Civic Education Post 9/11
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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