Many scholars in the area of citizenship education take deliberative approaches to democracy, especially as put forward by John Rawls, as their point of departure. From there, they explore how students’ capacity for political and/or moral reasoning can be fostered. Recent work by political theorist Chantal Mouffe, however, questions some of the central tenets of deliberative conceptions of democracy. In the paper I first explain the central differences between Mouffe’s and Rawls’s conceptions of democracy and politics. To this end I (...) take Eamonn Callan’s Creating Citizens as an example of Rawlsian political education and focus on the role of conflict and disagreement in his account. I then address three areas in which political education would need to change if it were to accept Mouffe’s critiques of deliberative approaches to democracy and her proposal for an agonistic public sphere. The first area is the education of political emotions; the second is fostering an understanding of the difference between the moral and the political; the third is developing an awareness of the historical and contemporary political projects of the “left” and “right.” I propose that a radical democratic citizenship education would be an education of political adversaries. (shrink)

The National Council for the Social Studies position statement on “Curriculum Guidelines for Social Studies Teaching and Learning” provides a conceptual outline for contemporary social studies curriculum. The purported goal is to “promote civic competence” in order to “help young people develop the ability to make informed and reasoned decisions for the public good as citizens of a culturally diverse, democratic society in an interdependent world.”1 The statement reaffirms the importance of social studies in the wake of No Child Left (...) Behind—the consequences of which, the statement acknowledges, have led to reduced class time spent on social studies instruction.The NCSS framework asserts that social studies... (shrink)

The paper explores challenges for the interpretation of the ideal toleration that arise in educational contexts involving children. It offers an account of how a respect-based conception of toleration can help to resolve controversies about the accommodation and response to diversity that arise in schools.

If we are to understand the concept of toleration in terms of everyday life, we must address a key philosophical and political tension: the call for restraint when encountering apparently wrong beliefs and actions versus the good reasons for interfering with the lives of the subjects of these beliefs and actions. This collection contains original contributions to the ongoing debate on the nature of toleration, including its definition, historical development, justification, and limits. In exploring the issues surrounding toleration, the essays (...) address a variety of provocative questions. Is toleration a moral virtue of individuals or rather a pragmatic political compromise? Is it an intrinsically good principle or only a "second best-solution" to the dangers of fanaticism to be superseded one day by the full acceptance of others? Does the value of toleration lie in respect to individuals and their autonomy, or rather in the recognition of the right of minority groups to maintain their communal identity? Throughout, the contributors point to the inherent indeterminacy of the concept and to the difficulty in locating it between intolerant absolutism and skeptical pluralism. Religion, sex, speech, and education are major areas requiring toleration in liberal societies. By applying theoretical analysis, these essays show the differences in the argument for toleration and its scope in each of these realms. The contributors include Joshua Cohen, George Fletcher, Gordon Graham, Alon Harel, Moshe Halbertal, Barbara Herman, John Horton, Will Kymlicka, Avishai Margalit, David Richards, Thomas Scanlon, and Bernard Williams. (shrink)

Educating students to become participatory citizens in their country is one of the explicit tasks of public education in a democratic-liberal state. In this article, I use civics education in Israel as a case study for the examination of the justification and the practicability of implementing political education in schools, as opposed to implementing its rivals –ideological education or a-political education. I argue that a liberal-democratic stance and its educational implication—political education—are two concepts submerged in ideology, and, as a result, (...) political education in schools is not ideology-free. I also argue that the common kind of political-civic education in Israel is irrelevant for the significant minorities of Palestinian and Ultra-Orthodox Jewish citizens. Revealing the emptiness and futility of present-day political-civil education leads me to propose to separate this education into different ideological-educational streams, allowing each of them to emphasize its ideology in civil-political education. (shrink)

Educating students to become participatory citizens in their country is one of the explicit tasks of public education in a democratic-liberal state. In this article, I use civics education in Israel as a case study for the examination of the justification and the practicability of implementing political education in schools, as opposed to implementing its rivals –ideological education or a-political education. I argue that a liberal-democratic stance and its educational implication—political education—are two concepts submerged in ideology, and, as a result, (...) political education in schools is not ideology-free. I also argue that the common kind of political-civic education in Israel is irrelevant for the significant minorities of Palestinian and Ultra-Orthodox Jewish citizens. Revealing the emptiness and futility of present-day political-civil education leads me to propose to separate this education into different ideological-educational streams, allowing each of them to emphasize its ideology in civil-political education. (shrink)

Educating students to become participatory citizens in their country is one of the explicit tasks of public education in a democratic-liberal state. In this article, I use civics education in Israel as a case study for the examination of the justification and the practicability of implementing political education in schools, as opposed to implementing its rivals –ideological education or a-political education. I argue that a liberal-democratic stance and its educational implication—political education—are two concepts submerged in ideology, and, as a result, (...) political education in schools is not ideology-free. I also argue that the common kind of political-civic education in Israel is irrelevant for the significant minorities of Palestinian and Ultra-Orthodox Jewish citizens. Revealing the emptiness and futility of present-day political-civil education leads me to propose to separate this education into different ideological-educational streams, allowing each of them to emphasize its ideology in civil-political education. (shrink)

In recent years a growing number of democratic theorists have proposed ways to increase citizen engagement, while channeling those democratic energies in positive directions and away from systematic marginalization, exclusion and intolerance. One novel answer is provided by a strain of democratic theory known as agonistic pluralism, which valorizes adversarial engagement and recognizes the marginalizing tendencies implicit in drives to consensus and stability. However, the divergences between competing variants of agonistic pluralism remain largely underdeveloped or unrecognized. In this article, I (...) address this shortcoming, examining these strains of agonism around the constraints placed upon democratic discourse. I argue that the ‘associative agonism’ of theorists such as Bonnie Honig and William Connolly offers the best means for cultivating virtues necessary to revitalize a contentious democratic politics which also fosters receptivity to pluralism and difference. (shrink)

Shusterman cites Dewey as a preeminent influence, but also endeavors to differentiate himself from his philosophical predecessor. Thus while both emphasize embodiment, Dewey stresses that the body is coupled to the world, and Shusterman sees it as more internally complete, almost setting this up as an ideal to be pursued. Consequently Dewey regards bodily action and resultant experience as co-determined by the world, whereas Shusterman believes the body and experience is more under the control of the individual. This article contrasts (...) Dewey and Shusterman’s approaches. It specifically ponders the Deweyan concepts of pervasive and unifying quality, and concludes that these ideas cast doubt on some of Shusterman’s views, specifically his emphasis on internal control. (shrink)