Civic Education Post 9/11

Social Studies Research and Practice Volume 2, Number 2, Summer 2007 www.socstrp.org ISSN: 1933-5415

Civic Education Post 9/11:

Efficacy, Cosmopolitanism, and Pedagogical Implications

Dr. Azadeh Farrah Osanloo New Mexico State University

Abstract

The many discourses surrounding 9/11 place existing civic education in a tenuous space within the current political climate. The challenges of producing a universally acceptable interpretation and approach to democratic education have been compounded in the aftermath of 9/11. Due to a heightened sense of fear and an increased level of blind nationalism, many of the basic concepts in the Constitution, like equality, justice, and reciprocity have been temporarily de-emphasized for a more compartmentalized way of “American” living, based on concepts such as patriotism, loyalty, and safety. Given the current political climate, the time to revisit the goals of civic education as a conduit of a globalized deliberative democracy is now. The author argues that civic education programming would be better served if more emphasis were placed on the philosophical foundations of the subject.

Introduction

An examination of documented civic education practices reveals that most civic education in the US is lacking an examination of the philosophical underpinnings that aid in its pedagogical design. In history and social studies curricula, students in American public schools tend to learn primarily about American perspectives and values with a sprinkling of philosophical perspectives added in (U.S. Department of Education, 2004). These practices do not adequately underscore the founding principles of most civic education, broadly construed, in the US. The author argues that civic education programming would be better served if more emphasis were placed on the philosophical foundations of the subject. This normative emphasis would help to more clearly explain questions like the following: (a) Why is civic education in schools important; (b) what is the basis of cosmopolitan citizenship; and (c) what should a citizen look like, act like, and be like post 9/11? It is important to note that this research stems from a concern that an ethnocentric model of thinking does not allow for meaningful civic education, one that values the reciprocity of ideas or appreciates alternative systems of thought. It is especially important for this type of education to be grounded in the principles of a liberal democratic and egalitarian framework.

180 Social Studies Research and Practice Osanloo

In the following paper, the author briefly discusses Joel Westheimer’s (2004) liberally- based civic agenda. An advocate and supporter of public school civic education programming, he believes citizenship education is important for creating a democratic society. Next, the theoretical distinction of cosmopolitanism, currently being employed in the examination of civic education, will be discussed. This theory was specifically chosen as it helps to underline some of the programmatic goals that should be associated with civic education. It was also selected because its focus is global and multicultural, and therefore reflective of the demographics of the United States, and moreover, the world at large. Finally, the discussion will be narrowed to civic concerns based on a post-9/11 climate. The combined analyses of the efficacy of civics, cosmopolitanism, and post-9/11 discussion will help illuminate pedagogical concerns and implications within the discourse of civic education. Support for Civic Education in Schools

Embedded in the discussion of civic education is the assumption of the importance of having some sort of civic education in public schools. Scholars, like James Murphy, would not agree with this claim, instead citing that civic education’s attempt at inculcating in values and morals fails as well as undermines the essential nature of schooling—to garner a love of knowledge. Joel Westheimer’s (2003) support for school-based civic education programming is situated in the notion that schools play a large role in educating students for democracy and citizens for active reflective practice. He argued that, “Young people need to be taught to make democracy work, to engage civically, socially, and politically” (Westheimer, 2003, p. 35). He also maintained that schools have a major part to play in securing an active, fair, and evolving society. Furthermore, this important role that schools play in the democratic process must be acknowledged and nurtured. Westheimer theorizes that the expectations and values of teaching a democratic education are often confounded and contradictory; however, he contends that just because there are a broad number of goals and topics does not mean the importance of teaching the subject should be negated. Westheimer and his colleague Joe Kahne (2003) created three visions of a “good” citizen that were offered in Teach Magazine. These visions can be used as a platform from which discussions within civics can abound as well as provide an understanding as to the multifaceted goals and responsibilities within civic education. The visions are as follows: (a) the personally responsible citizen: (b) the participatory citizen: and (c) the justice-oriented citizen. Working in agreement, these visions help to promote deliberation, equality, social justice, autonomy, responsibility, recognition of others, interest in social movements, participation, knowledge of government, strategies for change, and thinking critically (Westheimer & Kahne, 2003). Westheimer notes the importance of the critical debate within civic education. He sees the dissension with the subject matter as an imperative component to recognizing the different visions and discussing each in relation to the curriculum; he also sees the diversity of pedagogies as beneficial. For the scholar, these differences help to adequately address concerns such as the following: What kind of values are we teaching in terms of democracy, and what interests and ideas are embedded in varied notions of citizenship? (Westheimer, 2003). In addition, he does not believe that traditional academic priorities and teaching for democratic values and citizenship are at odds with one another, but rather can work together to produce a well-rounded citizen. And he fully acknowledges that this is a difficult process to be navigated carefully: “The choices we make for citizenship education in our schools have consequences for the kind of society we ultimately help to create (Westheimer, 2003, p. 19).

181 Social Studies Research and Practice Osanloo

As Westheimer suggests, civic education is central to schooling. In this time, when the modern condition of citizenship is ambiguous and clarity is needed, it is important to support civic education programming. Indeed, this author agrees with Westheimer’s notion that educating and nurturing students for democracy is serious business (Westheimer, 2003). While debates wax, regarding the effectiveness of civic education programming, the subject does exist in schools and is sanctioned by U.S. Department of Education guidelines. The practical concern regarding the efficacy of civic education programming in schools is that it must exist, especially within the context of a democratic nation state. Moreover, the subject matter needs to be nurtured and encouraged as the edupolitical climate becomes much more polemical and tenuous. In conjunction with the usefulness of the subject in its pedagogical form, normative reasoning is vital to fostering the subject as it can help pave the way for solid civic education programming. Therefore, as part of this research, it is important to take a look at a current theoretical influence important within civic education.

