EDM 6210 Education Policy and Society

Topic 4 Education Policy and Social Integration: Education for Citizenship and/or Nationality

A. Controversy over the Policy Document of M o ral and National Education (MNE) Subject Curriculum Guideline in HKSAR 1. The Chief Executive of HKSRA advocated in the evening of 8th September 2012 that let the MNE discourse be located back to the arena of education policy 2. Locating the MNE discourse against the institutional context of One-Country- Two-System of HKSAR 3. Locating the MNE discourse against the historical-cultural context of contemporary China 4. Putting the MNE discourse in the perspective of the sociology of education “Each society sets up a certain idea of man, of what he should be, as much from the intellectual point of view as the physical and moral; that this ideal is, to a degree, the same for all the citizens; that beyond a certain point it becomes differentiated according to the particular milieux that every society contains in its structure. It is this ideal, at the same time one and various, that is the focus of education. Its function, then, is to arouse in the child: (1) a certain number of physical and mental states that the society to which he belongs considers should not be lacking in any of its members; (2) certain physical and mental states that the particular social group (caste, class, family, profession) considers, equally, ought to be found among all those who make it up. …Society can survive only if there exists among its members a sufficient degree of homogeneity; education perpetuates and reinforces this homogeneity by fixing in the child, from the beginning, the essential similarities that collective life demands. But on the other hand, without a certain diversity all co-operation would be impossible; education assures the persistence of this necessary diversity by being itself diversified and specialized.” (Durkheim, 2006/1911, p. 79-80) 5. Putting the MNE discourse in the perspective of the sociology of curriculum “Formal educational knowledge can be considered to be realized through three message system: curriculum, pedagogy, and evaluation. Curriculum defines what courts as valid knowledge, pedagogy defines what courts as valid transmission of knowledge, and evaluation defines what counts as a valid realization of this knowledge on the part of the taught. …How a society selects, classifies, distributes, transmits, and evaluates the educational knowledge it considers to be public reflects both the distribution of power and the principles of social control within that society.” (Knowledge and Control, 1970, p. 47)

W.K. Tsang Education Policy & Society 1 B. Social Integration Project under the Institutional Context of Modern Nation-State 1. Nation-State as the Universal-Global Unit of Modern World System 2. Theory of state formation and education policy as means for state formation 3. Theory of nation building and education policy as means for nation building 4. Dialectic of projects of citizenship and nationality developments: The dilemma of education policies

i. Understanding the Context of Modern State and the Identity of Citizenship

C. Understanding the Concept of the State: 1. Max Weber’s conception of the state “Today, however, we have to say that a state is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory. Note that ‘territory’ is one of the characteristics of the state. Specifically, at the present time, the right to use physical force is ascribed to other institutions or individuals only to the extent to which the state permits it. The state is consider the sole source of the ‘right’ to use violence.” (Weber, 1946, p.78) 2. Charles Tilly’s conception of the state “An organization which control the population occupying a definite territory is a state insofar as (1) it is differentiated from other organizations operating in the same territory; (2) it is autonomous; (3) it is centralized; and (4) its division are formally coordinated with one another.” (Tilly, 1975, p.70) 3. The constituent features of modern state a. The definitive territory b. The definitive subjects c. Monopoly of use of force and sovereign power d. The establishment of external and internal public authority 4. Charles Tilly’s conception of “Stateness” The level and degree of stateness can be “measured by formal autonomy, differentiation from nongovernmental organizations, centralization, and internal coordination” of a government. (Tilly, 1975, p.34) 5. Marxist’s conception of the state a. “The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.” (Marx & Engels, The Communist Manifesto, 1848) b. “The state is an organ of class rule, an organ for the oppression of one class by another; it is the creation of ‘order’ which legalizes and perpetuates this oppression by moderating the conflict between the classes.” (Lenin, 1917) c. Althusser’s Instrumentalist perspective i. Repressive state apparatus ii. Ideological state apparatus

W.K. Tsang Education Policy & Society 2 D. Theories of State Formation 1. Stein Rokkan’s theory of state formation a. From primordial peripheral community to central establishment b. Four trajectories of functional differentiations i. Economic-technological differentiation and the establishment of CitiesCross-local commercial-industrial organization ii. Military-administrative differentiation and the establishment of Military Organizations for control of external conflict iii.Judicial-legislative differentiation and the establishment of JudiciaryOrganizations for management of internal conflict iv.Religious-symbolic differentiation and the establishment of ChurchCross- local script religion 2. Charles Tilly’s theory of state formation Coercion, Capital, and European States, AD 900-1992 (1992) a. Accumulation and concentration of coercion, and the growth and formation of the state b. Accumulation and concentration of capital, and the formation and growth of cities c. Coalition and conflict within the state i. Class coalition and struggle in the realm of exploitation ii. Coalition and struggle between state authority and citizenship in the realm of domination d. Coalition and conflict among states: The mechanism of war preparation and making i. Dialectic relationship between capital accumulation and warmaking ii. Dialectic relationship between coercion accumulation and warmaking e. Dynamics of geopolitics and inter-state system in Europe 3. Pierre Bourdieu’s theory of state formation a. Definition of the State i. “Using a variation of Max Weber’s famous formula, that the state is an X (to be determined) which successfully claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical and symbolic violence over a definite territory and over the totality of the corresponding population.” (Bourdieu, 1999, p. 56) ii. “The state is the culmination of a process of concentration of different species of capital: - capital of physical force or instruments of coercion - economic capital, - cultural &/or information capital, and - symbolic capital.” (p. 57) b. Project of constitution of physical & fiscal efficacy of the state i. Accumulation of physical capital - Internal physical capital accumulation: Policing system - External physical capital accumulation: Army (Military) system ii. Accumulation of economic capital Constitution of taxation and fiscal system iii.Project of constitution of symbolic efficacy of the state - Concentration of informational capital: “The state concentrates, treats, and redistributes information and, most of all, effects a theoretical unification. Taking the vantage point of the Whole, of society in its totality, the state claims responsibility for all operations of totalization (especially thanks to census taking and statistics or national accounting) W.K. Tsang Education Policy & Society 3 and of objectivation through cartography (the unitary representation of space from above) or more simply through writing as an instrument of accumulation of knowledge (e.g. archive), as well as for all operation of codification as cognitive unification.” (p. 61) - Concentration of cultural capital: “The state contributes to the unification of the cultural market by unifying all codes, linguistic and juridical, and by effecting a homogenization of all forms of communication, including bureaucratic communication. Through classification systems inscribed in law, through bureaucratic procedures, educational structures and social rituals, the state molds mental structures and imposes common principles of vision and division, forms of thinking that are to the civilized mind. … And it thereby contributes to the construction of what is commonly designated as national identity.” (p. 61) - Constitution of symbolic capital:  “Symbolic capital is any property (any form of capital whether physical, economic, cultural or social) when it is perceived by social agents endowed with categories of perception which cause them to know it and to recognize it, to give it value.” (p. 62)  Concentration of juridical capital  Nomination of state nobility

E. Conception of Citizenship: Membership in the Modern State 1. Reinhard Bendix’s Definition of Citizenship: a. Individualistic and plebiscitarian membership before the sovereign and nation-wide public authority b. Development of citizenship: “the codification of the rights and duties of all adults who are classified as citizens”. (Bendix, 1964, p.90) 2. T.H. Marshall’s Thesis of Citizenship and Social Class a. Contradictory trajectory of development of capitalism and citizenship i. Capitalism is an institution based upon the principle of inequality, which is in turn built on uneven distribution of property and/or property right ii. Citizenship is an institution based upon the principle of equality, which is built on equal citizen status and its derivative rights b. Development of citizenship is construed by Marshall as means of abating social class conflict c. The trajectory of citizenship development i. Development of civil rights in the 18th century and the constitution of the Court of Justice and the Rule of Law ii. Development of the political rights in the 19th century and the constitution of the parliamentary system and the democratic state iii. Development of the social rights in the 20th century and the constitution of the social service departments and the welfare state 3. Wesley Hohfeld’s Conception of Rights a. Rights as Liberties b. Rights as Claims c. Rights as Powers d. Rights as Immunities e. Classification of Citizenship Rights with Hodfeld’s Conception

