|
ISSUE 8, May 2002
Conference
Resource centres
Events
CONCEPTS AND MODELS Broadening the democratic imagination.
The memory of the terrible historical consequences of Nazi propaganda has exercised an ongoing influence on the European discussion about values in education. It is now widely held that schools should be protected from every form of indoctrination. Side-by-side and somewhat paradoxically, there is scepticism about the capacity of education to play any significant role at all in shaping values. The media is seen to be considerably more significant. In spite of such hesitations there is no way that educational systems could avoid the question of values altogether. What has generally happened is that methods have been found for a form of Values Education which guards against illegitimate intrusion into civil liberties. Since the early nineteen-seventies a theory of Moral Education emerged which has insisted that it is not in the business of teaching morality and has instead concentrated on sharpening those cognitive tools necessary for forming one's own opinion about right and wrong. Moral Education According to Social Psychologists working with Lawrence Kohlberg at Harvard University, the capacity to engage in moral thought develops through time. During a lifetime most people move through six distinct stages of Moral Development. Researchers had observed how different age groups debated moral dilemmas, for example Heinz's Dilemma: His wife is critically ill and he cannot afford the required medication from a pharmacy. Should he steal it or allow her to die? A nine year-old has very different capacities to say a fifteen year-old when it comes to reflection on such an issue. During the years of adolescence a shift can take place towards a greater ability to see things from another person's point of view as well as a greater tolerance of moral ambiguity. Reflection on dilemma's can provide a context in which "stage transition" classes takes place. Such processes of "values clarification" stimulated by discussion of dilemmas was called Moral Education, and soon became one of the dominant methodologies in school subjects such as Civic Education or Ethics where pupils could be presented with a battery of these open-ended dilemmas. In Europe, by the mid nineteen-eighties, however, the question of cultural diversity had come to occupy centre stage in much of the discussion about values. The abiding presence of immigrant minorities with noticeable differences in culture and religion had become an issue to be addressed. Various forms of Multicultural Education began to be the dominant discourse in the broad field of Values Education, as it was realised that Moral Education needed to be supplemented by other methods. Multicultural Education and Gender Democracy In the interests of social cohesion, it was argued, people need to know more about each other's cultures. Learning objectives then become respect for one's own identity and tolerance of those who are different. Imaginative empathy is viewed as a competence which can be learned. In studying another culture snap judgements are discouraged. Instead the principles of ethnographic research are applied. The first step when confronted by something that is strange or different is to suspend judgement for a while. The second step is to try, imaginatively, to see the world through that person's eyes. This procedure is the way of science and it is also the way to greater tolerance. Thus, for example, instead of simply labelling those who wear veils as religious fanatics, an attempt is made to understand why. Why do people do it? How does it feel to be veiled? And so on. Racism and other forms of cultural chauvinism can be corrected by means of equipping people with appropriate research skills. This emphasis on seeing the pupil as researcher has been one approach in Multicultural Education. Other approaches have been more content orientated and sought to ensure that languages, the religions and cultures of all sectors of the society are included in the school curriculum. The insistence on "cultural rights" within educational systems has an obviously political component. If minorities are accepted in a community this must include acceptance of their cultural backgrounds. In other words, such a society should understand itself as a "community of communities". What exactly does such acceptance mean? Does it mean placing "culture" in a zone where it is free from Human Rights or Gender critique? Questions such as these have emphasised the need for alternative or at least supplementary approaches. Philosophising with Children In Philosophy it is perfectly legitimate to question and debate. Instead of simply accepting the answers provided by a given culture, one is encouraged to place every sacred authority under rigorous scrutiny. The emphasis on children as philosophers, or ordinary people as philosophers, is relatively new in educational circles. What is interesting in this revival is the way in which it creates a new and neutral space. The ideal is a group of minds together in search of Truth. A link with the tradition of philosophical discussion can be established by, for example, analysing the written dialogues of Plato, Confucius or Descartes. What this achieves is a model for discussion that proceeds in an atmosphere of reasonableness and goodwill. Even though there is cycle of enquiry in which participants build on each other's ideas, in the end there can still be disagreement. This can encourage the recognition that knowledge is itself partial and hypothetical. Participants can also be shown how to write dialogues themselves on particular topics. In this way they can present different viewpoints as sympathetically as possible and see the development of human thought as a drama. Oral discussion is clearly the central feature of this renewed emphasis on philosophy in education. It is an approach which applauds the dialogical virtues of courage, empathy, openness, patience and reasonableness. The role of the teacher/trainer is that of a facilitator. Emphasis is placed on the necessity for adhering to principles of rational debate, such as each person having the right to speak or everyone listening to the speaker. Although much of this is to be found in standard Conflict Management or Communication Training, what is new is that these principles are seen as integral to expanding human knowledge. Thus there is also the insistence on people replying to what is said, and that individual ideas are used as building blocks to reach a higher level of understanding. The aim is not just to overcome miscommunication or manage conflict, it is, together with others to find reasonable and creative solutions to problems. The best way to develop competence in discussion is by actually doing it. At the same time it is important to pause occasionally so that there can be reflection on the formal structures of logical argumentation. Some knowledge of Aristotelian Logic should certainly have its place somewhere in an educational system. The setting of philosophical enquiry, for example, offers a way of dealing with one of the central challenges for Multicultural Education: negative stereotyping. In the course of sharpening skills in logical argumentation the distinction between "some" and "all" may be discussed. The difference between something that is sometimes true and something that is always true is clarified. Examples of the problem of overgeneralization can be explored by means of case studies such as (Sutcliffe & Williams 2000: 129): Examples like these are designed to illustrate the logical problem of a shift from being sometimes true to always being so. When one then turns to popular stereotypes based on gender, racial or cultural characteristics, one does so with a new set of tools. Now instead of merely labelling such attitudes as racist or sexist, one may classify them as examples of overgeneralization, in other words as basic logical mistakes. While Social Psychologists will remain doubtful about such easy solutions to the problem of negative stereotyping, there can be no doubt that Philosophy brings a new dimension to the discussion. A Way forward After the events of the 11 September there is been a renewed interest in Values Education as a means of inculcating particular values in society, with minority communities being seen as particularly needy candidates for such instruction.. This would mark a definite shift in the direction of teaching certain values, and consequently a diminished emphasis on fostering the competence to engage in moral discussion. Such a departure would be a loss. Educational movements like Gender Democracy or Multicultural Education make us aware that certain people in a society may have less chance of their voice being heard effectively simply because they are women or they are black. Similarly, Philosophy with its emphasises on careful thinking and openness to ideas instils certain habits which are crucial for democracy. These are amongst the best tools available, and used along with others, do offer a way towards broadening the democratic imagination through education. Reading: Lawrence Kohlberg. 1969. "Stage and Sequence. The Cognitive Developmental Approach to Socialization", in D. Goslin, ed., Handbook of Socialization Theory and Research. Chicago: Rand McNally, pp. 347-480. Gerd Baumann. 1999. The Multicultural Riddle. Rethinking National, Ethnic, and Religious Identities. New York/London: Routledge. Roger Sutcliffe & Steve Williams. 2000. The Philosophy Club. An Adventure in Thinking. Gordon Mitchell
Issue 1, July 2000 Issue 2, October 2000 Issue 3, January 2001 Issue 4, April 2001 Issue 5, July 2001 Issue 6, October 2001 Issue 7, January 2002
This web page is hosted free of charge through the Internet Access and Training Program (IATP). IATP is funded by the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs of the U.S. Department of State and administered by the International Research & Exchanges Board.
  |