Nussbaum’s Cosmopolitanism

In the pre-9/11 anthology For Love of Country, Martha Nussbaum (1996) asked, “Should students be taught that they are, above all, citizens of the United States, or should they instead be taught that they are, above all, citizens of a world of human beings who happen to be situated in the United States?” (Nussbaum, 1996, p. 6). Nussbaum is concerned that the overzealous adoption of a national identity can lead to blind nationalism, thus commodifying and compartmentalizing compassion within immediate borders, and not adhering to a plan for cosmopolitanism. According to Nussbaum (1996), the notion of cosmopolitanism should stem from an allegiance towards a global humanity as opposed to a national identity. She elaborated: Americans have frequently supported the principle of giving the fact of being American a special salience in moral and political deliberation, and pride in a specifically American identity and a specifically American citizenship a special power among the motivations to political action. I believe that…this emphasis on patriotic pride is both morally dangerous and, ultimately, subversive of some of the worthy goals patriotism sets out to serve—for example, the goal of national unity in devotion to worthy moral ideals of justice and equality. These goals…would be better served by an ideal that is in any case more adequate to our situation in the contemporary world, namely the very old ideal of the cosmopolitan, the person whose primary allegiance is to the community of human beings in the entire world. (pp. 3-4)

However, Gutmann (1996) argued that there is no real global polity; she challenges Nussbaum’s characterization of cosmopolitanism as a moral constraint on political exercise. Gutmann further argued that, “We are citizens of the American polity, and to live out the ideals of freedom and equality we need to be educated to those particular, as well as universal, skills, understandings, and values that secure full participation and equal standing in our own polity” (Gutmann 1996, p. 68). In order to move towards a more inclusive, progressive, and democratic vision of civic education that teaches students a variety of viewpoints on local and global affairs, that the Western way of viewing the world isn’t all there is, that inclusion is important, it is important to educate for democratic life in the United States.

182 Social Studies Research and Practice Osanloo

As mentioned earlier, Nussbaum’s vision for citizenship education is grounded in the idea of cosmopolitanism. The core view shared by supporters of cosmopolitanism is that all human beings belong to a single community, and it is this community that should be reared (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2005). Nussbaum contends that the person whose primary allegiance is to the community of human beings in the entire world is more apt to be devoted to the moral ideals of justice and equality (Nussbaum, 1996). Furthermore, her belief is that we, as humans, should give our allegiance first to what is morally good for all human beings. By doing so, Nussbaum asserts that this will help to answer some of the core questions at the heart of cosmopolitan education: “Should students be taught that they are above all citizens of the United States, or should they instead be taught that they are above all citizens of a world of human beings, and that, while they themselves happen to be situated in the United States, they have to share this world of human beings with the citizens of other countries?” (Nussbaum, 1996, p. 6). In her explanation for civic education based in cosmopolitanism, Nussbaum explores four reasons to endorse an education for world citizenship. These rationales are grounded in stoicism and do not ask that citizens give up local identifications, but rather keep those differences in mind as a source of richness. In this context, stoicism refers to the goal that Stoic philosophers relate to students. That goal is to become what they were the first to call a “cosmopolitan”—a citizen of the world, someone whose loyalty is not to a particular locality or cultural order, but to humanity. That, in turn, can help develop in citizens a devotion to an inclusive community incorporating all human beings (Nussbaum, 1996). Adherence to these four guiding principles will make world citizenship, rather than democratic citizenship, for example, the focus of education. The following are Nussbaum’s four arguments for curricula based in world citizenship: (a) through cosmopolitan education, we learn more about ourselves; (b) we make headway solving problems that require international focus; (c) we recognize moral obligations to the rest of the world that are real, and that would otherwise go unrecognized; and (d) we make a consistent and coherent argument based on distinctions we are really prepared to defend (Nussbaum, 1996, pp. 11-15). By focusing on these four foundations as the core of cosmopolitan education, a just or civil society based upon pluralism, open participation, and cultural sensitivity will then be produced. While the researcher agrees with some of Nussbaum’s notions (i.e., the philosophy that all humans are to be valued, the importance of a civil society, acquiring knowledge beyond one’s immediate borders), the researcher also disagrees with several of Nussbaum’s strategies for achieving a cosmopolitan society. The critique is framed by four areas of discord: (a) lexical and terminological murkiness; (b) ignoring the idea that basic human attachments are founded upon local (micro) to global (macro) associations; (c) cosmopolitanism as potentially invalidating multiculturalism; and (d) cosmopolitanism as being anchored in Western epistemology. Nussbaum too easily links politicized terms together, merging their meanings inappropriately into one lump set. She conflates terms like patriotism, nationalism, and ethnocentrism and suggests that they unequivocally undergird an American identity. In her work, she describes what she calls a “tragic story of the defeat of a reasonable and principled cosmopolitanism by the forces of nationalism and ethnocentrism” (Nussbaum, 1996, p. 5). Without a prior understanding as to what she means by “the forces of nationalism and ethnocentrism,” one must speculate how she is delineating distinctions amongst the highly politicized terms. Are nationalism and ethnocentrism the same? Are they inherently bad, or can they have positive aspects? Can they be helpful devices for understanding social attachments? Within this vein, she addresses the work of Richard Rorty in his New York Times