W.K. Tsang Education Policy & Society 4 W.K. Tsang Education Policy & Society 5 4. Classification of Citizenship Obligations a. Legal, Political, Social and Participation Obligations

W.K. Tsang Education Policy & Society 6 b. Support, Caring, Service and Protection Obligations 5. Justification of Citizenship Obligations a. Instrumentalist Perspective: Obligations as exchanges for Acceptance and/or Recipience of Rights b. Communitarian Perspective: Accepting Obligations as Legitimacy 6. Obligations as Moral Requirements a. Classification of zones of action i. Indifference ii. Moral requirement iii. Supererogation b. Three instances of scale i. Scale of obligation ii. Scale of recipience iii. Scale of action

E. The Theories of Citizen Virtues: 1. Criticism of “vote-centric” democracy: a. The intrinsic dilemma of liberal democracy: C.B. Macpherson underlines at the opening page of his oft-cited work The Life and Times of Liberal Democracy, “If liberal democracy is taken to mean …a society striving to ensure that all its members are equally free to realize their capacities. … ‘Liberal’ can mean freedom of the stronger to do down the weaker by following market rules; or it can mean equal effective freedom of all to use and develop their capacities. The later freedom is inconsistent with the former. …The difficulty is that liberal democracy during most of its life so far …has tried to combine the two meanings.” (Macpherson, 1977, P. 1) b. The degradation of citizenship: The development of liberal democracies in capitalist societies, especially those in Europe and North America, in the twentieth century witnessed the degradation of the ideal-typical conception of democratic citizen, who is supposed to be rational, reasonable, responsible, and active participants in political decision-making processes in particular and public affairs in general. With the rise of welfare state and politics of seduction, citizens have been indulged and relegated to become clients of the welfare states, consumers of welfare service, desire-seeking free-riders in politics of seduction, and spectators of politics of scandal in mass media. c. The constitution of the “vote-centric” democracy: “In much of the post-war period, democracy was understood almost exclusively in terms of voting. Citizens were assumed to have set of preferences, fixed prior to and independent of the political process, and the function of voting was simply to provide a fair decision-making procedure or aggregation mechanism for translating these pre-existing preferences into public decisions, either about who to elect or about what law to adopt. But it is increasingly accepted that this ‘aggregative’ or ‘vote-centric’ conception of democracy cannot fulfill norms of democratic legitimacy.” (Kymlicka, 2002, P.290) 2. Theorizing deliberative democracy or “talk-centric” democracy a. To overcome the shortcomings of “vote-centric” democracy, numbers of social scientists and political philosophers have advocated alternative models of democracy to rectify if not replace the prevailing “vote-centric” democracy. One of these is the deliberative democracy, which aims to bring genuine and engaging talks and deliberations among reasonable citizens back into the W.K. Tsang Education Policy & Society 7 decision-making processes in democracy. b. What is deliberative democracy? Amy Gutmann and Dennis Thompson define “deliberative democracy as a form of government in which free and equal citizens (and their representatives), justify decisions in a process in which give one another reasons that are mutually acceptable and generally accessible, with the aim of researching conclusions that are binding in the present on all citizens but open to challenge in the future.” (Gutmann and Thompson, 2004, P. 7) c. From this definition, Gutmann and Thompson underline four essential characteristic of deliberative democracy. These are i. Reason-giving: “Most fundamentally, deliberative democracy affirms the need to justify decisions made by citizens and their representatives. Both are expected to justify the laws they would impose on one another. In a democracy, leaders should therefore give reasons for their decisions, and respond to reasons that citizens give in return.” (Gutmann & Thompson, 2004, P. 3) Furthermore, reasons put forth and accepted in the decision- making process of the deliberative democracy are not confined to “procedural” reasons and justifications but also include “substantive” reasons and justification. In this reason-giving and reason-justifying process, it is expected that understanding, reciprocity, and cooperation can be faired among most if not all parties concerns. ii. Accessible: “A second characteristic of deliberative democracy is that the reasons given in this process should be accessible to all the citizens to whom they are addressed.” (Gutmann & Thompson, 2004, p. 4) In order to input reasons and justifications into the democratic deliberation and make them accessible to all citizens, these reasons must be presented in comprehensible forms and the deliberations must take place in public. iii. Binding: “The third characteristic of deliberative democracy is that its process aims at producing a decision that is binding for some period of time.” (Gutmann & Thompson, 2004, P. 5) Talks taken place in deliberative democracy are essentially different from conventional political debates and arguments, in which engaging parties are simply try to impose their preferences and reasons on their opponents in a winner-take-all manner. The primary aim of talks in the deliberative democracy is consensus building and reciprocity constituting so that conclusion can be researched and decision can be made that will have binding effects on all citizens. iv. Dynamic: The fourth characteristic of deliberative democracy is that the process of deliberation itself should be dynamic and continuous. “Although deliberation aims at a justifiable decision, it does not presuppose that the decision at hand will in fact be justified, let alone that a justification today will suffice for the indefinite future. It keeps open the possibility of a continuing dialogue.” (Gutmann & Thompson, 2004, P. 6) 3. Conception of the virtues of citizens a. Reconceptualization of citizenship: In view of the shortcomings of the vote- centric democracy and politics of seduction, scholars begin to extend the discourse on citizenship beyond the right-based and obligation-based conceptions. They begin to enquire the necessary skills, performances and dispositions required of citizens in democratic processes. Numbers of scholars have characterized this dimension of democratic citizenship as virtue of citizen or simply civic virtue. b. William A. Galston underlines that one of the structural tension in liberal W.K. Tsang Education Policy & Society 8 democracy is “the tension between virtue and self-interest.” (1991, P. 217) More specifically, it is the tension between two dimension of citizenship in liberalism. One the one hand is the “interest-based” citizenship rights and on the other the virtues required of democratic citizens. Galston has characterized four types of civic virtues which he thinks are instrumental the function of liberal democracy. They are (Galston, 1991, Pp. 221-7) i. General virtues: They include courage, i.e. “the willingness to fight and even die on behalf of one’s country” (P. 221); law-abidingness; and loyalty, i.e. “the developed capacity to understand, to accept, and to act on the core principles of one’s society” (P. 221). ii. Virtues of liberal society: They include virtue of independence, i.e. “the disposition to care for, and take responsibility for, oneself and to avoid becoming needlessly dependent on others” (P. 222); and the virtue of tolerance, i.e. “the relativistic belief that every personal choice, every ‘life plan’, is equally good, hence beyond rational scrutiny and criticism.” (P. 222) iii. Virtues of liberal economy: They include entrepreneurial virtues, i.e. enterprising dispositions such as “imagination, initiative, drive, determination” (P. 223); and organizational virtues of employee, i.e. traits such as “punctuality, reliability, civility toward co-workers, and a willingness to work within established frameworks and tasks.” (P. 223) iv. Virtues of liberal politics: They include basically the disposition and capacity of reasonableness and tolerance. The former include willingness and capacity to engage in public discourse with communicative rationality and ethics as Habermas has underlined (See Lecture Note on Lecture 4 and 5, E.5.c). The latter include the willingness and capacity to respect viewpoints which are in opposition to one’s own; and readiness and capacity to “narrow the gap” among disagreements and antagonism or even the ability to arrive at a consensual resolution. (see also Benjamin Barber, 1999)

