Theoretical background
Constructivist understanding of reality and values in education
The theoretical and methodological background of this e-module requires to present and explain several philosophical and meta-theoretical phenomena that are strongly linked both to the main aims of this project regarding the change of general understanding of educational concepts and interpretation of political values as well as to the practical and empirical exercises which are presented below.
Regarding these theoretical phenomena, this part is supposed to reflect especially such concepts of civic culture that can be both applied and adjusted according to the needs and goals of postmodern sensitive education:
A) understanding the difference between teaching about something (knowledge) and teaching something (skills, attitudes, interpretations);
B) theoretical reflection of the procedural and constructivist understanding of social reality and values
C) awareness of the theoretical and philosophical interpretation of collective (national) identities with a special emphasis on modern nationalism.
A) Teaching something versus teaching about something
Concerning the first phenomenon (A) difference between teaching about something (knowledge) and teaching something, such a difference reflects the basic tension between generally assumed and preferred outcomes of state-run education, i.e. are we supposed to focus more on facts as an already fabricated sum of accepted knowledge, or shall weunderstand learning and teaching as never-ending processes where the object of knowledge is constantly formulated and reformulated according to the cognitive shifts, interpretative skills and changing essence of social reality?
Such a gap between teachers focusing more on factually based education as a one-way process of “sending and receiving information” on the one hand and teachers trying to boost the idea of education as a duplex process based more on developing students’ skills than on traditional “learning of definitions” on the other hand is moreover even more urgent in cultural milieus that had undergone the communist past (i.e. especially Central, East-Central and Eastern European countries).
After 1989, most of these post-communist countries were undergoing far-reaching social, economic and cultural changes within a short period of time (Wiatr, 2020, Evans – Whitefield, 1998); changes that of course affected the educational system and theory and philosophy of education as well. In this regard, the question “why and how to teach social sciences and national history” became quite urgent at that time since the former Marxist-Leninist discourse had narrowed the perspective of thinking about society and human values into very ideological and materialist point of view. Hence, two diverse tendencies in the theory of education after 1989 in the post-communist countries can be found:
- 1) to replace the distorted communist interpretation of society with the “right” image of the world (i.e. to maintain the “political” and “ideological” character of social education, but to “cure the harms” that had been caused by the previous socialist educational discourse in the past with the help of new ideological patterns of anti-communism and Western neo-liberal democracy);
- 2) to deny such far-reaching public framework of social education and reject similar transitional missions by claiming that the educational process should be freed from any kind of “politicisation” and ideological “propaganda” (i.e. the ideal paragon of this approach consisted in the concept of schooling that does not reflect current political and social situations, events and challenges and remains limited to the educational process itself with a focus on objectivist and thus assumingly “safe” facts and topics).
This second approach, therefore, also suggested that all subjects which reflect social and political reality should be viewed as merely redundant phenomena carrying an essence inherited from the times of Marxist-Leninist interpretation of civic education which had just taken on a new façade conforming to a democratic regime. In this regard, education concerning social sciences such as civics was frequently treated as inherently biased, ideological and thus also dangerous for securing the non-political character of post-communist school system.
We can thus seem that any introduction of political science (and political issues as well) into the educational process (irrespective of the question whether it is applied to the post-communist or different environment) might face two typical reactions. One can also admit that both these approaches in fact works with the same aforementioned dilemma concerning the question to what extent state-run education should (not) be embedded in the particular ideological context and how it should reflect the current political and social dilemmatic issues as challenges for intellectual and educational reflection. The first reaction is based on the belief that political education itself is obsolete, as any curriculum must be ideologically motivated, and thus inimical to the traditional image of schooling as inherently apolitical dimension (Knowles – Castro, 2019). The second and more mitigated view is that subjects dealing with politics can be taught in schools, but the material presented must be strictly reduced to teaching typologies and facts that contemporary political science uses for descriptions of politics as such.