183 Social Studies Research and Practice Osanloo

(February 13, 1994) op-ed piece that urged Americans to “not disdain patriotism as a value, and indeed to give central importance to the emotion of national pride” (p. E15). He believes that self-reflection and self-critique stem from the ability to first recognize who you are and how you identify yourself. So, citizens of the U.S. would be remiss if they did not first recognize themselves as having an American identity, and thus not be able to critique oneself or the country accurately. Generally, you have to know what it means to be an American to critique that which is American. By placing value in “the emotion of national pride and a sense of shared identity,” Rorty calls for a politics of difference. Rorty’s politics are based on “the internal divisions among America’s ethnic, racial, religious, and other sub-groups” (Rorty, 1994). Nussbaum dismisses Rorty’s ideas as politics of exclusion as opposed to politics of inclusion. By doing so, she broadly construes nationalism, ethnocentrism, patriotism, and American identity as synonymous negative terms. Nussbaum does not clearly explain what the ties are that bind these terms together. She neither clarifies if the terms should be used as interchangeable ideas nor if they are also mutually exclusive. Scholars Banks et al. (2005) argue for a critical patriotism. This sort of patriotism is grounded in loyalty and pride as well as incorporates the notions of a constructive conscience that is critical of monopolized truths and encourages unconventional thinking. It is this sort of patriotism, one that is critical, that not only encourages linkages through commonality of rites, but also promotes democratic deliberation. While this researcher disagrees with an insular focus on American identity, it is imperative to recognize that in order to move towards a “politics of people,” we must first start by understanding individual identity and autonomous decision-making. Only then can we begin to understand any version of a world identity. If we are to be positive action-takers for the world at large, should we first not understand the local-global politics of our own individual identity? Individuals begin to form identities partly based upon immediate sociopolitical and environmental factors. As this identity shaping occurs, based on personal and public influences, persons can then make outward connections to humans on a larger scale. Essentially, they are making the thoughtful transition from micro-memberships to macro-associations. It is nearly impossible for an individual constrained by the forces of capitalism, social, political and racial hierarchies, and hegemonic influences to forgo micro-memberships (that provide tangible benefits to them) for macro-associations (that do not necessarily include the obligations of reciprocity). Individuals begin creating attachments and loyalties to those close to them. Only after those associational relationships are developed can an individual begin making associations on a larger scale. Thus, the notion of patriotism can almost be seen as one step in reaching a cosmopolitan attitude towards the world. That is, if being patriotic means ascribing to a large, nationally-based ideological perception that is beyond the scope of individual achievement or gain. Finally, it is important to note that these different types of attachments, individual and global, are not necessarily in competition with one another. One does not have to choose to be one or the other, but ideally can and will be both. Moreover, cosmopolitanism can be viewed as a challenge to multiculturalism. We exist in a pluralistic society, with much diversity stemming from ethnic, gender, socioeconomic, and religious differences. While the notion of multiculturalism has its own challenges and has been criticized for offering watered-down versions of diversity, it is still important to recognize the value of the heterogeneity it aims to offer. Cosmopolitan viewpoints could potentially focus too much on valuing the larger world order, while simultaneously disregarding the explicit worth of the variations that make us unique individuals. This pitfall of cosmopolitanism could possibly lead to monotony and sameness, or a monoculture. Meaning, it is not always beneficial for all

184 Social Studies Research and Practice Osanloo

people to think, act, or believe the same as it could potentially lead to something as homogenously void as Nazism. Finally, it is important to consider that the very notion of a cosmopolitan society is a Western value that is at odds with many cultures and societies, especially those that value particularism. Since the United States has displayed historical and contemporary difficulty in appreciating and recognizing the values of the diverse, particular, and multicultural communities within its own borders, the laudable goals of Nussbaum’s cosmopolitan ideal would present serious challenges towards achievement worldwide. Does a marked difference between cosmopolitanism and Westernization exist? Barber (1996) points to the fact that, “If cosmopolitanism is mere Westernization in disguise, then our future looks no brighter, for the Osama bin Laden’s of the world will be lining up to defend their ways of life in the ‘McWorld’” (p. 17). In general, Barber’s notion of the “McWorld” stems from the global commodity that American consumeristic and consumptionistic culture has become worldwide as commerce and ideology become merged. It is important to recognize that global capitalism, although bred from democracy, now aids in the destruction of citizenship as self- sufficiency, self-determination, and individualism spread relentlessly. Furthermore, Barber contends that border-crossing capitalism is not cosmopolitanism in the moral sense of humanity; it is a contested form of “progress” that, in its current forms, benefits some groups and nations more than others (Barber, 2003). Barber believes that Americans too often think like a transnational corporation, often a media corporation, and have lost the concept of citizenship in a race to acquire wealth and self-status. The worship of this global capitalism leads to a greater abandonment to create any sense of equality, while building a collective unity in visual cultures and public spaces (Giroux, 2002). At this juncture, it is important to ask: Can there be practical applications for cosmopolitanism? And if so, is it even possible to realize the cosmopolitan ideal? Is it possible to do what Nussbaum suggests: to use the best of all civilizations, not emphasizing the differences between them, to promote global civilization, create or build one world on the basis of shared human values, fight exclusivity and insular politics without promoting domination? Because as Nussbaum sees it, the basic idea behind the humanist or cosmopolitanist approach is that, in essence, every human being is alike. As such, the notion that “every human being is alike” potentially had the ability to unite factions of people within the United States and around the world post 9/11. However, while some may have been brought together by the tragedy, it also served as a divisive event causing further discontent amongst peoples. Thus, how do the events of 9/11 impact the humanist ideology?

