PDF EDUCATIONAL PHILOSOPHY AND THEORY - Stellenbosch University

EDUCATIONAL PHILOSOPHY AND THEORY

VOLUME 41 NUMBER 4 AUGUST 2009

Introduction to Special Issue: Patriotism and citizenship education

Bruce Haynes

365

Patriotism, History and the Legitimate Aims of American Education

Michael S. Merry

378

Patriotism and Democratic Citizenship Education in South Africa:

On the (im) possibility of reconciliation and nation building

Yusef Waghid

399

A New Patriotism? Neoliberalism, citizenship and tertiary education

in New Zealand

Peter Roberts

410

History Teaching for Patriotic Citizenship in Australia

Bruce Haynes

424

The Debate on Patriotic Education in Post-World War II Japan

Kanako Ide

441

Patriotism in British Schools: Principles, practices and press hysteria

Michael Hand & Joanne Pearce

453

Education for World Citizenship: Beyond National Allegiance

Muna Golmohamad

466

Notes on Contributors

487

Educational Philosophy and Theory, Vol. 41, No. 4, 2009 doi: 10.1111/j.1469-5812.2009.00527.x

I n t r o d u c t i o n BOE01?J5A3Ino04267lPdprxrta2ur.i1675Aurfg1oc0icr39?Tlcki1ndre0n-?2adw1au59a?t0H,1lc8ielo0UTcta/51lAijnl9o.hy72K1Pranmet4liuecp6PAbslei9ulhia-sti5lhthoi8oisn1nrosg2p?.Lh2ty20d0a09n9.d0P0T5h2ielo7os.rxoyphy of Education Society of Australasia

to

Special

Issue:

Patriotism

and citizenship education

Bruce Haynes

The Special Issue

The place of patriotism in citizenship education and the place of citizenship education in schooling are matters that periodically become controversial.

This Special Issue came about because Michael Merry was concerned about the tension between fostering citizenship and social cohesion and, on the other hand, critical thinking and dissent in the context of the United States engaged at home and abroad in George W. Bush's `War on Terror'. In the light of Merry's paper, other authors considered issues central to their contexts that do not have the same theocratic, militaristic government atmosphere but have their own pressing concerns in South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, England and Japan. It was planned to include a European perspective but this was not possible. However, papers by Fejes (2008), Hoskins et al. (2008) and Holford (2008) address some of the matters of concern in this Special Issue. A different kind of perspective on matters of patriotism and citizenship education is provided by consideration of `world citizenship' (Peters et al., 2008).

The tension, identified by Merry and considered by the other authors in their own ways, might be characterised as an aspect of the tension between authority and autonomy as an aim of education in schooling. Other features involved in the discussions include personal and national identity, virtues sanctioned by schooling authority, and the significance of change and context in the resolution of particular tensions.

The authors in this Special Issue are concerned with the question `What intellectual posture should we adopt in confronting the future?' (Toulmin, 1990, p. 2) (italics in original) in order to help identify reasonable horizons of expectation and to articulate attitudes and policies that, if implemented wisely, might make desirable futures happen. In particular, what intellectual posture should we adopt towards the evolution of the `modern' nation state, the ways children are to be educated to live as citizens in such a nation state and what being a patriot means for those citizens who love their country.

Philosophers of education may produce an argument to show that patriotism and citizenship education must always be unacceptable. Philosophers of education may seek to establish precise definitions, clarify relevant concepts, identify presuppositions and check extant arguments for logical adequacy. That done, they could then use these definitions, concepts, presuppositions and logical insights to advance an improved form of an extant argument justifying an aspect of educational practice.

? 2009 The Author Journal compilation ? 2009 Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA

366 Bruce Haynes

Such an aspect of educational practice could be patriotism and citizenship education. In this, reference to actual or hypothetical situations would serve to clarify a point in the analysis. It may be assumed that these definitions, concepts, presuppositions and arguments have general applicability for educators making judgments about their conduct of patriotism and citizenship education. This assumption may be based on a view of philosophical analysis as the exercise of reason/logic by a distanced observer to overcome practitioners' confusions resulting from vagueness, ambiguity, poor reasoning, misdescription, self-interest, narrow focus and/or lack of time and interest to formulate the questions and contemplate the answers. There is a danger, however, that the product of such analysis is so general that it is seen as irrelevant to the conduct of the practice.

Any claim for the universal applicability of a philosophical analysis based solely on the application of reason/logic to something `which might have been otherwise' is seriously flawed. Any attempt to distance the observer so far from a practice that they only utilise reason/logic, in some Olympian god-like manner, results in a failure to understand the practice and so not say anything useful about it. A philosophical observer must use a practitioner's conceptual, normative and moral apparatus to understand and make judgments about the practice. As Aristotle (1962, vi, 1141b) noted `Nor does practical wisdom deal only in universals. It must also be familiar with particulars, since it is concerned with action and action has to do with particulars.' The philosophical observer contemplates the practice to produce a trustworthy account. The philosopher of education's theoretical activity is part of the practice but it is not to engage in the practical action.

`We may approach the subject of practical wisdom by studying the persons to whom we attribute it' (Aristotle, 1962 vi, 1140a). This study should be sensitive to the particulars of context and change over time. As meaning in language is its use and various uses may share common features or have family resemblances, so too they may change over time. Attention to trustworthy accounts of particular contexts may help to highlight common features and significant differences and permit acceptable explanations to be given. This may then be drawn together to form cogent argument to justify practical action in particular cases.

