While education for democracy has been heavily influenced by the deliberative perspective on democracy, a recent turn towards an agonistic perspective on democracy places a great deal of faith in the role of political emotion and conflict. Educational scholars have mostly interpreted agonism in relation to the emotional and conflictual experiences that occur within school. Some scholars draw general pedagogical insights from this perspective, while others use it to propose conflictual approaches to classroom discussions. Overestimating, however, the extent to which (...) experiences of agonism within school applies to politically experienced agonisms beyond the school, is problematic. Such overestimations undermine the core political insights of agonistic theory, concerning the democratic potential of radical collective movements. Agonistic theory acknowledges the psychological need among disgruntled citizens for radical alternatives enabling them to oppose and rearticulate the established power dynamics in society. The purpose of agonistic democracy is to enable rearticulations of hegemony through the institutions of representative democracy, rather than as opposed to them. Important for this paper, however, is the argument that such rearticulations depend on the rhetorical force of collective movements. Emphasizing that we cannot assume the presence of such movements in everyday school life, the paper revisits the following question: What are the didactical implications of an agonistic perspective on democracy? The democratic potential of collective movements is not easily captured through experiences within the pedagogical context alone, but proposals are made as to how this potential can be grasped in other ways. (shrink)

Democracy as a regime and as a way of life requires strong ethical-political sensibilities and enabling social preconditions to the creation of which education may be especially conductove. The related normative tasks that we expect from education to carry out are daunting as such. However, they become even more difficult to fulfil in the contemporary contexts of exacerbated adversities. Democracy and democratic education have fallen into various crisis and are facing multiple challenges; this worry is shared by many educational theorists. (...) Thus, today, there is an urgent call to rethink the relationship between education and democratization. This special issues reponds to that call with educational-philosophical papers that explore yet undertheorized dimensions of the connection of civic education and democratic development. (shrink)

In this article, I highlight what Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe’s (re)conceptualisation of the plurality within identities implies for justice and education. Laclau and Mouffe (re)theorise the plurality of identities by framing and understanding identities within the wider theoretical context of discourse analysis and radical Democracy. I argue that the significance of this specific (re)theorisation of the plurality within identities for justice and education has not yet been tackled by the related educational-philosophical scholarship, not even by that which focuses on (...) Laclau and Mouffe. As a first step, I provide a brief overview of Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse theory and their approach to Democracy. Then, I show that, in their wider framework, one of the things that meaningfully connect discourse theory with radical Democracy is the theorisation of the plurality within identities. Finally, I suggest that acknowledging the plurality within any identity may offer important tools for expanding the scope of educational justice and for promoting justice in education. Amongst other things, by theoretically recognising the plurality and multi-dimensionality of collective identities, we obtain better insight into the pitfalls of homogenising identities and of cultivating reductive outlooks on identities in and through education, and encourage students’ critical thinking and self-reflective stances toward subjectivities. (shrink)

Democracy is increasingly being challenged, by disengagement and by anti-pluralist movements (Levitsky and Ziblatt in How Democracies Die: What History Reveals About Our Future, Viking, New York, 2018; Wikforss in _Därför demokrati. Om kunskapen och folkstyret_ [Because of this, democracy. On knowledge and people’s rule] Fri Tanke, 2021; Svolik et al. in J Democr 34(1):5–20, 2023). This article draws upon a theoretical discussion about democracy, pluralism, and threats to democracy. Departing from Dewey, Laclau, Mouffe, Young and Allen, we address democracy (...) as an ideology that centers around pluralism, or an ever-increasing inclusion of voices from the margins as its goal. We argue that perceiving democracy pedagogically as a pluralistic ideology would support students’ democratic citizenship and equip them for a world where threats to democracy are being reported. Employing a case study on Finnish social studies textbooks, we analyze how democracy as well as threats to democracy are discursively portrayed. Our study shows that the textbooks present democracy as predominantly institutional and static. We also find that while disengagement is portrayed as a problem for democracy, anti-pluralist movements are generally not referred to as a threat. Additionally, we examine a discourse in the textbooks that connects freedom of speech with democracy in a way that favors a multitude of opinions, even antidemocratic ones, over creating space for marginalized voices. Drawing on the theoretical discussion and the results of the analysis, we argue that a focus on pluralism as the core of democracy makes the opposition between restricting hate speech and advocating for democracy redundant. (shrink)

This paper mobilises the psychoanalytic concepts of desire and enjoyment to better understand how processes of education aimed at extending and defending democratic life might respond to and engage with populist politics. I approach this task by engaging with a particular vector of Mouffe and Laclau’s political philosophy, moving from a critique of liberal democracy’s rationalist pretensions to their insistence that left populism and its passionate construction of a ‘people’ is the central task facing radical politics. This attention to the (...) libidinal basis of political identification locates them in a community of Left Lacanian thinkers who reframe the problems of democratic politics in terms of desire and enjoyment rather than miseducation or its lack. Whilst this position might suggest a binary choice between different analytical frames, I inquire into what insights are generated by theorising left populism as an ‘education of desire’. The paper is organised into four main parts: the opening discussion clarifies my understanding of education by engaging with the literature on educational agonism. The second section lays the groundwork for a critique of the way in which education is fetishized, in different ways, by liberals and radicals as a panacea for populist politics. The third section reframes democratic crisis as an enjoyment problem in order to better grasp the relationship between the liberal democratic disavowal of its own irrationality and the structure of right-wing populist enjoyment. The fourth section applies these insights to develop a critical analysis of what is at stake when we explicitly consider the left populist construction of a ‘people’ as an educational task. I conclude by drawing together and summarising the main features and considerations of left populism understood as an education of desire. (shrink)