Froebel, 1887; Pestalozzi, 1915), and commitment to democracy (Dewey) have contributed to developing education for democracy. In his pedagogical writings about the school at Yasnaya Polyana, Tolstoy (1972) emphasised that the influence of the teacher must be minimal, and that teachers are not entitled to intervene ‘by force’ in the process of education. Child centredness and creativity were for Pestalozzi (1915) and Froebel (1887) prerequisites for the emergence of social participation. These are pedagogical principles allowing the ‘self-activity’ of the child. It is only since the work of Dewey (1916) that there has been a debate about education for democracy. Dewey was convinced that debating, discussing and convincing are deliberative practices that change the preferences of citizens about how to interact and express their opinions. Only through collective political will can common problems be solved. Ultimately, such a process will lead to more legitimate decisions. The period after the Second World War in particular saw a recognition of education for democracy becoming established in politics (Zook, 1946) as well as in education theory (Adorno, 1966; Arendt, 1958).

Without democratic education, people’s participation in society would be severely weakened, the distribution of opportunities to participate in society would be less fair and there would be less discussion about the allocation of a society’s resources. If citizens are to influence decision making in society, they must be enabled to use their abilities. The cognitive representation of knowledge about democracy and its principles and values does not ultimately predict whether students will act democratically in their everyday life. A goal of public representation will therefore be that citizens learn to understand publicly presented arguments, their contextual conditions, and the positions of others. The following section provides a brief overview of research that has investigated conditions for, and modes of, democratic education practices.

Researching education for democracy

There are many publications about education and the practice of democracy. For example, the capability approach (Nussbaum, 2000; Sen, 2009) concerns democratic participation as an intrinsically valuable function, as an instrumental procedure to (better) defend positions and claims, and as central in the construction of societal priorities and values. When discussing the potential implications of the capability approach for education research and practice, Crocker (2000) argued for the development and investigation of agency, and the deliberative, democratic engagement of people. The development of democratic qualities in educational processes and practices has an impact on the everyday lives of children and young people as regards their ongoing formation as democratic citizens (Biesta, 2011). They are dependent on educational experiences that allow them to express their arguments, have personal encounters, and develop a consciousness of their participation practices. As an implicit response, Noddings (2013) argued that democratic education practice must – to be relevant for students’ lives – address how and why political decision making can influence the development of participation practices.

Hess (2009) reported from empirical research on the use of controversial issues in teaching. She, as well as Cowan and Maitles (2012), argue for the educational use of dissent and opposing views. Their contributions provide an important foundation for forming democratic actions and consciousness. Investigating discussions of political issues within high school classrooms, Hess and McAvoy (2015) showed that political polarisation and social inequality affect classroom dynamics. In exploring the relationships between democratic citizenship and the public sphere, Biesta, De Bie and Wildemeersch (2014) outlined the complexities of democratic learning in the context of the ongoing struggle for democracy. They argue that key to democratic learning is that it emerges from engagement in democratic processes. Exploring the idea that democratic education can unfold on two irreconcilable levels (tolerance/intolerance) at once, Strandbrink (2017) found that placing blind trust in public democratic-normative education does not necessarily support a student’s agency and liberal democratic power. Asking whether education systems are effective in creating democratically minded citizens, Raiker and Rautiainen (2017) found that educators were losing control over the preparation of students for a democratic life. Researchers such as Matto (2017) provide documentation on the declining political commitment of young people, and this justifies an emphasis on democratic learning in school. Apple, Gandin, Liu, Meshulam and Schirmer (2018) argued that democracy exists because of complex local and international contradictions and conflicts. Educators must therefore pay attention to the multiple dynamics taking place and work against systematic oppression. Overall, this practice-oriented research shows that both dissension and contrasting viewpoints serve as a valuable catalyst for the development of political actions and understanding.

According to these insights, researching education for democracy is necessary in order to include and record perspectives on the implementation of politics and democracy in daily life in teacher education, schools and kindergartens. Such research would help in learning how to cultivate the democratic capabilities of young learners. Further research should document how the practice of democracy allows learners to improve their learning by encouraging them to exercise their democratic rights as human beings. More work will also be necessary to explore how young learners incorporate the ideals of democracy and dignity in their daily life through education.

A transformative framework is needed, however, to grasp the everyday practice and life of education for democracy. This will be developed in the following two sections.

Lived democracy and society

From the perspective of people and learners, democracy is itself always a process of becoming. Each generation must fight for itself, because the principles and freedoms of democratic society cannot be passed down from generation to generation in the same manner as learning about democracy as knowledge, at school. Developing a democratic society is about establishing a culture, a way of being and a way of experiencing participation in democracy which is valuable, so that students become able to generate aims and methods by which their sociality will develop further. To progress and to achieve a democratic life, students must learn to see conflicts as fruitful yet unavoidable premises for such a way of life.

Conflicting views are necessary for progress and a democratic life. The possibility and the ability of an individual to participate in political debate are basic requirements for practising lived democracy. According to Simmel’s (1903) explanations of the dispute, if we stop arguing, then we endanger the foundations of our coexistence, because without dispute, there is no progress. We must sharpen our arguments against each other, in order to create freedom and democracy.

From a normative, educational point of view, students should learn to argue so as not to accept the conditions in which they live as finished. It is an advantage that young citizens develop ideas for a conjoined life that go further than personal benefit. It is also valuable that disputes demand not only respect for the opponent, but also the courage to express strong feelings. Such disputes would expose mistakes and imperfect arguments. At the same time, they can show the disputants what remains right, what possibilities are opened and what goals are worth striving for. They can strengthen relationships and create identity. A dispute can be productive even if the disputants must acknowledge that their ideals cannot be united. For the disputants it is important to learn to accept the argument of the other, even if they find it wrong. Learning the art of disputing and democratic coexistence thus becomes an educational task.

Lived democracy is based on a mode of shared experience in living together, which is continually balanced and adjusted. There are some key requirements to make such a process of active experience possible, when facilitating young learners’ lived democracy. They must experience freedom of speech, acceptance of disagreement, distribution of power, fair public debate and acceptable compromise. The following section introduces ideas and arguments that are fundamental for lived democracy in education.

Lived democracy and education

Developing a commonly shared democratic practice, filling it with life and maintaining democratic ways of life, is a challenge. Facilitating lived democracy in education is challenging, because advanced technology and science are increasingly requiring citizens to deal with and assess risks and conflicts (Beck, 1992). Among other things, young citizens must be able to learn, understand, use, maintain and strengthen the democratic qualities of the political system (freedom of speech, power distribution, interplay between groups). Citizens must be able to contribute to the protection of their civil rights, but also their human rights. This requires that young citizens can act and argue rationally, and that they can also see the consequences of...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Series Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• List of figures
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• Notes on the contributors
• 1 Introduction
• Part 1 Lived democracy in education
• Part 2 Lived democracy in education
• Index