F. Mass Education Policy and the Formation of Modern State: A Historical Account 1. The historical account of Europe: Why were state educational systems constructed throughout Europe in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries? a. Prussia i. 1763: Fredrick the Great issued General Regulation for Village School at the end of the Seven Year War (1756-1763), in which Prussia and England defeated Austria and France ii. 1806: The defeat by the Napoleon and the humiliating Treaty of Tilsit elicited the call for the provision of universal, state-directed, compulsory education as means for nation building b. Austria i. 1774: Under the rule of Joseph II, universal compulsory education law was passed after the defeat in the Seven Year War by Prussia and England ii. 1866: The defeat by Prussia led to definite effort to establish a state- controlled and secular schooling system c. Denmark i. 1721: Frederick IV proclaim to build a genuine national education system ii. After the loss of Norway and Sweden in 1809 symbolized the fall from W.K. Tsang Education Policy & Society 9 the status as a major European power, passage of law to introduce compulsory education for children between the age seven and fourteen. d. France i. 1791: The 1791 Constitution called for the establishment of a system of free instruction common to all citizens. ii. Napoleon rose to power and developed secondary and higher education as a means to produce effective elite from the military and governmental apparatus. iii. Democratizing and secularizing trends in education were repressed as the result of the 1840 Revolution and the subsequent regime of the Louis Napoleon in 1892. iv. After the defeat the Prussia in the Franco-Prussian War in1870, by 1881, the Third Republic established a universal, free compulsory primary school system e. England i. 1807: First attempt to extend public aid to parochial schools for the mass was defeated in the House of Lords. ii. 1870: Elementary Education Act 1870 mandated the provision of elementary education to all but stopped short to of decreeing compulsory education. The Act could be interpreted as responses to a number of political instances, e.g. the 1867 political reform enfranchising the working classes, the rise of the unified Germany and the United Sates in the late 1860s, 1867 Paris Exhibition. iii. 1944: Introduction of 9-year compulsory education

ii. Understanding the Context of Modern Nation and the National Identity

A. Understanding the Concept of Nation 1. The nature of the concept of nation a. Nation as an empirical-positivistic concept naturally existing social fact with objective, definitive and empirical attributes b. Nation as practical-interpretive concept lifeworld-artificial construction with subjective, arbitrary and contesting features 2. The semantic changes of the termnation a. The Latin origin of the term i. nasci as a verb means to be born ii. nationem as a noun means breed or race b. Greenfeld’s zigzag pattern of semantic change of the term i. In Roman Empire, nation designate foreigners from the same geographic regions ii. In medieval universities, nation means a community of opinion iii. In Church council, nation means elite iv. In seventeenth century England, a sovereign people

B. In Search of a Definition of the Nation 1. Max Weber’s conception of the nation a. “If the concept of ‘nation’ can in any way be defined unambiguously, it certainly cannot be stated in terms of empirical qualities common to those who count as members of the nation. In the sense of those using the term at W.K. Tsang Education Policy & Society 10 a given time, the concept undoubtedly means, above all, that one may exact from certain group of men a specific sentiment of solidarity in the face of other groups. Thus, the concept (of nation) belongs in the sphere of values. Yet, there is no agreement on how these groups should be delimited or about what concreted action should result from such solidarity.” (Weber, 1948, p.172) b. “In any case, the differences in national sentiment are both significant and fluid and…fundamentally different answers are given to the question: What conclusions are a group of people willing to draw from the ‘national sentiment’ found among them? No matter how empathetic and subjectively sincere a pathos may be formed among them, what sort of specific joint actions are they ready to develop?” (Weber, 1948, p. 175) c. “In the face of these value concepts of the ‘idea of the nation’, which empirically are entirely ambiguous, a sociological typology would have to analyze all sorts of community sentiments of solidarity in their genetic conditions and in their consequence for the concerted action of the participant.” (Weber, 1948, P. 175-176) d. “We shall have to look a little closer into the fact that the idea of the nation for its advocates stands in the very intimate relation to ‘prestige’ interests.” (Weber, 1948, P. 176) “Cultural and power prestige are closely associated. Every victorious war enhances the cultural prestige (Germany [1871], Japan [1905], etc.)” (Weber, 1978, 926) i. “The earliest and most energetic manifestations of the idea…have contained the legend of a providential ‘mission’. Those to whom the representatives of the idea zealously turned were expected to shoulder this mission.” (Weber, 1948, p. 176) “In so far as there is at all a common object lying behind the obviously ambiguous term ‘nation,’ it is apparently located in the field of politics. One may well define the concept of nation in the following way: a nation is a community of sentiment which would adequately manifest itself in a state of its own; hence, a nation is a community which normally tends to produce a state of its own.” (Weber, 1948, P. 176) “It goes without saying that all those groups who hold the power to steer common conduct within a polity (i.e. the state) will most strongly instill themselves with this ideal fervor of power prestige. They remain the specific and most reliable bearers of the idea of the state as an imperialist power structure demanding unqualified devotion.” (Weber, 1948, o.172) ii. “Another element of the early idea was the notion that this mission was facilitated solely through the very cultivation of the peculiarity of the group set off a nation. Therewith, in so far as its self-justification is sought in the value of its content, this mission can consistently be thought of only as a specific ‘culture’ mission. The significance of the ‘nation’ is usually anchored in the superiority…of the culture values that are to be preserved and developed only through the cultivation of the peculiarity of the group. It therefore goes without saying that the intellectuals …are to a specific degree predestinated to propagate the ‘national idea’ just as those who wield power in the polity provoke the idea of the state.” (Weber, 1948, p. 176) 2. Anthony Smith’s definition of the nation a. Anthony Smith, a sociologist in London School of Economics, states that W.K. Tsang Education Policy & Society 11 “the nation is a large, vertically integrated and territorially mobile group, featuring common citizenship rights and collective sentiment together with one (or more) common characteristic(s) which differentiates its members from those of similar groups with whom they stand in relations of alliance or conflict.” (1983, p. 175) b. Definitive features of the nation: “As defined above, the nation was a group with seven features: 1. cultural differentiae (i.e. the ‘similarity-dissimilarity’ pattern, members are alike in the respects in which they differ from non-members) 2. territorial contiguity with free mobility throughout 3. a relatively large scale ( and population) 4. external political relations of conflict and alliance with similar group 5. considerable group sentiment and loyalty 6. direct membership with equal citizenship rights 7. vertical economic integration around a common system of labour.” (Smith, 1983, p. 186; original numbering) 3. David Miller’s definition of nation and nationality a. Miller, a philosopher in University of Oxford, defines the nation as “a community (1) constituted by shared belief and mutual commitment, (2) extended in history, (3) active in character, (4) connected to a particular territory, and (5) marked off from other communities by its distinct public culture.” (Miller, 1995, P.27) b. Nationality, accordingly, is an identity forged by members of a national community. Miller suggests that “nationality …comprises three interconnected propositions.” (Miller, 2000, P. 27) i. A sense of belonging: “The first concerns personal identity, and claims that it may properly be part of someone’s identity that they belong to this or that national group.” (P. 27) ii. Bounded duties: The second proposition is ethical, and claims that nations are ethical community. The duties we owe to our fellow-nationals are different from, and more extensive than, the duties we owe to human being as such.” (P. 27) iii. Political self-determination: “The third proposition is political, and states that people who form a national community in a particular territory have a good claim to political self-determination; there ought to be put in place an institutional structure that enables them to decide collectively matters that concern primarily their own community. …Historically the sovereign state has been the main vehicle through which claims to national self- determination have been realized, and this is not just an accident. Nevertheless national self-determination can be realized in other ways, …. other than through a sovereign state.” (P. 27) c. More specifically, Miller has attributed two structural features to the community of a nation, namely i. Nation is an ethical community, whose members are obliged to their fellow-nationals some particular duties. ii. Nation is a political community which strives to attain political self- determination. 4. Benedict Anderson’s definition of the nation “I propose the following definition of the nation: it is an imagined political community  and imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign.” (1991, Pp. 5-6) W.K. Tsang Education Policy & Society 12 a. “It is imagined because the members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow-members, meet them, or even hear them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion.” (P. 6) b. “It is limited because even the largest of them, encompassing perhaps a billion living human beings, has finite, if elastic boundaries, beyond which lie other nation.” (P. 7) c. “It is imagined as sovereign because the concept was born in an age in which Enlightenment and Revolution were destroying the legitimacy of the divinely-ordained, hierarchical dynastic realm.” In its replacement, there constitutes the sovereignty of the secular, modern, liberal state. d. “It is imagined as a community, because ... the nation is always conceived as a deep, horizontal comradeship. Ultimately, it is this fraternity that makes it possible.” (P. 7) 5. Partha Chatterjee’s thesis on “Whose imagined community?” “I have one central objection to Anderson’s argument. If nationalisms in the rest of the world have to choose their imagined community from certain ‘modular’ forms already made available to them by Europe and the Americas, what do they have left to imagine? History, it would seem, has decreed that we in the postcolonial world shall only be perpetual consumers of modernity. Europe and Americas, the only true subjects of history, have thought out on our behalf not only the script of colonial enlightenment and exploitation, but also that of anti- colonial resistance and postcolonial misery. Even our imagination must remain forever colonized.” (1996, 216) 6. T.K. Oommen’s historical-contextual understanding of the notion of nation Having reviewed the literature on the conceptualization of the term nation, T.K. Oomemen, an Indian sociologist, proposes the following point to help us to chat our way out from “this continuing malady.” (Oommen, 1997, p. 202) a. “The first firm requirement is to de-ideologize the task of state-building and to stop calling it nation-building.” (p. 202) If we conceptualize institutions of the state as constructs produced by the power-steering system of the state, and the institutions of the nation as part of the lifeworld growing spontaneously from of practical communications of indigenous natives in their ‘homeland’, the conceptualization of the nation will have to be separated analytically from that of the state. b. “The second requirement is to recognize that nation is a tangible entity definable in terms of concrete objective characteristics such as a common homeland and a language.” (p. 202) c. “All those belong to a common homeland – ancestral or adopted – should be recognized as constituting a common nation irrespective of their racial, religious or linguistic background, which is to say that the very idea of homogeneous nation-state ought to be abandoned, both of the empirical untenability and its ideological unstanability.” (Pp. 202-203) d. The important of communication for developing a participative polity should be squarely endorsed as a prerequisite. In spite of this, multi-national polities should have several national language even if they limit the number of official languages to a workable minimum.” (P. 203) 7. Liah Greenfeld’s typology of nationalism a. “The location of sovereignty within the people and the recognition of the fundamental equality among its various strata, which constitute the essence of the modern national idea, are at the same time the basic tenets of democracy. Democracy was born with the sense of nationality. The two are W.K. Tsang Education Policy & Society 13 inherently linked, and neither can be fully understood apart from this connection. Nationalism was the form in which democracy appeared in the world, contained in the idea of nation as a butterfly in a cocoon.” (1992, p.11) b. Typology of nationalism