Post-9/11 Concerns

For most, 9/11 caused a caesura in the direction of world history. It marked a point in time when understanding and education were deemphasized whereas oppression, militarization, and capitalistic globalization have had the opportunity to flourish. The ancillary lessons learned in conjunction with the tragic events of 9/11 have a strong place hold in the public sector. While formal curriculum is being adapted to reflect historical shifts post 9/11, the collateral learning is shaping public minds and informing reactions and responses to the event. This new patriotism, infused with xenophobia and blind nationalism (jingoism) has the potential to lead to an ethnocentric belief of infallibility and supremacy. These concepts can be used to subvert the democratic process and prevent the promotion of egalitarian beliefs. For example, since 9/11, feelings of national identity have been especially ardent; however a new factionalism has erupted

185 Social Studies Research and Practice Osanloo

from nationalism post 9/11. American moral pedagogues hold the belief that America’s record is one of promoting peace, justice, and democracy at home and abroad, and that the objection to exporting American values is anti-Americanism (Bennett, 2002, 2004; Kelly, 2004). This homogenized culture oft-times fostered by current media practices, especially in the wake of 9/11, has lead to xenophobia and jingoism. Inciting further isolationist sentiment, the media does not aim to enhance a pluralistic notion of the nation-state during these times, but rather unifies through cultural and linguistic homogeneity. Miller (2002) stated,

As we survey the cultural landscape after the atrocities of September 11, we ought to note the special danger posed to free expression by media concentration. It seems that censorship has now been largely privatized, with the heavy hitters of the media cartel, the owners and major advertisers, themselves acting quickly to shut down critical discussion. ¶ 1).

A topic of significance that helps in the cultivation of civic identity and post-9/11 concerns is that of the binary relationship the US has with other countries. This underlying notion of Westoxification aims to illuminate a political critique of Western ideology and epistemology, thus, included in the discussion of civic education needs to be emphasis on the dichotomy of the West and “others” often presented in global affairs. In the context of civic education, this compartmentalization plays a part in theorizing as it pertains to civics. The Western values that are in ascendance are not grounded in democracy, citizenship, and tolerance but in xenophobia and fear. This is the lens through which civic education is viewed, and it highlights a “West is the best” perspective. It is, to use Buruma and Margalit’s (2004) term, the Westoxification of the world that has incited prejudices against Americanism (p. 29). The term, Westoxification, is used to describe the poisonous and pernicious influence of Western civilization on other cultures (Buruma & Margalit, 2004; Said, 1979). Through this lens, the 9/11 attack is viewed broadly as an attack on the ideologies circumscribed in the meanings and values of the American way of life, within which non-Western perspectives are created in opposition to the West, or to modernization and progress. Corollary to the discussion of patriotism and Westoxification are deeper theoretical concerns for civic education in a post-9/11 climate. As this country forges ahead within a time of fear, war, and terror, it is imperative to have a clear understanding of how to educate students for civic education without reproducing the structural inequalities or prejudices that exist in the material and political rhetoric of the current administration of this time (Apple, 2002; Banks et al., 2005; Barber, 2003; Giroux, 2004; Gutmann, 2002; Junn, 2004; Nussbaum, 2002). As Junn (2004) warned civic curriculum developers, “Well-intentioned though they may be in attempting to increase characteristics of good democratic citizenship and social capital such as trust, civic education programs that privilege one version of true democratic creed can yield results that exacerbate rather than alleviate prejudice” (p. 2). In his article “Patriotism, Pedagogy, and Freedom: On the Educational Meanings of September 11,” Michael Apple (2002) brings to light “the complicated ways in which 9/11 was experienced phenomenologically by teachers such as myself, and on the urge to have schools participate in a complicated set of patriotic discourses and practices that swept over the United States in the wake of the disaster” (p. 1). Apple (2002) argues that a space exists between instructor and student which needs to be negotiated. While it is important to create a venue for students to ask questions, express anger and rage, and articulate confusion and concern, it is

186 Social Studies Research and Practice Osanloo

equally important to have a discussion at it pertains to the maleficent place in the world that the United States is positioned. This helps students to understand the negative perception that many others around the world have with regards to the fortitude of the US and its global capitalism. Apple (2002) offers way of approaching these types of topics, most importantly, by not engaging in the “pedagogy of imposition.” He argues that such teaching methods could be seen as unpatriotic, pushing people toward rightist agendas, while at the same time being wildly counterproductive in a time of much needed edification. He favors educating others in a reflective, socially critical, and understanding manner. This type of teaching should support democracy, be reflective of a politically-complicated present, should not favor patriotic fervor, and aim to interrupt larger hegemonic practices. The dialogic relationship, between civic education and the public, primarily occurs in schools and thus implications within pedagogy thrive.