Nonetheless, the main theoretical and philosophical perspective of this e-module is to demonstrate that both these approaches are insufficient, since they both are able to equip students with more or less precise knowledge of various definitions, but they also lack the understanding of the communication of politics as something to be experienced as real, i.e. as the sets and series of concrete activities, functions and positions in our everyday lives that should constantly be investigated, assessed and critiqued (Weinberg – Flinders, 2018; Cogan – Derricott, 2000).
This is the main reason why this theoretical and traditional concept of teaching about something (i.e. politics and civic culture in this case), the parallel process of teaching something (i.e. politics and civic culture in this case) should take place in the postmodern (and in the East-Central European space also post-communist) educational process. This concept of teaching something instead of teaching about something should focus more on experiencing specific situations and internalising attitudes that can be identified with the attributes of democratic political and civic culture in the 21st century as a desirable tool for all young citizens in terms of a basic orientation in central dilemmatic questions. An example of these pressing issues would be the tension between the individual’s own particular idea of individual happiness and political power that determines as well as limits these ideas: Why should we defend democratic principles? Why are we supposed to care not only about our own interests and values but about the concept of civil society as well? What does it mean exactly that besides the numerous other roles and identities young people are expected to take on – friend, student, employee, athlete, artist, etc. – we are expected to be good citizens?
B) Procedural and constructivist understanding of social reality and values
Addressing questions such as what it means to be a good citizen requires the very definitional and theoretical approaches that we recommend to substitute for with a more constructivist and procedural understanding of educational processes (Henderson, 1996). After all, how can we recognize which authority in the contemporary postmodern society should determine desirable patterns of citizenship? How should we distinguish between acceptable and inappropriate forms of political participation? In fact, if one faces the fundamental dilemma between the variability of possible meanings of political terms on the one hand, and the required patterns of political behaviour that students are expected to follow on the other, the escape into the world of universal, straightforward, unambiguous and seemingly neutral world of definitions might be assessed as a safe solution.
Any insistence on unequivocal definitions ignores today’s social reality as well as the floating essence of value concepts, which have undergone through serious evolution and modifications over the past few centuries. Although “ordinary” issues are referred to in our everyday lives such as honour, morality, the common good, citizenship, liberty and democracy, what is usually neglected is the fact that these words have been passed down from the ancient times without taking into consideration the contextual embeddedness of these terms in historical languages and social structures (Bevir, 2000; MacIntyre 2013).
Any identification of meanings of values and social science terms with historical paragons is in fact frequently based on distorted and embellished narratives of the past which is not treated in terms of historical analysis, but as a mythical dimension of artificial heroes whose virtues are expected to be simply transposed into our modern times.
Moreover, this mythologization of the past concerning the interpretations of desirable public life and democracy is obviously strongly linked to the question of national narratives which may reflect on recent history as well.
Nevertheless, this revelation and deconstruction of the mythological character of most seemingly scientific interpretations of political values and word meanings should not be considered as a relativist appeal which would recommend to disregard all narratives based on idealist historical examples and national evaluations of collective identity. If a more pluralist and critical perspective is applied into the schooling process, this should not be considered as an appeal to “empty the national pantheon” through attempts to free the national narrative of any hero who may (potentially) be interpreted controversially, but as an attempt to make the understanding of particular decisions and historical contexts clearer, i.e. we should not forget to “mind the gap” that distinguishes the dimension of our own thoughts and deeds from those of our ancient ancestors.
The exploration of such gaps is, however, a fundamental starting point for the application of procedural teaching about democracy and civic culture (Davies – Gregory – Riley, 1999; Weinberg – Flinders, 2018).
The goal is to present and understand citizenship not as a limited sum of eternal values and personal attributes, but more as a contextual set of behaviours that emerge and remain fully dependent on various political contents. Although the same or a similar understanding of togetherness and collective responsibility can be contemplated, we must leave the artificial and black-and-white interpretation of national (civil) heroes aside. A good citizen is no longer the representative of a cult of historical (mis)interpretation of flawless “robots,” but anyone who respects the basic Aristotelian concept of polis, i.e. a community in which all members are mutually responsible not only for each other, but for the collective as a whole.