Civic Ethnic Individualistic-libertarian Type I Void Collectivistic-authoritarian Type II Type III 8. Jürgen Habermas’s definition of the nation as a “community of citizens” a. “The meaning of the term ‘nation’ …changed from designating a pre-political entity to something that was supposed to play a constitutive role in defining the political identity of the citizens within a democratic polity. … The nation of citizens does not derive its identity from common ethnic and cultural properties but rather from the praxis of citizens who actively exercise their civil rights.” (22-23) b. Distinction of hereditary and acquired nationality i. Component of hereditary nationality - Territorial and ethnic nationality  Geographic characteristic and landscape  Ethnic homogeneity and heterogeneity - Historical and cultural nationality  Linguistic and symbolic system  Historical experience and system of memory ii. Component of acquired nationality - Common and equal participation in economic activities - Citizenship and equal participation and political affairs - Common and equal participation in social and cultural activities

C. Is Patriotism a Virtue or a Vice? MacIntyre’s Communitarian Perspective 1. Meaning of patriotism: a. Alasdair MacIntyre’s definition: In his oft-cited article entitled “Is Patriotism a Virtue?” MacIntyre defines patriotism as “a kind of loyalty to a particular nation which only those possessing that particular nationality can exhibit. Only Frenchmen can be patriotic about France.” (MacIntyre, 2002, P. 44) Furthermore, MacIntyre characterizes that patriotism as a kind of attitude supportive towards one’s own nation and evaluative of its merits and achievements are extremely particularistic in nature. That is, “patriots does not value in the same way precisely similar merits and achievements when they are the merits and achievements of some nation other than his or hers. For he or she ── at least in the role of patriot ── values them not justice as merits and achievements, but as the merits and achievements this particular nation.” (MacIntyre, 2002, P. 44) b. Leo Tolstoy’s definition of “extreme patriotism”: Tolstoy states that “The sentiment (of patriotioism), in its simplest definition, is merely the preference of one’s own country or nation above the country or nation of anyone else.” (Tolsky, 1969, quoted in Nathanson, 1993, P. 4) He goes on to emphasized that patriotism may consist of the following features. “1. A belief in the superiority of one’s country 2. A desire for dominance over other countries 3. An exclusive concern for one one’s own country 4. No constraints on the pursuit of one’s country’s goals W.K. Tsang Education Policy & Society 14 5. Automatic support of one’s country’s military policies.” (quoted in Nathanson, 1993, P. 29) It must be underlined that Tolstoy did not himself identify with such an extreme version patriotism. In fact, he formulates it for criticism and he goes on to state that “this sentiment is …very stupid and immoral.” c. Stephen Nathanson’s definition of “moderate patriotism”: He stipulates that patriotism need not have the features that Tolstoy attributes and thus that it need not be open to his criticisms. Moderate patriotism involves the following features: 1. Special affection for one’s country 2. A desire that one’s country prosper and flourish 3. Special but not exclusive concern for one’s own country 4. Support for morally constrained pursuit of national goals 5. Conditional support of one’s country’s policies.” (Nathanson, 1993, P. 34) 2. Criticism of patriotism from the deontological and liberal perspectives in value and morality enquiry a. According to the deontological perspective in morality enquiry, all evaluation and moral judgments are supposed to be judged according to some impersonal and impartial criteria or rules. However, for patriotism it “requires me to exhibit peculiar devotion to my nation and you to yours. It requires me to regard such contingent social facts as where I was born and what government ruled over that place at that time, who my parents were, who my great-great- grandfathers were, and so on, as deciding for me the question of what virtuous action is.” (MacIntyre, 2002, P. 45) Accordingly, the deontological “moral standpoint and the patriotic standpoint are systematically incompatible.” (MacIntyre, 2002, P. 45) b. Furthermore, according to the liberal perspective in moral enquiry, the criteria and rules, which moral judgments should follow, should not only be impartial and impersonal but should also i. be “neutral between rival and competing interests;” ii. be “neutral between rival and competing sets of beliefs about what the best way for human beings to live is;” iii. take individual human being as the basic unit in moral evaluations and “each individual is to count for one and nobody for more than one;” and iv. apply to all moral agents universally “independent of all particularity.” (MacIntyre, 2002, P. 47) Accordingly, it is obvious that patriotic standpoint of morality, which base its judgment on the particularistic interest and form of life and belief of one own nation, will not be incompatible with that of the liberal but will simply be treated a vice. 3. In search of morally justifiable or virtuous ground for patriotism a. MacIntyre indicates first of all that “For patriotism and all other such particular loyalty can be restricted in their scope so that their exercise is always within the confine imposed by morality. Patriotism need be regards as nothing more than a perfectly proper devotion to one’s own nation which must never be allowed to violate the constraints set by the impersonal moral standpoint.” (MacIntyre, 2002, P. 46) b. As a communitarian, MacIntyre is quick to stress that there “is never morality as such, but always the highly specific morality of some highly specific social order.” (P. 48) And “it is an essential characteristic of the morality which each of us acquires that is learned from, in and through the way of life of W.K. Tsang Education Policy & Society 15 some particular community.” (P. 48) MacIntyre further specifies that the distinct rules of morality derived from the way of life of a particular community are therefore (P. 48) i. specific “practices” and responses to the natural and social situations in which a community found and formed itself; ii. specific “narratives” through which a community and its way of life evolve and develop through its own history iii. specific “tradition” and social arrangements and orders which have been institutionalized in the way of life of a community c. Built on this communitarian version of moral rules, MacIntyre further rejoin the liberal’s version of free-footing (impartial and neutral) moral agents by specifying that i. the moral goods pursued by moral agents are always embedded in “the enjoyment of one particular kind of social life, lived out through a particular set of social relationships.” (P. 49) Therefore, “rules of certain kind are justified by being productive of and constituted of goods of a certain kind …only if …these particular sets of rule incarnated in the practices of …these particular communities are productive or constitutive of ….these particular goods enjoyed at certain particular times and places by certain specifiable individuals.” (P. 49) ii. a moral duty and agency performed by a moral agent “is characteristically and generally a hard task for human being.” MacIntyre underlines that “I can only be a moral agent because we are moral agents, that I need those around me to reinforce my moral strengths and assist in remedying my moral weakness. It is general only within a community that individuals become capable of morality.” (P. 49) d. Taken together, MacIntyre asserts that patriotism can be accepted as a virtue on conditions that i. “If first of all it is the case that I can only apprehend the rules of morality in the version in which they are incarnated in some specific community; ii. “if secondly it is the case that the justification of morality must be in terms of particular goods enjoyed within the life of particular communities; iii. “if thirdly it is the case that I am characteristically brought into being and maintained as a moral agent only through the particular kinds of moral sustenance afforded by my community, then it is clear that deprived of this community, I am unlikely to flourish as a moral agent.” (P. 50) 4. Dialectics between liberalism and communitarianism in the controversy over patriotism a. Confronted with the two rival and incompatible moralities, namely morality of liberalism and that of patriotism, MacIntyre suggests that “one way to begin is to be learned from Aristotle, …we shall do well to proceed dialectically.” (P. 50) b. One the one hand, from the viewpoint of the morality of liberalism, patriotism is “a permanent source of moral danger.” (P. 54) It is because the morality of patriotism will always argue for exemption from general of morality principles in the interest or even common goods for one’s own nation. MacIntyre agrees that such accusation from the liberals “cannot in fact be successfully rebutted” by the patriots. (P. 54) Therefore, MacIntyre suggests that morality of patriotism must be extremely careful in examining their arguments and justification for exemption from moral principles for the sake W.K. Tsang Education Policy & Society 16 of national goods. MacIntyre specifically underlines that “whatever is exempted from the patriot’s criticism the status quo of power and government and the policy pursued by those exercising power and government never need be so exempted. What then is exempted? The answer is: the nation conceived as a project, a project somehow or other brought to birth in the past and carried on so that a morally distinctive community was brought into being which embodied a claim to political autonomy in its various organized and institutionalized expressions.” However, such patriotic claim for the overall project of the nation can pose moral danger “to the best interest of mankind” as the case of the project of the Nazi Germany. (P. 52) Hence, the exemption is by no means absolute and must be critically examined dialectically and continuously. c. On the other hand, MacIntyre underlines once again that “liberal morality of impartiality and impersonality turns out also to be a morally dangerous phenomenon in an interesting corresponding way. For suppose the bonds od patriotism to be dissolved: would liberal morality liberality be able to provide anything adequately substantial in its place?” (P. 54) “A central contention of the morality of patriotism is that I will obliterate and lose a central dimension of the moral life if I do not understand the enacted narrative of my own individual life as embedded in the history of my country. For if do not so understand it I will not understand what I owe to other or what others owe to me.” (P. 55) As a result, each individuals will probably come together simply for the pursue of naked self- interest and competition for maximization of one’s own profit like the institution of the capitalist market or simply for pleasure seeking and instant gratification to mass media and mass consumption markets. In the end, the morality of liberalism will be relegated into morality of emotionism as MacIntyre criticizes at the beginning of After Virtue. (2007)