Pedagogical Implications

It is important to promote a civic intelligence grounded in equality of perspectives and concern for others globally. Advancing these egalitarian ideals can help citizens understand the meanings and possibly negative effects of words and iconography associated with jingoism and nationalism. Additional concerns within this politically-charged climate include xenophobia and ethnocentrism, two forces that can bring down a just or civil society. The fear and terror that help to define America’s current political state compound binaries of us versus them, West versus East, and good versus evil. Xenophobic and ethnocentric sentiments currently have dangerously large breeding grounds from which to generate; therefore, the time to revisit and reconceptualize the conceptual foundations of civic education programming is now. Theories of cosmopolitanism have been part of recent discourse on civic education (Banks et al., 2005; Barber, 2003; Gutmann, 2000; Nussbaum, 2001). The upsurge in discussion after the turn of the 21st century can be attributed partly to scholarly inquiry, partisan political agendas, and governmental actions in the aftermath of 9/11, and today, discord over civic education as a whole furthers these debates. Polemics, diatribes, and even reasoned accounts of civic education stem from disagreement regarding the substance, efficacy, and—most important for purposes here—conceptual foundations of the subject. Thus, it is an important and opportune time to conceptualize a new foundation for civic education, one that is grounded in recent global events, especially 9/11. The impetus for developing conceptual foundations, particularly those that will serve to undergird civic education in the US, stems from the concern that current thinking about and models for civic education do not allow for meaningful democratic education that values the reciprocity of ideas, appreciates alternative systems of thought, or promotes equality. Building on the previously discussed ideas, regarding efficacy and cosmopolitan theory, these pedagogical implications will illustrate several ideas that can (and ought to) be used to inform development of civic education curricula. These conceptual foundations include current definitions within civic education and stem partly from a cosmopolitan theory of education. The following are recommendations for conceptual foundations to inform the development of civic education in schools. These concepts are grounded in egalitarianism and based on current and emergent definitions of citizen as a result of sociopolitical events. The conceptual foundations of civic education should be based upon four premises, and three components. The four premises underlie the meaningful interrelationships among

187 Social Studies Research and Practice Osanloo

education, democracy, civics, and schools, while the three components describe the author’s conceptualization of civic education. The four premises are as follows:

1. Education is fundamental for achieving, promoting, and encouraging democracy. 2. Schools can be sites for social change. 3. Relationships occur in concentric circles. 4. Individual civic capability that is reflective of democracy, justice, and equality affects community civics.

The three components consist of the following: (a) participatory citizenship, (b) deliberative democracy, and (c) social egalitarianism. These conceptual foundations promote a liberal, democratic, and egalitarian base for citizenship.

Education Is Fundamental for Achieving, Promoting, and Encouraging Democracy

Education is the cornerstone of democracy. Both capabilities and passion for democratic reasoning are acquired through education. However—and this is a crucial point—the author does not necessarily promote the ideas associated with a strictly American democracy. By American democracy, the author means efforts that inculcate in the values on one end of the spectrum that result in xenophobic, ethnocentric, and jingoistic tendencies that nullify the value of other perspectives (Junn, 2004). It is important that democratic education does not exacerbate prejudices and discrimination already in the system, but rather works to alleviate them. The democracy this author supports is one that involves skills that encourage “the competence to participate in democratic communities, the ability to think critically and act deliberately in a pluralistic world, the empathy that permits us to hear and thus accommodate others” (Barber, 1992, p. 128). Westheimer and Kahne (2002, 2003, 2004) support the relationship between education and democracy. Their research describes ten educational programs that have successfully promoted democratic values and capacities through the development of civic commitments, capacities, and connections. The outcomes of these civic applications are fostered through education as they argued that civic meaning should be integrated with school curricula (Westheimer & Kahne, 2003). Some would like it to remain off the educational agenda. As discussed earlier, Murphy (2003) believes that there is no place for civic or democratic education in schools and that asserting such pedagogy seeks to inculcate rather than educate. He contends that the function of schools is to assist in cultivating an interest in knowledge not to indoctrinate morals or values. Yet, Murphy’s position flies in the face of a prominent and widely held American educational aim: Public education functions in the service of democratic citizenship. According to Gutmann and Thompson (1996), “To prepare their students for citizenship, schools must go beyond teaching literacy and numeracy….schools should aim to develop their students’ capacities to understand different perspectives, communicate their understandings to other people, and engage in the give-and-take of moral argument with a view to making mutually acceptable decisions” (p. 359). If, as Murphy asserts, schools are not the proper place for the education described by Gutmann and Thompson, where will citizens develop these important civic capacities? Civic education should be taught in schools.

188 Social Studies Research and Practice Osanloo

Schools Can Be Sites for Social Change

Like Westheimer, the author believes that schools should teach civic education. And like Dewey before him, the author also believes that public schools are institutions that should be used to promote the democratic idea, for they have the potential to change social outcomes. Dewey believed schools were pivotal for preparing citizens—as the institutions dictated the instrumentalities of goals, theories, and aims (Dewey, 1916). Good civic education communicates thoughts and ideas that create and inspire a multiculturally tolerant society amenable to social change. It is important to nurture these ideas in a forum like public school. Again Westheimer’s research provides excellent examples in support of this supposition. Westheimer (2003) described three schools in Canada that sought to develop “good” citizens by nurturing democratic citizenship. The aim of all three programs was to lay the groundwork for democratic citizenship in schools, therefore arming the students with the tools for successful and effective adult citizenship. Through these case studies, Westheimer was able to identify characteristics that could be taught in schools to create future “good” citizens. Westheimer’s research indicates that the scholar believes in the assumption that schools can be sites of transformation. Additionally, the research conducted by Torney-Purta and colleagues (1999) shows through statistical data that school-based civic knowledge is crucial in determining a student’s further civically conscious self. Since schools in American society have mandatory attendance guidelines, the prospect of negotiating a positive revolutionary space exists, and therefore should be pursued. To ignore the notion of schools as transformative sites is to ignore the potential of the spaces in their entirety. As educators, we should actively join the struggle against the proliferation of “results factories” rather than simply give up and leave the profession, which would constitute a passive act that through silence and inactivity suggests concordance with the situation.