It is precisely the community that determines the individual’s liberty and equal rights as well as fosters a common mentality and identity. Preserving the rights and privileges of the individual versus ensuring that the duties and responsibilities to society are carried out is a conflict as old as civilization itself. Yet these two goals are not only not mutually exclusive, but wholly interdependent on each other.
Hence, there is no space for connecting the concept of good citizenship in the educational process with any kind of particular ideological, religious or moral motives. Civic education is not (or no longer) about presenting these kinds of meanings and definitions, but about understanding ongoing processes, e.g. with regard to an overlapping consensus that is created and maintained deliberatively (Rawls, 1987). The question of who is or is not a good citizen thus should not be presented to students with one ultimate answer, as the assessment is based on never-ending sets of negotiations, theoretical reflections and adjusted public behaviours.
As Ernst Renan famously identified the preservation of national identity with collective willingness and an imaginary everyday plebiscite (Renan, 1939) which enables national togetherness to be permanently and regularly contested, the same can be said for the concept of good citizenship.
Moreover, another advantage of the procedural model of teaching democracy is that it fosters an ability to avoid anachronist and ideological interpretations of both historical cases as well as contemporary social issues such as the definition of the nation or preferred foreign policies. The essence of good citizenship is thus identified not with ideal content and the worldviews of the particular received historical and current heroes, but with the question of legitimate civic attitudes and behaviour as well as with willingness to consider the collective impact of one’s individual deeds. By following this line of reasoning, we can avoid situations in which cases of exaggerated collectivism, radical nationalism, xenophobic intolerance or irrational fanaticism could be labelled by students as affirmative examples of desirable civic courage from earlier times.
In addition to all of this, the procedural and constructivist understanding of teaching democracy provides also another advantage regarding the enhancement of soft skills in the educational process. Contrary to social science education as merely memorising and repeating “phone lists and taxonomical schemes, the constructivist treatment of civic education enables the teaching of something even under circumstances in which the subject of education cannot be precisely defined since its essence lies in the permanently pluralist and changing character of particular connotations.
In this way, the belief can be promulgated that civic education need not be limited to the scope of specialized subjects such as humanities, but should be extended to all subjects as a matter of globalist teaching strategies. In this regard, it is reasonable to accept the idea of social science education as a game with gross concepts (Shapiro, 2005) instead of universal meanings, as its significant aim does not reside in the linguistic purism that the teacher is expected to provide.
The procedural concept of teaching democracy should be considered more as an allegory of a journey through a tortuous maze, not a straightforward walk down a path. Only on the condition that both the educator and the citizen-student are able to work with ever-changing concepts on the fly can good citizenship emerge as a living idea, not a mere textbook definition to be learned by rote.
C) Theoretical understanding of collective (self)-identification and nationalism
Even though “nations” and “nationalism” are still frequently treated as “objective” or even primordial and thus eternal categories, any attempt to reflect the question of collective (self)-identification with the national principle at the forefront in the educational process should reflect fundamental theoretical debates over nationalism; for instance the implementation of non-primordial approaches such as Renan´s concept of a “daily plebiscite” (Renan, 1939), Anderson´s thesis about imagined communities (Anderson, 1983) and a discursive understanding of collective identities (Wodak, 1999) should be employed in the public discourse as well as in education curricula much more significantly. Although the traditional dichotomy between the old, “dangerous”, backward and Eastern understanding of ethnic nationalism and the progressive, civilized, democratic and Western concept of civic nationalism has already been overcome (Jaskulowski, 2010), it is clear that any strengthening of pluralist and liberal values in contemporary Czech society requires the promotion of the thesis that nations are not predestined communities based on their “blood” origins, as many proponents of ethnic purity in Central Europe still claim (Kamusella, 2012).