D. The Historical Trajectories of Nation Building 1. The first generation of nation building in Western Europe and American a. Nation-building through revolution and constitution of the republics i. The case of the French republic: - The French Declaration of Rights of Man and Citizen proclaims that “the source of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation; no group, no individual may exercise authority not emanating expressly therefore.” (quoted in Connor, 1994, p. 39) - A republic state over a numbers of distinct nations: "It is clear that when the term nation is used the declaration is referring to the French state, because the French nation actually contained several nations or their parts — Alsations, Basques, Bretons, Catalans, Corsicans, Flemings and Occitanians. In fact, in 1789 half the population in France spoke no French at all, and even by 1863 about 20 per cent of the population did not speak what was considered to be French in official circles.” (Hobsbawm, 1990, P.60; quoted in Oommen, 1997, p.140) ii. The case of the United States of America: - Constitution of the United States writes, “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our W.K. Tsang Education Policy & Society 17 posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United State of America.” - In political reality, it is a republic state of “strong” European immigrants overpowered “weak” and scattered nations of native Americans. b. Nation-building through the sentiment of imperial power and prestige of the Empire in Britain c. Independent revolutions and constitution of republics among Creole in South American in the 18th century: Republic states of “strong” European migrants and Creole overpowered “weak” nations of native Americans 2. The second generation of nation building in Eastern Europe a. Scattered national fragments in Eastern Europe as the results of wars between the east and the west, and Christianity and Muslim b. Nation-building project under the ruling of authoritarian socialist party-states from 1945 to 1989. c. Dissolution and reunification of nations after the collapses of East-European socialist states in 1989 d. Genocide among nations of former East-European socialist states 3. The third generation of nation building in Asia and Africa a. Independent movements in European colonies after WWII b. Nation building took the form of ‘state-based territorialism’ (Smith, 1983) c. Separatism in independent states of former colonies, e.g. India continent and Malaysia peninsula

E. The Project of Nation Building in China 1. From empire-based territorialism to hereditary nationalism a. Imperialist invasion to the Ching Empire: The birth of national awareness b. The nationalist revolution and the separatism of the warlords 2. From hereditary nationalism to acquired nationalism a. The Japanese invasion and the united front of the Nationalist and Communist parties b. The establishment of the People Republic of China in 1949 c. The economic liberalization of PRC in 1978 d. The Students movement in 1989 e. Olympic game and ethnic disturbance in Tibet in 2008 f. Ethnic disturbance in Xinjiang in July 2009

F. Education Policy and National Identity Formation 1. National identity as public narrative identity: The politics of culture in national history curricula a. Cases of intra-national politics of national-history curriculum b. Cases of inter-national politics of national-history curricula 2. National identity as labor of representation and product of symbolic struggle a. National flag b. National map c. National figures d. Nationally significant/historic events e. National Monuments 3. Reproduction in national-identity education: Applying Bourdieu’s theory of reproduction in education, the national-identity education may be construed as a. Curricula of national-identity education can be understood as cultural arbitraries. And pedagogic actions of national identity can be discerned as W.K. Tsang Education Policy & Society 18 “imposition of national cultural arbitrary through symbolic violence”. For examples i. Debate on National Curriculum in Education Reform Act 1988 in England; ii. Debate over the Sino-Japan War in the history curricula in PRC and Japan; iii. Desinification in the curriculum reform in the government of the Democratic Progressive Party in Taiwan, etc. 4. Educators of national curriculum, including scholars, curriculum designers, public examination evaluators, teachers, etc. have to legitimatized them as “pedagogic authorities” in carrying out the respective pedagogic action. 5. The pedagogic work of national identity by definition is acts of inculcation of “national habitus” a nation-state expected of its citizens. 6. National-identity education as an institution can be analyzed at three levels a. Reproduction of the institutional elements of national identity education, b. Reproduction of the national culture, c. Reproduction of the legitimation bases of the ruling class and its regime

iii. The Dialectic of Education for Citizenship and Nationality

A. Dialectic of the Nation-State: The Emergence of the Conception Ethnicity 1. To recapitulate, in previous lectures… a. The state is conceived as a sovereign power apparatus (legitimate monopoly of use of physical force), which has successfully established over residents of a definite territory. It is the “engineering” outcome of a power-steering system and/or struggle between power-steering systems. b. The nation is conceived as a community of sentiment, which emerges “spontaneously” from frequent communications among residents of a territory. It is the “practical” outcome of the lifeworld built on common- languages and territory. c. However, human history especially in the past five centuries has witnessed many different forms of institutional configurations between these two types of human groupings. For example i. Monarchy-state over nations in France and subsequently republic-state (Jacobin-state) over nations in France ii. The state of the United Kingdom over nations in the British Isles iii. Migrant-states over natives in American continents and Australia iv. Empire-states over nations, e.g. Ching Empire over nations in China, and subsequently modern republic-state over nations in China v. Nazi- and Fascist-states over nations in Germany and Italy vi. Sovereign states gaining independence from former colonizers and striving to build national sentiment of solidarity among various ethnic groups 2. Are nation modern? Two prevailing dichotomous perspectives in the studies of nation a. The first theoretical dichotomy consists of: (Calhoun, 1994, 1997, Jenkins, 2008) i. Essentialism: Essentialism approaches identity as essentials or attributes, which are naturally endowed or structurally determined. This