Relationships Occur in Concentric Circles

This means that we build relationships from part to whole, from smallest to largest, from us to them, and generally outward in concentric circles. The humanizing effect of identity associations tend to lead us to allegiances patterned by an order of self, family, friends, community, country, and world. This being said, it is important to encourage relationships that help ground and unite individuals, for example, as members of a unique culture or community. It is when an individual has built strong relationships, in recognition of self-preservation, that he or she can then understand the care, compassion, and empathetic nature that democracy and equality require. Pride in one’s own relationships and associations, whether they be based in community or country, need not go hand-in-hand with a disregard for more distant others. Caring for one’s own and for others can and should peacefully coexist for each individual. This type of concentric thought patterning can create a path for micro-minded projects to become macro-minded goals. Nussbaum (1996), however, would disagree. She believes the first allegiance a citizen should develop is to the community of humans. Moreover, she would argue that while developing individual allegiances is natural and laudable, it does not adequately address the larger task at hand, that is, the goal of cosmopolitanism. Although Nussbaum makes an important point, it seems more feasible for public schools to approach this issue from the individual and outward. Such an approach is not only practical in dealing with large numbers of students each day, but also has the advantage of being rooted in the traditional liberal ideal of individualism, upon

189 Social Studies Research and Practice Osanloo

which much of American society operates. The trick is to make sure that students also move toward a sense of responsibility to that larger community of humans about which Nussbaum writes.

Individual Civic Capability that Is Reflective of Democracy, Justice, and Equality Affects Community Civics

By civic capability, the author means a citizen who is “personally responsible, participatory, and justice oriented” (Westheimer & Kahne, 2004, p. 233). At the individual level, civic capability has the potential to translate into beneficial political and personal outcomes for the larger populace. The collective ability to manifest change begins with the individual. For this reason, it is imperative that individuals are educated for and in civic education. Building civic capability in each individual will foster the creation of a civically competent public that understands the implications of education for democracy. Barber would tend to agree with this assumption. His work on the CivWorld Citizens Campaign for Democracy demonstrates that individual civics impacts community civic engagement. The project is underscored by the premise that citizens are agents of change for their immediate communities as well as the global landscape around them (Barber, 2006). Moreover, “CivWorld connects the world’s citizens through concrete ‘bottom-up’ civic strategies, enabling individuals to act effectively in an interdependent world in which the impact of even small deeds is widely felt” (Barber, 2006, p. 1). The more invested an individual is in civicism, the more this benefits a democratic movement. This account of global accountability recognizes the important individual-based factors that support the promulgation of democratic principles.

Three Components

The three components of the conceptual foundation highlighted below describe how civic education ought to be conceptualized. Essentially, the components bring to light the theoretical underpinnings that should guide the creation and implementation of civic education. These tools can offer grounding for civic education curricula in schools, regardless of the school’s location, ethnic make-up, income distribution, class size, or resources. These philosophical components can seamlessly intertwine with the goals and aims of educating democratically capable students. The first component is called participatory citizenship. This type of citizenship requires that students should be educated to become active participants in the democratic process. According to Anderson (1998), “authentic participation” is participation that enables individuals to voice their concerns and legitimizes their positions, meaning they act and speak on their own behalf. This authentic participation is subsidized by schooling. Anderson encourages the individual’s right to participate and warns against “superficial participation” as a hegemonically controlled activity regulated by the dominant culture. Meaningful participation is key to citizenship. The citizen is a public participant. Participatory citizenship consists of civic patriotism, civic intelligence, and civic responsibility.

1. Civic patriotism. Loosely based on Fonte’s (2000) definition, civic patriotism is framed by national allegiance, internationalism, and a shared history and culture that many can adopt through assimilation. For example, many immigrants coming to the US can adopt the shared value of our “patriotic sentiment” that is found in the Declaration of Independence, the

190 Social Studies Research and Practice Osanloo

Bill of Rights, or Martin Luther King’s “Free at Last” speech (Barber, 2002). It is important to note that the term does not invoke ideas of partisan “values” or “virtues,” which created problems in explanation by civic education scholars (e.g., Bennett, Kahne, Murphy, Westheimer). As opposed to propagating ideological language and goals, civic patriotism fosters collaborative communities. Civic patriotism encourages concentric circle relationship building, and thus in potential pushes for the cosmopolitan ideal. Moreover, American patriotism is needed to foster democracy because it is that sort of civic fabric that incites global appeal (Barber, 2002). This would help to create a commitment to liberal democratic ideals and democratic humanism. Again, this sort of patriotism harkens back to Banks et al. (2005) vision of a critical patriotism—one that is grounded in nation-side loyalty, but is also critical of injustices globally. Lastly, civic patriotism is substantively different from nationalism or jingoism. While nationalism and jingoism have the tendency to promote binaries of superiority and inferiority and dominance and subservience, civic patriotism is designed to unify. In light of this possible lexical confusion, content should be taught regarding the different, yet similarly used words: patriotism, nationalism, and jingoism. This could encourage civic patriotism, while mitigating confusion of the terms. Individuals do not have to reject a connection between patriotism and liberal democracy, as America is often immersed in the subtext of freedom. It is this subtext that can encourage a liberal democracy globally.

