To be published in: Ethics in Progress (EiP), fall 2018: https://pressto.amu.edu.pl/index.php/eip Discussion Theatre A Method of Democratic Education Georg Lind 1 "As surely as visual representation is more powerful than dead letters or cold narration, it is equally certain that the stage wields a more profound and more lasting influence than morality or law." Friedrich Schiller, The Stage Considered as a Moral Institution (1784). "The self-dependence with which [the public] acts excludes every outside influence; and it is not in so far as [the presentation] helps reflection (which contains an obvious contradiction), but only in so far as it creates freedom for the intellectual faculties..." Friedrich Schiller, On the Aesthetic Education of Man (1793-95). Abstract Democracy is bound to fail if its citizens lack opportunities to develop their moral-democratic competence, that is, their ability to solve conflicts through thinking and discussion, instead of through violence, deceit or submitting to others. The concept of Discussion Theatre has been designed to provide such a learning opportunity. In contrast to traditional theatre, there is no above and below, no division between actors and listeners – all are participants. The Discussion Theatre is the “public” version of the Konstanz Method of Dilemma Discussion (KMDD), which is been successfully used in institutions of education in many countries for over two decades. The Democratic Paradox The greatest threat to democracy, it seems, comes from democracy itself: it can destroy itself. The con- stitution and the laws are powerless in the face of this paradox. The success of politicians inimical to democracy at the polls here and in other countries shows that the threat is real. If we restrict our endeavors to sustain democracy merely to demands for structural change and leave people out of account democracy can turn into dictatorship. We all live in a state of ambivalence. On the one hand we desire more democracy, but, on the other, the demands made upon us by living together in a democracy are often too great and can give rise to fear. Living in a democracy means that people must deal with and attempt to solve problems and conflicts on their own and cannot leave this process to others. This often involves exhausting disputes with people who think differently. In the hope of finding relief from the strain of such disputes we often wish for stricter laws. But with every law that is passed we restrict the freedom and equality we actually desire. We already have more laws than we know and can follow and more than the legal system can enforce on all people. Increases in legislation also lead to more inequality than a democracy can bear in the long term. Whereas freedom is diminished for the average citizen, rich citizens can often even expand the scope of their freedom with the help of expensive lawyers. But even if we had perfect laws and perfect morality these could not protect us from the need to deal with problems and conflicts. This had to be acknowledged by a group of training officers I worked with on a program commissioned by the Inspector General of the German Armed Forces, which was designed to promote the capacity of soldiers for reflection and discussion. The officers at first expressed doubts about the necessity of such training, as, in their opinion, the decisions of the soldiers were determined solely by the requirements of command and obedience. When I told them the story of a soldier who had to make a difficult decision and asked them whether he had taken the right decision the categories of command and obedience where of no help to them. They immediately began to discuss vehemently. After making this experience they were highly motivated to learn how to promote the capacity for reflection and discussion. Lacking Moral Competence Criminality and anti-democratic movements are not an expression of a disposition towards evil, as is sometimes asserted, but signalize a lack of moral and democratic competence (briefly termed moral competence, Lind 1998). We know today that people who lack this ability can usually only solve problems or conflicts by resorting to violence or deceit or by subjecting themselves to the leadership of others. Moral competence is not a "hypothetical construct" ascertained non-transparently by means of arbitrary statistical procedures. It is, rather, a genuine ability, which is openly revealed in people's beha- vior. It can, for example, be readily recognized by the way people react to arguments in a discussion. (Lind 2015) People who lack moral competence cannot distinguish between opinions and arguments. Conse- quently they have no understanding for the task of evaluating arguments for or against a point of view, after they have expressed their own opinion. "Why should I repeat myself", one participant in such a test protested. When their moral competence begins to emerge, they tackle the task, but fail to understand that arguments are meant to help them test the validity of their own opinions (rationality); they only use the arguments to defend their original opinion (rationalization). As a result they indiscriminately accept all arguments that support their decision and no less indiscriminately reject opposing arguments. It is only at a certain level of moral competence that people recognize that arguments are a means of testing and, if need be, rethinking the correctness of decisions on the basis of moral orientation. Their growing competence is revealed when they no longer only judge arguments by the degree of conformity with their own opinions, but also in terms of their moral quality. Only at this point in their development are people in a position to reflect on problems and conflicts on the basis of moral criteria. And only now are they able to reach a consensus with other people without resorting to violence or deceit or without being forced by others to accept a consensus. This is an indispensable precondition for democratic opinion formation and even for democracy itself. It is therefore important that all people have the opportunity to develop a minimum of moral competence. The consequences of a lack of moral competence can be limited by more police control but they cannot be overcome in this way. It is not possible to place a watchdog alongside each and every individual in order to prevent them behaving in a criminal way or forcing them to behave cooperatively. This would not only overstrain the financial possibilities a society has but also its moral resources. As Immanuel Kant pointed out (1784), policemen, lawyers, government officials and legislators also need to be controlled. "Man is an animal which...requires a master... But whence does he get this master? Only from the human race. But then the master is himself an animal and needs a master." The findings of many empirical studies, including experiments, leave scarcely any room for doubt about the causal significance of moral competence for peaceful coexistence without violence and deceit (for sources see Kohlberg & Candee1984; Lind 2015). A lack of moral competence leads people to practice deceit in examination situations and to cover up their own and other people's violations of rules, not to report observed breaches of a rule, to quickly lose their trust in a cooperation partner, to ignore agreed arrangements, to follow immoral orders of authorities (Milgram Experiment), to take drugs when they are in difficult circumstances, to refuse to help people in need, to take too much time and energy when making simple decisions, to disturb lessons and to show low learning performance. Lack of moral competence is possibly also responsible for the very high correlation between economic inequality in a society and poverty, disease, criminality, mistrust of others, xenophobia and other scourges of mankind. (Wilkinson & Prickett 2010) Excessive striving for wealth at the expense of others and of nature seems to be a consequence of the inability to solve conflicts and problems on the basis of law and morality. When the wealth sought for by far exceeds what is needed for an agreeable life wealth seems to have become an end in itself. People then need it for its own sake, in order to protect themselves from the consequences of their own actions, for example when they buy islands as places of residence, turn their property into fortifications, acquire houses in "safe" countries, hire personal bodyguards, employ expensive lawyers or make donations to political parties. Recently, for example, the chief executive of a big company frankly justified his income of 10 million euros a year by pointing out that he was always living "with one foot in prison". Education is imperative For democracy to function effectively people must be enabled to solve problems and conflicts for themselves by reflection and discussion on the basis of moral principles instead of resorting to violence or deceit or abandoning their freedom and subjecting themselves to a leader. Democracy needs education. “Educate, then, at any rate, for the age of implicit self-sacrifice and instinctive virtues is already flitting far away from us, and the time is fast approaching when freedom, public peace and social order itself will not be able to exist without education.” This is the conclusion drawn by Alexis de Tocqueville (Democracy in America 1835), who, in the 1830s, intensively studied the then young US American democracy. The same position is also adopted by Thomas Jefferson (1940), the author of the American Declaration of Independence. If we believe that the citizens are not mature enough for democracy, he repeatedly wrote, then we should not take democracy from them, but must promote their maturity through education. The founders of American democracy thus placed the greatest value on the education of all citizens.