W.K. Tsang Education Policy & Society 19 perspective takes gender identity, national identity or class identity as given facts and preexisting reality. Hence, the formations of identities are conditioned, shaped, or determined by sets of essentially fixed traits, such as biological sex, skin color, birth place, position in relation of production, etc. ii. Constructionism: Constructionism approaches identity as socially constructed reality, which are negotiable and maneuverable. They are on the one hand collectively constituted in social process or even social movement, and individually constructed in deliberately presentations and articulations. b. The second theoretical dichotomy is made up of (Smith, 1986; Gellner, 1997) i. Primordialism: Primordialism tends to attribute the basis of identity to some essences that are in-born, inherited from ancestoral past, or accumulated through cultural tradition within a given social entity. These primordial ties may include kinship tie, consanguineous bondage, homeland boundedness, or connections to some traditional mythomoteur (myth-symbol complex).(Smith, 1986, Pp. 57-68). ii. Instrumentalism or Modernism: It approaches identity as psycho-social phenomena grown out of functional requisite or instrumental necessity of a given social system. For instance, sentiment of solidarity or even readiness to scarify shared among members of the colonized nations in fighting for independence against the colonizers are instrumental in national liberation movement; or sense of commonality and cooperation permeated among members of industrialized and urbanized society are functional to the complex division of labor in industrial capitalism.

Instrumentalism/Modernism

• Negotiating identity • Citizenship Identity

• National identity

Essentialism Constructionism

• Ethnical identity

• Familial identity

Primordialism

W.K. Tsang Education Policy & Society 20 3. Max Weber’s conception of ethnic group: a. Definition: “We shall call ‘ethnic groups’ those human groups that entertain a subjective belief in their common descent because of similarities of physical type or of customs or both, or because of memories of colonization and migration; this belief must be important for the propagation of group formation; conversely, it does not matter whether or not an objective blood relationship exist. Ethnic membership differs from the kinship group precisely by being a presumed identity, not a group with concrete social action, like the latter.” (Weber, 1978, p. 289) b. Having analyzed a list of contributing factors to the formation of ethnic group, Weber comes to the conclusion that “All in all, the notion of ‘ethnically’ determined social action subsumes phenomena that s rigorous sociological analysis …would have to distinguish carefully……. It is certain in this process the collective term ‘ethnic’ would be abandoned, for it is unsuitable for a really rigorous analysis. …The concept of the ‘ethnic’ group…dissolves if we define our term exactly.” (Weber, 1978, p. 394-395) c. Ambiguity in distinguishing the notions of ethnicity and nationality: i. “The concept of ‘nationality’ shares with that of the ‘people’ (Volk) — in the ethnic sense — the vague connotation. …In reality…persons who consider themselves members of the same nationality are often much less related by common descent than are persons belonging to different and hostile nationalities. Differences of nationality may exist even among groups closely related by common descent, merely because they have different religious persuasions, as in the case of Serb and Croats.” (Weber, 1978, p. 395) ii. “A common language is also insufficient in sustaining a sense of national identity. …Many German-speaking Alsatian feel a sense of community with the French because they share certain custom and some of their ‘sensual culture’ …and also because of common political experiences.” (Weber, 1978, p. 396) 4. Anthony Smith’s thesis on The Ethnic Origins of the Nation (1986) Anthony D. Smith, one of the prominent scholars in the studies of nationalism and ethnicity professing in London School opf Economics specifies his conception of ethnie (ethnic group) with the following points: a. Definition of ethnie: “We arrive at the following definition of the term ethnie: ‘a named human population with myths of common ancestry, shared historical memories, one or more elements of common culture (e.g. religion, custom or language), a link with a homeland and a sense of solidarity among at least some of its members.’” (Hutchinson & Smith, 1996, p. 6) b. Main features/dimensions of ethnie: “Ethnie habitually exhibit, albeit in varying degrees six main features: i. a common proper name, to identity and express the ‘essence’ of the community; ii. a myth of common ancestry, a myth rather than a fact, a myth that includes the idea of a common origin in time and that give an ethnie a sense of fictive kinship, what Horowitz terms a ‘super-family’ (Horowitz, 1985: ch.2); iii. shared historical memories, or better, shared memories of a common past or pasts, including heros, events, and their commemoration; W.K. Tsang Education Policy & Society 21 iv. one or more elements of common culture, which need not be specified but normally include religion, custom, or language; v. a link with homeland, not necessarily its physical occupation by the ethnie, only its symbolic attachedment to the ancestral land, as with diaspora peoples; vi. a sense of solidarity on the part of at least some sections of the ethnie’s population (Smith, 1986, ch.2) c. The cultural-symbolic nature of the social phenomenon called ethnie: Anthony Smith underlines that “We are dealing with the sense of common ethnicity rather than any ‘objective’ ethnic reality. For the purposes of the analysis that follows, such reality’ as we shall impute to ethnie is essentially social and cultural: the generic features of ethnie are derived, less from ‘objective’ indicators like fertility, literacy or urbanization rates (important though these are in given circumstances), than from the meaning conferred by a number of men and women over some generations on certain cultural, spatial and temporal properties of their interaction and shared experiences..” (Smith, 1986, P. 22) 5. Anthony D. Smith’s typology of nation-formation in Europe: With reference to his conception of ethnie, Smith has distinguish induced two models of nation formation from European experiences a. The territorial-civic model: It refers mainly to the developmental experiences in nations in Western Europe, such as France, England (letter Britain), Spain, Sweden, and Holland. These nations are formed on numbers of territorially based building blocks: (Smith , 1986, Pp. 134-140) i. Territorially centralized and coordinated bureaucratic states, ii. Territorially coordinated economy and more specifically capitalistic market iii. Territorially integrated cultural system and more specifically territorially centralized or even standardized educational system As a result, the sense of solidarity derived from residents of these territories is kind of legal, political and latter social citizenship. b. The primordial-ethnic model: It refers mainly to the developmental experiences in nations in Eastern Europe, such Polishes, Hungarians, Czechs, Slovaks, Croats, Bulgarians, Rumanians, Ukrainians, and Greeks. Most of these nations were under imperial rules by empires such as the Austrian-Hungarian Empire, Ottoman Empire, and Tsarist Empire in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Under these external and imperial rules, these nations turn inversely to their primordial solidarities, such agrarian sedentarization, religious orthodox, dialects, etc. 6. T.K. Oommen’s conception of ethnicity and ethnification: Conception from the periphery a. Oommen’s definition of ethnie and ethnicity: “An ethnie is a collectivity, members of which share a common lifestyle, history and language, but whose identification with its ancestral homeland is weak or endangered. Ethnicity, then, is a product of attenuation between territory and culture. Id an ethnie aspires to and succeeded in establishing a moral claim over the territory to which it has migrated, and with which it identifies as its homeland, it becomes a nation.” (Oommen, 1997, p. 45) b. Conception of ethnification: “Ethnification is a process through which the link between territory and culture is attenuated, and the possibility of a W.K. Tsang Education Policy & Society 22 nation sustaining it integrity is put into jeopardy.” (Oommen, 1997, p. 13) c. Types of ethnification: i. Native Indians in American continent and native Australian (aborigines) in Australia: “A nation may continue to be in its ancestral or adopted homeland and yet it may be ethnifiied by the colonizing or native dominant collectivity.” (Oommen, 1997, p. 13) ii. Natives in multinational-states in former USSR, PRC, and many independent states from former colonial states in Africa and Asia, e.g. Public of India and South Africa: “Ethnification …occurs when a state attempt to ‘integrate and homogenize the different nations in its territory into a common people.” (Oommen, 1997, p.15) iii. Chinese and Indian migrant labor settled in Malaysian peninsula: Migrants, who have settled in colonial and subsequent independent states, are ethnified by the majority nation, as in the case of the Federation of Malaysia, or by the state-formation project as in the case of the Republic of Singapore. iv. Ethnification in the United States of America and Australia: In republic dominated by migrant nations, ethnification is commonly or even indiscriminately to all “nations”. In the US, citizens are commonly ethnified as Anglo-Americans, Asian-Americans, Afro-Americans, or Native-Americans. v. Ethnification can be conceived as a two-way process: All the previous examples are external ethnification imposed by state apparatus. Ethnification may be generated from within, that is, natives or migrant groups having settled in home countries for decades or even centuries may deliberately ethnified themselves in order to constitute ethnic identify, solidarity or even residential and occupational communities. d. Typology of ethnification