2. Civic intelligence. Civic intelligence is the intertwining of history and current issues facing the political system. Students should be versed in the nature of politics and government as well as the underlying principles of the documents, speeches, and historical periods that shape the meaning, mores, and purposes of America and democracy. Moreover, students need knowledge as to America’s relationship to other countries in the world and the reciprocal influences of these associations. Most important, alternatives to Westernized ideas of progress, modernity, colonization, development, and historical accounts must be presented so as not to impart an educational colonialism upon students. This type of education will serve to enhance equality. Adhering to an expansive view of civic issues would include incorporating alternative textbooks, international perspectives, and globally-minded scholars in civics pedagogy. Ethnocentric civic education programs do not endorse a civic and democratic agenda; instead, they may inculcate within students a sense of American exceptionalism and hierarchical dichotomies (e.g., us versus them, West versus East). The curricula should be designed around inclusion, rather than superiority and nationalism.

3. Civic responsibility. Civic patriotism and civic intelligence influence civic responsibility. By gaining the skills ascribed to civic patriotism and civic intelligence, individuals will become better capable of fulfilling their civic responsibility, that is, to take action. The idea is not to infantilize citizens, but rather to expect civic action from them. This is a bottom-up strategy that views individual duty and responsibility as the crux of maintaining and sustaining a liberal democracy. Individuals (as one or in groups) must voice their concerns when the system of checks and balances itself needs to be checked. Included in the notion of civic responsibility is service learning. Several scholars (e.g., Annette, Barber, Kahne, Putman, Torney-Purta, and Westheimer) see service learning as a key factor in education for citizenship. As Annette (1999) stated, “Service learning is an educational method, which provides a structured learning experience in civic participation, which can lead to the development of the key skills necessary for being an active citizen. It also facilitates the

191 Social Studies Research and Practice Osanloo

acquisition of political knowledge and the ability to engage in reflective understanding that leads to personal development” (p. 91). These three components—civic patriotism, civic intelligence, and civic responsibility— ought to underlie participatory citizenship. These components combine to combat civic schizophrenia, (an inability to create a civic reality because of disparate civic goals), encourage the skills and predispositions of a liberal democracy, and promote the ability to take or engage in social, political, and economic action. In order to clarify how these skills can be applied, it is necessary to discuss the importance of a deliberative democracy. In addition to participatory citizenship, a second component of the conceptual foundation is a deliberative democracy. Deliberative democracy is a term used to describe a mode of decision-making that privileges participation in debate or dialogue, as opposed to mere polling or casting ballots, as the desirable means for arriving at public judgment (Gutmann & Thompson, 1996). Democracy is based on essentials like freedom (of speech, thought, and expression), equality of individuals, and due process. However, agreement as to the construction and implementation of these democratic ideals into policies can produce controversy. As such, in a democracy, there is bound to be moral, political, and theoretical disagreement. A deliberative democracy can offer ways of achieving mutually acceptable decisions, which it pushes individuals to act in the benefit of fairness as opposed solely to self-interest. It aids citizens in acting collectively in pursuit of a common end goal. As Gutmann and Thompson (1996) said, “When citizens reason reciprocally, they seek fair terms of social cooperation for their own sake; they try to find mutually acceptable ways of resolving moral disagreements” (p. 5). Furthermore, deliberative disagreement requires that individuals understand the moral basis for their opponents’ positions. This creates a mutual respect amongst citizens and encourages individuals to exercise their democratic liberties without fear. Essentially, a deliberative democracy organizes people into thinking, acting, and speaking as public citizens. In addition, a deliberative democracy stimulates democratic human agency. Agency is affirmed when individuals feel comfortable entering public spaces and can safely express their opinions and exchange ideas. A deliberative democracy allows citizens to enter such public spaces and become engaged in public discourse, thus giving agency a forum. Genuine articulation of one’s beliefs can often prove difficult. However, because a democracy requires that citizens assert their democratic human agency, it is necessary that individuals feel empowered and capable to do so. It is important that education nurtures the inner dialogue (personal, internal thoughts) of citizens, so they are willing to be agents of a democracy. The third component integral to the conceptual foundation is social egalitarianism. Arneson (2002) defines egalitarianism as “the idea that all human persons are equal in fundamental worth or moral status” and “in modern democratic societies refers to a position that favors, for any of a wide array of reasons, a greater degree of equality of income and wealth across persons than currently exists” (p. 1). The word social is used as a precursor to egalitarianism as a way to define more clearly the socially conscious beliefs and underpinnings ascribed to the word. By social egalitarianism, the author means social justice, equality, freedoms, justice, due process, human rights, economic security, and tolerance and acceptance of cultural diversity. The teaching of basic human rights, a practice that does not exist in most schools as it is not presently required by U.S. Department of Education civic education goals, would help students understand and adhere to social egalitarian beliefs. It would also encourage students to begin a dialogue as to the economic, social, and political status of people in other

192 Social Studies Research and Practice Osanloo

countries. Gutmann (2004) argued that schools are in such dire need of teaching basic human rights that any discussion of the topic would be an improvement upon current practices. An adherence to social egalitarianism would also encourage a globally aware student. Aggressive economic globalization and cultural homogenization could, at worst, contribute to the creation of a monoculture based primarily on Westernized thought, aspirations, and domination. By including social egalitarianism as a foundation of civic education, students will be better equipped for active, participatory citizenship aimed at equality of all people. Furthermore, new dimensions of citizenship education, based on dynamic global events, can be understood more easily by recognizing that democracy and egalitarianism are symbiotically related. Giroux (1996) summarized cogently the politics of theorizing a new national identity. He contends that global changes have provided the conditions for the emergence of new theoretical discourses that pose a powerful challenge to modern assumptions regarding the unity of nationalism, education, and culture. National identity is a shifting, unsettling complexity that translates through a variety of cultures; however, most often it is defined by a middle-class, white, heterosexual hegemonic identity. Engaged, democratic citizens need to advocate for and learn to negotiate the social, political, and cultural differences within diverse multicultural pedagogical spaces.