The authors in this Special Issue each offer their accounts of patriotism and citizenship education as an important current educational and social issue in their society. They take differing perspectives on aspects of the topic of significance in their particular context. An advantage of these differing perspectives is that it makes clear that the nature of the discussion and the ways schools respond to concern about patriotism and citizenship education is dependent upon the social, economic and political features of the society in which the discussion is conducted. However, there are some more general aspects of the discussions and responses that are common across many such discussions. The most obvious aspect is the way in which teachers individually, and schools collectively, handle social and political demands on controversial topics. A more general aspect is the way teachers, textbooks, and schools seek to inculcate their own or mandated views such that students are deemed to be well educated. The boundaries within which teachers and schools may safely operate are not clear and subject to contestation. The

? 2009 The Author Journal compilation ? 2009 Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia

Introduction 367

authors in this Special Issue provide insights into how these contests have been conducted in differing contexts.

Patriotism

Participants, enmeshed in controversy over patriotism and citizenship education in a specific schooling system, may not recognise the assumptions of that controversy nor alternatives to the accepted views expressed.

The terms `patriot' and `patriotism' entered the English language in conjunction with the rise of the nation state as a political notion but there seems to be a closer connection. In feudal society, the tribal `line-of-sight' kinship relations were extended with hierarchical relations extending beyond those persons known to an individual. The vassal owes fealty to the lord (both person and position) and, by extension, to the king and so cannot be a patriot as a matter of choice or commitment. With the advent of the nation state the patriot may be called upon to act in the interests of and/or defend King and Country. A citizen of a nation state is without personal obligation to the current holder of a social position. A citizen of the Kingdom of God owes allegiance beyond the office holders of a nation state. In England, after 1534, Anglicans could be patriotic citizens owing allegiance to the head of state and the head of church in the person of the monarch. Catholics were suspected of not being patriotic citizens because of their allegiance to the Pope and so could not hold civic office in 17th and 18th century England. Those inspired by the Enlightenment were bound to follow Reason and so were suspect as patriotic citizens in 18th century France. Some Muslims are in a similar position in several countries at present. A patriot may be bound to defend the institution of head of state (government) but not the current holder of the position, particularly when that holder is not justified in terms of Divine Right or other persuasive argument. The state is more than the current government. The relations between a patriotic citizen and the current government of a democratic nation state (country) are complicated and problematic.

In some super-heated debates about patriotism, the requirement for love of country or suchlike shifts from commitment to heroism. The tolerated or approved forms of patriotic behaviour may also narrow to unquestioning obedience to the policies and directives of those in power, perhaps justified on the basis that the urgency of the situation is such that it does not permit the luxury of diversion of resources required for dissent. Some societies may not be jingoistic but, instead, jinglistic--devoted to commercial jingles promoting selfish consumption. So philosophical discussion of patriotism and citizenship education may need to take into account some aspects of the context, in particular, whether the society is in normal/ desirable mode or in extraordinary/ crisis mode. It may also need to take account of the degree of consensus in the society and the use of patriotism as a means to advance a particular view or set of interests.

Those who know the answers to fundamental questions, and have organised their society on the basis of a detailed working out of consequences of those answers, may not wish to risk the children making mistakes by challenging those answers in

? 2009 The Author Journal compilation ? 2009 Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia

368 Bruce Haynes

school. Instead, it may seem preferable to have all children in that society wholeheartedly committed to participating in the projects to advance social interests as approved and articulated by the government. Critical thinking and dissent may seem to the faithful to be, at best, distracting and annoying or, at worst, subversive. Whether it be the Hitler Youth, the Pioneer/Komsomol or religious schools in a theocratic state, leaders of such societies may well support systems that help develop patriotic citizens. Patriotism, as blind allegiance to authority, may be efficient and/or effective in some circumstances but deemed to be unacceptable to those who do not hold the same views as those in authority. Patriotism of this kind may also be thought to be bad in principle and that autonomy, blind allegiance to the use of reason, is the acceptable alternative. Autonomy, if based on unacceptable values such as selfishness, may also be objectionable. Resnik (2008) provides other objections. Tolerance or compassion ( White, 2008) may be an antidote to both forms of unacceptable behaviour but, if construed narrowly, are passive. In many circumstances a more active, positive stance is required and care for the self may also involve beneficence. A further question then arises, in particular circumstances, as to the nature and extent of good that is appropriate to do for different groups of people. Education for patriotic citizenship provides some answers for members of that society at that time.

A further set of questions arise related to why an individual should be, or should choose to be, a patriot in the country in which they or their parents were born or happen to reside. Being born in a country is neither necessary nor sufficient for patriotism. Patriotism may be a matter of unconditional obligation, a consequence of the type of person, or the result of informed critical choice for citizens or denizens in a nation state. If an individual can choose whether to be a patriotic citizen, upon what basis should such choice be made? Educators promoting patriotism would need to do so on the basis of some answers to questions such as these.

While geographic/political boundaries are usually seen as the limits of patriotism, it is also worth considering the ambit of patriotism in terms of time. Consideration of the interests of future generations may limit actions taken to further present interests or may require patriotic actions that run counter to some present interests. The global warming debates have a significant future interests component and highlight the temporal aspect of what it is to be a patriot. It is one of the attractions of patriotism that it tempers the pursuit of self-interest with consideration of and action furthering other-interest. It is one of the problems of patriotism to differentiate between the other-interests to be supported, those to be contested and those to be ignored.

Merry defines `patriotism' as `a special affinity one has toward her homeland (or, adopted homeland) which fosters a deep psychological attachment and pride'.

Merry identifies `loyal patriotism' as a disposition of uncritical support for current political leadership and its nationalist ambitions and actions. He argues that cultivating loyal patriotism in schools is untenable insofar as it conflicts with the legitimate aims of schools. Those aims include epistemological competence in various disciplines, critical thinking skills and capacity for economic self-reliance.

? 2009 The Author Journal compilation ? 2009 Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download