Externally imposed Internally asserted differentiation differentiation Natives Aborigines, Native- Uyghur, Tibetan, Americans Mongol in PRC Migrants Chinese and Indian Chinese-Americans migrants in Malaysia

7. Institutionalization of democratic-civic model of modern nation-state: History of Institutionalization of constitutional-democratic states and civil- democratic citizenship in the past two centuries has made the territorial-civic model become the ideal-typical model of nation-state formation in different parts of the globe. As globalization spread, ethnic-sedentarization communities are forced to transcend its primordial bases and be integrated political community based on solidarity of citizenship participation and practice. a. Through the institutions of constitutional-democratic state, residents within the territory of a sovereign state are entitled to participate on equal bases in political affairs as well as in socio-cultural and economic activities. b. Through these equal-participatory practices of citizenship, it is anticipated (as Habermas advocates) that a modern nation in the form of community of sentiment (or even community of prestige) of equal entitlement of citizenship.

W.K. Tsang Education Policy & Society 23 B. Synthesis: Modern Citizenship as Means of Reconciling Ethnicity and Nationality within Modern Nation State 1. The empirical paradox among ethnicity, nation and state a. “Most countries today are culturally diverse. According to recent estimates, the world's 184 independent states contain over 600 living language groups, and 5,000 ethnic groups. In very few countries can the citizens be said to share the same language, or belong to the same ethnonational group.” (Kymlicka, 1995, P. 1) b. “The distinction between states and nations is fundamental to my whole theme. States can exist a nation, or with several nations, among their subjects, and a nation can be coterminous with the population of one state, or be included together with other nations within one state, or be divided between several states. There were states long before there were nations, and there are some nations that are much older that most states which exist today. The belief that every state is a nation or that all sovereign states are national states, has done much to obfuscate human understanding of political realities. A state is a legal and political organization, with the power to require obedience and loyalty from its citizens. A nation is a community of people, whose members are bound together by a sense of solidarity, a common culture, a national consciousness. Yet in the common usage of English and of other modern languages these two distinct relationships are frequently confused.” (Seton-Watson, 1977, P.1) 2. Jurgen Habermas’s conception of nationality a. In light of the two historical or even historic movements taken place at the end of the twentieth century, namely the unification of the East and West Germany and the constitution of the European Union, Habermas suggests a thesis to reconcile the structural contradictions among states, nations and ethnic groups and the identity conflicts among citizenship, nationality and ethnicity. b. Re-conceptualization of the nation i. Classical meaning of the notion of nation: In its “classic usage , … nations are communities of people of the same descent, who are integrated geographically in the form of settlements or neighborhoods, and culturally by their common language, customs and traditions, but who are not yet politically integrated in the form of state organization.” (Habermas, 1994, p. 22) ii. Meaning of nation in the 21st century: “The meaning of the term ‘nation’ thus changed from designating a pre-political entity to something that was supposed to play a constitutive role in defining the political identity of the citizen within a democratic polity. …The nation of citizenshs does not derive its identity from common ethnic and cultural properties but rather from the praxis of citizens who actively exercise their right. At this juncture, the republican strand of ‘citizenship’ parts company completely from the idea of belonging to a pre-political community integrated on the basis of descent, a shared tradition and a common language.” (Habermas, 1994, p. 23) c. Two types of nationality: In connection of the new conceoption of nation, Habermas makes a distinction between two types of nationality i. Hereditary nationality, which is identity built on elements such as common descent, custom, language or even ancestral homeland. They W.K. Tsang Education Policy & Society 24 are ascribed from one’s traditional-cultural heredities ii. Acquired nationality, which is identity and commitment individual citizens who consciously strive to achieve collectively in the preview of civil-democratic citizenship and constitutional-democratic state. Therefore, Habermas proposes that hereditary nationality should give way to acquired nationality. (Habermas, 1994, p. 23) 3. T.K. Oommen’s conclusion a. On the pessimistic part, “given the above, it is unrealistic to expect that a common civilization which embaces the multiplicity of nations and ethnies will emerge even in a distant future; it is a wrong agenda to be pursued.” (Oommen, 1997, p. 243) b. On the optimistic part, “one must recognize the role of citizenship as an instrument that can reconcile the two identities of nationality and ethnicity and the competing demands of equality and identity.

C. Universal Education as Means of Integration in Modern Nation-State 1. Universal education as part of project of state formation and citizenship development a. Universal provision of education as the primary basis of equality of future citizens of modern state b. Universal education as means of construction of identity of citizenship i. Entitlement to universal provision of equal education as citizenship rights to literate and intellectual developments as well as equal opportunities to socio-economic developments ii. Participation in universal provision of equal education as citizenship obligation to participate in common socio-cultural activities of the modern state 2. Universal education as part of the project of nation formation and nationality development a. Universal education as means to nurture common language of communication among future citizenship b. Universal education as means of construction of identity of acquired nationality c. Universal education as means of construction of identity of hereditary nationality 3. Education as part of the project of de-ethnification and national homogenization: Universal education as means to integrate ethnic identities into identity acquired nationality

D. The Constituents of Education for Nationality and Citizenship Constituents of Nationality Constituents of Citizenship 1. Hereditary Nationality a. Territorial and ethnic nationality - Geographic characteristic & landscape - Ethnic homogeneity and heterogeneity b. Historical and cultural nationality - Linguistic and symbolic system - Historical experience & system of memory 2. Acquired Nationality 1. Citizenship-right education a. Common participation in economic a. Civil rights activities

W.K. Tsang Education Policy & Society 25 b. Citizenship & equality in political b. Political rights participation c. Common and equal participation in social c. Social and participation rights & cultural activities 2. Citizenship-obligation education d. Ethic duties and obligations owe to fellow a. Civil obligations citizens b. Political obligation c. Social and participation obligations

E. National Identification of the HKSAR Citizens: The Dilemma of Identity Education in HKSAR 1. Politics of identity: In light of the theoretical perspectives of Michel Foucault’s conceptions of discourse and institutionalized identity and that of Henri Tajfel’s theory of categorization and social identity, a new area of study has emerged in the field of identity studies, namely politics of identity. In counteracting to perspective of essentialism and primordialism, theorists and researchers locate the process of identity formation within the arena of power or the field of force. Accordingly, identification processes are construed as political projects, in which the individuals or groups can negotiate, maneuver, or even struggle for or against given social categories, labels, stigmas, or legal statuses inflicted on them. More specifically, formation of social identity is conceived as political bargaining and power struggle between insiders (we) and outsiders (they) of the respective social group, which strive to establish a self-defined identity or to resist an externally imposed identity. (Calhoun, 1994; Parekh, 2008) Accordingly, politics of identity may manifest in number of forms, namely a. Politics of unity; b. Politics of difference; and c. Politics of recognition 2. Politics of unity: It refers to the kind of politics of identity, which strive to forge commonality, homogeneity and unity among members of designated population. One of the most salient projects of politics of unity in modern history are the political or even military actions and public policies taken by modern states in assimilating and nationalizing the diverse population resided within the territories of given sovereign states, such as the unification movements in Germany and Italy, the “melting-pot” project in the United States of America, the nation-building project of the Chinese nation 中華民族, and the nation-building projects in most former colonial states after independences. 3. Politics of difference: It refers to the kind of politics of identity, which strives to constitute distinctiveness, uniqueness and difference of members of a given group in comparison with other social entities and especially the society at large. The political actions and strategies waged may be initiated in two directions. One the one hand, the politics of difference may be internally initiated and articulated by members of the group attempting to “make the difference”. For example the feminist movement initiated by women who argue that women are different from men and therefore entitled to differentiated treatments in most public policy areas. On the other hand, the politics of difference may be initiated and violently imposed upon a selected fraction of population in a society at large, say a nation state. For example, in Nazi German the Jewish population were differentiated and excluded from