193 Social Studies Research and Practice Osanloo

References

Abowitz, K. (2002). Imagining citizenship: Cosmopolitanism or patriotism. Teachers College Record, 104. Retrieved July 7, 2005, from www.tcrecord.org Anderson, G. (1998). Toward authentic participation: Deconstructing the discourses of participatory reforms in education. American Research Journal, 35. Annette, J. (1999). Education for citizenship, civic participation, and experiential and service learning in the community. The Schoolfield, X, 85-102. Apple, M.W. (2002). Patriotism, pedagogy, and freedom: On the educational meanings of September 11. Teachers College Record, 104. Retrieved October 15, 2005, from www.tcrecord.org Arneson, (2002). Egalitarianism. The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Retrieved June 15, 2005, from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2002/egalitarianism Banks, J., Banks, C., Cortes, C., Hahn, C., Merryfield, M., Moodley, K., Murphy-Shigematsu, S., Osler, A., Park, C., & Parker, W. (2005). Democracy and diversity: Principles and concepts for educating citizens in a global age. Seattle: University of Washington, Center for Multicultural Education. Barber, B.R. (1996). Jihad vs. McWorld: How globalism and tribalism are reshaping the world. New York: Ballantine Books. Barber, B.R. (2003). Fear’s empire: War, terrorism, and democracy. New York: W.W. Norton and Company. Barber, B.R. (2006). CiviWorld. Benjamin R. Barber. Retrieved October 1, 2005, from www.benjaminbarber.com Bennett, W.J. (2002). Why we fight: Moral clarity and the war on terrorism. New York: Doubleday. Bennett, W.J. (2004). Seizing this teachable moment. Retrieved March 25, 2005, from www.edexcellence.net Buruma, I. & Margalit, A. (2004). Occidentalism: The west in the eyes of its enemies. London: Penguin Press. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: Simon and Schuster. Dewey, J. (1927). The public and its problems. New York: Simon and Schuster. Fonte, J.D. (2000). Post-west syndrome. American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. Retrieved November 15, 2005, from http://www.aci.org/publications/pubID.8259/pub_detail.asp Giroux, H. (1996). Counternarratives: Cultural studies and critical pedagogies in postmodern spaces. New York: Routledge. Giroux, H. (2002). Democracy, freedom, and justice after September 11th: Rethinking the role of educators and the politics of schooling. Teachers College Record, 4(6). Giroux, H. (2004). George Bush’s religious crusade against democracy: Fundamentalism as cultural politics. Retrieved October 25, 2005, from www.dissidentvoice.org Gutmann, A. (April, 1995). Civic education and social diversity. Ethics, 557-579. Gutmann, A. (1996). Democratic citizenship. In J. Cohen (Ed.), For love of country: Debating the limits of patriotism (pgs. 66-71). Boston: Beacon Press. Gutmann, A. (1999). Democratic education. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Gutmann, A. (2000). Why should schools care about civic education? Rediscovering the democratic purposes of education, 73-90.

194 Social Studies Research and Practice Osanloo

Gutmann, A. (2004). Identity in democracy. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Gutmann, A. & Thompson, D. (1996). Democracy and disagreement. Boston: Harvard University Press. Junn, J. (April, 2004). Diversity, immigration, and the politics of civic education. Political Science & Politics. Kelly, M. (2004). Things worth fighting for: Collected writings. New York: Penguin Books. Miller, M.C. (2002). What’s wrong with this picture? The Nation. Retrieved December 1, 2005, from http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020107/miller Murphy, J. (2003). Against civic education in public schools. Retrieved June 2, 2005, from http://www.educationnext.org/unabridged/20034/70.pdf Murphy, J. (2003). Tug of war. Retrieved June 2, 2005, from http://www.educationnext.org/20034/70.html Nussbaum, M. (1996). Patriotism and cosmopolitanism. In J. Cohen (Ed.), For love of country: Debating the limits of patriotism (pp. 3-20). Boston: Beacon. Nussbaum, M. (1997). Cultivating humanity: A classical defense of reform in liberal education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press Nussbaum, M. (2001). Can patriotism be saved? The Nation, December, 11-13. Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. New York: Simon and Schuster. Rorty, R. (1994, February 13). The unpatriotic academy. The New York Times. Op-Ed, E15. Said, E. (1979). Orientalism. New York: Vintage Books. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (2005). Cosmopolitanism. Retrieved October 21, 2005, from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmopolitanism Torney-Purta, J., Schwille, J., & Amadeo, J. (1999). Civic education across countries: Twenty- four national case studies from the IEA civic education project. Amsterdam: The International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). United States Department of Education. (2004). Elementary and secondary education, subpart 3, sections 2341—2346. Retrieved June 15, 2005, from www.ed.gov Westheimer, J. (April, 2003). Citizenship education for a democratic society. Teach Magazine. Westheimer, J. (2004). The politics of civic education. Political Science & Politics, 38, 57-61. Westheimer, J. & Kahne, J. (2002). Educating for democracy. In R. Hayduk & K. Mattson, (2002). Democracy’s moment: Reforming the American political system for the 21st Century (chapter 7, pp. 91-107). Landham, MD: Rowan & Littlefield. Westheimer, J. & Kahne, J. (Summer, 2004). What kind of citizen? The politics of educating for democracy. American Educational Research Journal, 41. Westheimer, J. & Kahne. J. (April, 2004). Educating the “good” citizen: Political choices and pedagogical goals. Political Science & Politics, 38.

195