National Resilience, Politics and Society Volume 1, No. 1, Spring 2019, pp. 53-80 DOI: https://doi.org/10.26351/NRPS/1/3 Realism versus Utopianism in Civics Textbooks Hadar Lipshits Abstract The three basic subjects in civics in Israel are: a Jewish state, democracy, and the system of government in Israel that combines its Jewish and democratic character. The issue in general and the civics textbooks in particular, have become subject to controversy in recent decades. A quantitative and qualitative study of the three authorised textbooks in Israeli schools revealed a common liberal tendency, albeit with significant differences between them. One defines democracy as an imperfect form of government, while the others define it as a humanistic and liberal worldview and a system of government whose laws are just and moral. The realistic textbook presents Israel as imperfect, like all democracies, while the utopist textbooks present Israel as democratic only to the extent that it is a utopia. This paper proposes that the realistic approach be preferred in order to create a consensus for teaching the subject, and to train the citizens of the future for the reality of Israeli democracy. Keywords: civics textbooks, democratic concepts, a Jewish and democratic state, Israeli educational system Dr. Hadar Lipshits – Orot Israel College of Education; [email protected] 53 54 Hadar Lipshits Introduction Public education, like education in general, is one of the fundamental sources of socialization. It is an important component in socializing individuals for the role of active citizens of the country and for cultivating a conscious, contributing, and committed citizen whose virtù1 is a fundamental component in the existence of any state. Models of civics education have been developing throughout history as early as ancient Greece and were mainly the product of the prevailing political and social orientation in the given country (Hebert & Wilkinson, 2002). In a democratic state that views citizens as the source of authority for decision making, and enables and even encourages them to influence the political process, civics education plays an even more significant role. Among the academic subjects taught in school, civics is the main subject devoted to citizenship education. When they study this subject, young people build the knowledge and tools to become active and democratic citizens (Labaree, 1997). The primary source for the study of civics education is the textbooks on the subject; most of the young people’s knowledge on the political institutions and processes in the country is based on these texts. Without understanding the policy- making process in society, shared by both private and public players about whom students learn from textbooks, young people would find it difficult to become critical and active citizens (Menefee-Libey, 2015). The textbooks are one of the factors that shape public discourse, certainly on political issues. Naturally, textbooks have become a research subject in the field of social education. Further highlighting the importance of civics textbooks is the fact that they are reflectors of “the legitimate knowledge” of the state (McCartney, Bennion, & Simpson, 2013). The books reflect the past, present, and future; they echo the historical narrative of the state, the story of the past that it seeks to pass on to the next generation. The perspectives that are articulated in the textbooks express the discourse that is accepted in that society. The books present and reflect the basic values that young people will carry into their futures as citizens of the state. This being said, there are also studies that indicate that the textbooks do not Realism versus Utopianism in Civics Textbooks 55 actually reflect the views of the entire society, but rather of the individuals engaged in civics education (Bricker, 1989). Japanese studies have called attention to the fact that textbooks reflect the struggles for national identity (Chilo & Ian, 2015). Research on American textbooks indicates a tendency toward liberal rather than republican views. The foremost commitment is to the individual and his rights, not to responsibility and the collective good (Scott & Suh, 2015). The rights that are emphasized are citizens’ rights – in particular, freedom of expression and the right to elect and to be elected. Rights are more central than duties, in accordance with the liberal philosophy, and the very word “rights” was mentioned four times more than the word “duties”. These rights belong primarily to the individual and not to the public. These studies showed that scant attention was given to history and the collective meaning of American politics, and so pupils learn very little about the public struggles that shaped the character of the state. Gonzales and his colleagues (2004) predicted that ignoring the collectivist trend when teaching students would turn the subject into a “foreign language” for them, and would increase alienation among young people towards participating in public life. In Israel, turning the subject of citizenship into a language, even a foreign language, is a declared tenet of a prominent school of thought in the field of civics education. Since the 1990s, the subject in general, and the textbooks in particular, have been at the center of a political, academic, and public struggle. A committee headed by Mordechai Kremnitzer, set up in 1995 by an education minister from the extreme left-wing Meretz party2 to “teach citizenship to students”, led to the transformation of the subject into a leading tool in cultivating a “civic identity as a common denominator for all Israelis”, as opposed to particularistic identities, such as a religious and national identity. Avnon (2006) explained the need to teach a “Civic Language” in light of its impoverishment among the founding fathers. The first president of Israel, Chaim Weizmann, saw in the Bible the source for the idea of limited government in democracies. Israel’s first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, in presenting the Law of Return, which allows every Jew in the world to obtain Israeli citizenship, claimed that the right of the Jews to return to their land “was what built the state”. Avnon headed the leading academic center 56 Hadar Lipshits on civics education at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. His aim was to teach the Israeli schoolchildren “a shared civic identity” which is what the Kremnitzer report strived for, through the study of a “Civic Language”, which would replace the fundamental values of the founding fathers. On the other side, there were protests against the change. One of the committee’s members, Eliezer Don Yehia, resigned after his demand to include a reference to Zionism, the national movement of the Jewish people, was rejected in the report (Lipshits, 2016). Geiger (2009) contended that, similar to the results of studies of textbooks in the US, the emphasis is on the concept of liberal democracy. However, he says that this is not just neglecting the Zionist narrative, but a violation of Zionist and patriotic education, of the students’ commitment to the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish nation-state, and of their democratic education, critical education, and the chance to reduce tensions in Israeli society (Geiger, 2009). In 2011, during the term of a right-wing government, the curriculum changed in the critical directions recommended by Don Yehia and Geiger. Two new textbooks were published, and in 2016 a book was issued by the ministry, which replaced its predecessor of 2000. The new book met with severe criticism early, in its trial version. Pinson (2013) wrote that the book was a harbinger of change from “a Jewish and democratic state into a Jewish state”. According to her, the book distorts liberal democracy and emphasizes an ethno-national discourse as a central discourse. Kremnitzer (2016) claimed that the book advocates an anti-liberal Jewish republic. The subject of civics in general, and the textbook in particular, provoked much political debate and was discussed in the Knesset itself. During the term of the current administration (as of 2015), there were three committee discussions on the subject of the book,3 and it reached the point of confrontation between the prime minister and the minister of education.4 Ben-Raphael Galanti and Levkovitz (2013) analyzed all the civics textbooks in the State of Israel up to Diskin’s book, which was published in 2011, in accordance with the new curriculum. Ben-Raphael Galanti and Levkovitz claim that all the books since the 1950s firmly established a commitment to Realism versus Utopianism in Civics Textbooks 57 a democratic system of government along with its being a Jewish state. The concept of a Jewish state has been given many interpretations, they claim, but the concept of democracy was clear. They asserted that the book written by Diskin, a prominent political science researcher who critiqued the book published in 2000, does not deviate from the principle of learning about democracy. While Diskin does add depth to the study of the subject, he nonetheless writes about it and about the Jewish state in the spirit of the previous book. This study deals with the three textbooks that were approved by the Ministry of Education in the field of citizenship education and examines their approach to the basic issues included in the subjects titled “Jewish state”, “democracy”, and “form of government and politics in Israel”. Studies conducted around the world showed that the various textbooks in each country are usually very similar to each other. This, of course, is inevitable – textbooks are required to meet the requirements of the state for the subject.5 The current study presents the picture that emerges from an analysis of civics textbooks in Israel, with reference to the questions raised in research around the world and in discussion in Israel. It examines the way each textbook relates to democracy, rights and duties, the national narrative, the political and civil actors who shaped the state, and the centrality of liberal discourse.