W.K. Tsang Education Policy & Society 26 participating in regular activities of all social institutions. Most generally, all the discriminative policies that colonizers impose upon the colonized in all colonial situations is another example of externally imposed politics of difference. 4. Politics of recognition: In the 1990s, a group of prominent philosophers and social scientists collaborated a book entitled Multiculturalism: Examining the Politics of Recognition (Gutmann, 1994) With reference to the pluralist and multicultural context of their own societies, Charles Taylor (1994) (makes reference to Quebec, the French-speaking region in Canada), Jurgen Habermas (1994) (makes reference to the re-unified West and East Germany) and Anthony Appiah (1994) (makes reference to the multi-ethnic and multicultural situations of the United States) concertedly advocate another kind of politics of identity, namely politics of recognition. They propose that politics of identity should go beyond “proceduralist liberalism” (Taylor, 1994, P. 58) which endorses procedural justice and formal due-process in treating pluralist and multiculturalistic situations; and substantively and genuinely recognize the difference in the collective goals specifically inhered by a particular social group with a society at large. Furthermore, out of this recognition of difference public measures will be adopted not only to tolerate or be hospitable towards this difference but to strive hard to guarantee it survival and sustainability.

F. Identity of Hong Kong Residents 1. Characteristics of identity of Hong Kong Chinese a. The concept of diaspora: Diaspora refers to “any body of people living outside their traditional homeland.” (Oxford English Dictionary) Scholars of cultural studies have used the concepts to refer to cultural phenomena in colonial and post-colonial situations, in which cultural identities have been dis-embedded and re-embedded into hybridized cultural and meaning artifacts. (Hall, 1997) i. Hong Kong as a culture of flow: From the very beginning, Hong Kong had been a space of flow for Chinese to “flow” out and back in China. As historian Elizabeth Sinn characterized “Hong Kong was the major embarkation and disembarkation port for Chinese emigrants as the left China and as they returned. By 1939, over 6.3 million Chinese emigrants had embarked at Hong Kong for foreign destination. Even more significantly, over 7.7 million returned to China through Hong Kong. It is the transit point for transportation of fund and goods, personal communication and general information — even the remains of deceased emigrants. It was the centre for personal, family, kinship, business, and other types of networks that linked China and the outside world. Hong Kong’s native place of organizations, with affiliations around the world, often acted like headquarters, reflecting its pivotal position in the diaspora.” (Sinn, 1989; Quoted in Siu, 2009, p. 61) ii. Cultural process of individualization: As Ulrich Beck characterized, individualization is a process by which an individual dis-embed from the cultural community and identity which they have acculturated and re- embed into another community and identity. Hong Kong has acted as the transit port, in which Chinese were and are individualizing themselves from China and into the world. iii. Hybridity in Hong Kong culture: For more than a century, Hong Kong Chinese had forged their cultural identity within this diasporic context. W.K. Tsang Education Policy & Society 27 They had strived to “straddle the world and nation”. (Siu, 2009) Anthropologist Helen Siu has presented the following figures as exemplary embodiments of such diasporic cultural identity “Sir Robert Ho Tung, Sir Kai Ho Kai, and Ng Ting Fong were notable examples of Hong Kong-based, Western-educated elites who remained committed to the Chinese Tradition. In their lives and careers, they contributed a great deal not only to the well being of the Chinese community in Hong Kong but also to China’s modern, nationalist efforts. On such figure who took his Chineseness seriously was none other that Dr. Sun Yat-sen.” (Siu, 2009, p. 63) These prominent historic figurers of Hong Kong resident may be characterized as the embodiment of a culture of hybridity of multiculturalism. b. The dialectics of de-sinicization and re-sinicization: i. Among scholars engaging in Hong Kong studies, the thesis of de- sinicization and re-sinicization has served explicitly or implicitly as underlying theme in most of the theories of Hong Kong development. (for example, Ma, 1999) - By de-sinicization, it refers to the processes or situations in Hong Kong history, in which Hong Kong society as a whole or in parts, such as in economic, cultural, or political aspects, was secluded from mainland China. - By re-sinicization, it refers to the reverse process or situation in history, in which Hong Kong society re-integrated with the mainland China. ii. De-sinicization and re-sinicization in economic development iii. De-sinicization and re-sinicization in political development iv. De-sinicization and resinicization in cultural development 2. Multiple identities in Hong Kong institutional developments Diaspora De-sinicization Re-sinicization Economic development and economic identities 1842-1950 Colonial capitalism British colony Entrepot of China trade 1960s-1980s World capitalism in the Export-oriented China developed Cold War era industrial colony in into a independent capitalist world system or even isolated socialist economy 1998-1990s Hong Kong become a PRC adopted global financial hub in Reform & Open the global-information Door Policy in capitalism 1978; HK capital invested in Special- Economic Zone development 2003-present Signature of CEPA Political development and political identities 1842-1950s Colony in British global Colony under the British Breeding ground for Empire rule; revolution and Development of civil sedition of the citizenship Chinese government 1950-1980s Out-post at the edge of Minimally integrated Complete Insolation the iron curtain in the political-social system from PRC politics Cold War era and the constitution of W.K. Tsang Education Policy & Society 28 the bureaucratic state; Development of social citizenship 1980-1997 Joint-Declaration and Development of Un-unification with the handover representative PRC and become a government and the SAR of PRC development of political citizenship 4th June 1989 Legitmation crisis of the Breakdown of the retreating colonial harmonious government transition and the HK Chinese “united front” 1997-present PRC rise to be the Continuous legitimation Explicit and implicit prominent member of crisis of the newly interventions to international politics institutionalized SRA HKSAR public government affairs

Cultural development and cultural identities 1842-1945 Embarking port of Chinese emigrants and the cultural center of diaspora 1949-1970 Outpost and outlet of Cut off from mainland Western cultural cultural ties, e.g. industry and consumer education, publication, culture film industry; Concentration of scholars and cultural worker alienating or even opposing the communist doctrine 1970-1990 Localization of HK culture; Rise to be an independent center of the Chinese culture 1997-present Reintegrate with Chinese cultural economy - Hybrid identity of Chineseness plus affluence/capitism/cosmopolitanism - Hybrid identity of Chineseness plus freedom/democracy/the Rule of Law/human right - Diaspora identity of straddling the global and national identities

G. Political Identity of HK Residents in the Context of One-Country-Two-Systems 1. The contextual footings of the identity of resident in HKSAR a. The state context of two systems i. The autonomy in internal governance ii. The heteronomy in external sovereignty b. The national context of the majority Chinese i. Chinese nation in essentialist-primordialist perspective ii. Chinese nation in constructivist-modernist perspective iii. HK Chinese identity in the context of pluralistic unity 多元一體格局 c. The multinational context of residents in HK as global metropolitan

W.K. Tsang Education Policy & Society 29 國家（ the state ） （行使統一主權的權力機器）

香港特區政府 中央人民政府 （管治內部事務的權力機器） （管治對外主權的權力機器）

民族（ the nation ） （建基在團結感情的社 群） 圖一： 香港特區國民教育的制度基礎

H. Critiques on the Moral and National Curriculum Guideline (Primary to Secondary) 1. The conceptual confusion relating to the basic concepts of the state and nation 2. The empirical flaws relating to the perspective of the national identity of Chinese 3. The faults in the teaching approach to national education a. Passion-based national situation learning b. Reason-based learning: Amartya Sen’s thesis of reason before identity 4. The flaws in instructional design relating to cognitive and moral development of the students: a. Instructional strategy of controversial-issue deliberation b. Cognitive and moral development of students, especially primary students at the age of 6-11.

W.K. Tsang Education Policy & Society 30