Nonetheless, even if one accepts the outcomes of constructivist approach towards identity and nationalism, one should not neglect the influential dominance of ethnic patterns, chauvinism and xenophobic interpretation of national identity prevailing in Central and Eastern Europe of the 21st century despite the former optimistic and universalist prophecies (Fukuyama 2006)
Facing the rising popularity of populist radical right parties, building their main political images on “time-proven” patterns of ethnic nationalism (Pirro, 2015), it is necessary to abandon the influential neo-liberal doctrine – so popular in the 90’s – which claimed that postmodern societies are able to base the affiliation of their members only on the concept of self-interest. Ethnic clashes linked to the very serious issue of Central European minorities and the recent dilemma of maintaining so-called homogenous societies within the refugee crisis (Bauerová, 2018), as well as the discursive revival of the rhetoric of national interest in the narratives of certain political parties in this territory (Toomey, 2018) clearly demonstrate the urgent social need for non-economic and holistic forms of collective self-identification.
One of the problems of the post-communist transformation lay in a too narrow and prejudiced understanding of national feelings, which were frequently presented as being an anachronist part of the fading world that was supposed to be replaced by the more universal values of the neoliberal doctrine. This severe black-and-white dichotomy, depicting liberal values and nationalism as two contradictory interpretations of a desirable social existence, created a very clear-cut, though dangerous, quandary in the ordinary perception of individual identity: if one accepts the progressive values of human rights, individual freedom, pluralism and tolerance, one has to resign from one’s affiliation to traditions and national pride, or one can adhere to the essence of national identity, but then it means one prefers backward, irrational and atavistic illusions to the desirable trends of progressive and universal rationalism.
The redoubtable trends of populism, xenophobia and illiberalism in the last two decades in Central Europe (Ágh, 2015; Zakaria, 1997) apparently suggest that the dominant interpretations of collective – and especially national – identity still represent one of the most serious challenges to social stability and also to the question of the optimal implementation of nationalism and national discourse in the paradigm of contemporary schooling. Hence, the acceptance of the fact that there must be some space for national discourse in politics, society, and culture as well as in educational documents and study materials should also be related to a correlated assumption that different ways of reading and defining national identity must be found. However, in this regard, it is not the invention of completely new approaches, but a consideration of fruitful constructivist theoretical notions about nationalism in the educational process that is necessary.
When the famous Hungarian philosopher, István Bibó, proclaimed his prophecy about the post-war expulsion of German minorities from the Central European countries, which he considered harmful to the majoritarian societies of Czechs, Poles and Hungarians as it caused the loss of their ability to live in an atmosphere of otherness (Bibó, 2015), he had anticipated a threat to Central European identities many years before it occurred. The evolution of these identities might be seen as a permanent shift towards the “ideal” of the hermetically sealed community that must care about its own purity and thus has to expel everything which might be assessed as foreign and alien. Since the second half of the 19th century, the “spectre” of a closed concept of collective identity started to haunt Central Europe and the heritage of a heterogeneous identity of patriotism, not based on language or ethnicity but on belonging to a political community, had been lost (Snyder, 2003).
However, which role should these former alternative and non-primordial patterns of collective togetherness play right now? And how should this thesis be applied in current educational processes and techniques? In this regard, the reformulation of fundamental social values and the re-understanding of one’s individual identity is crucial, since the ability and willingness to perceive national identity as something different from the primordial categories requires not only critical reflection on shifts in language meanings (highlighting the fact that the same term might have stood for something different in the discourse of the past), but also needs the implementation of the aforementioned constructivist approaches to the research into and the popular image of nationalism.
Fundamental values, conceptual principles & teaching methods
Regarding the main abovementioned general objectives of the constructivist approaches in the educational process, this e-module endeavours to demonstrate that any systematic application of more holistic and constructivist methods into the national educational process should begin with a definition of both the flexible and procedural delimitation of the principles of good citizenship as well as to identify the appraised outcomes as well as threats to be avoided. On the basis of such an approach, the following attributes may be put forward as the main value and conceptual principles of this e-module:
- Good citizenship should not be treated as a sum of particular universal values but as the procedural ability of an individual human being to consider own life as a communicating vessel that is inherently linked to the life of a community bounding individuals by the principles of a social contract with the aim to achieve not only convergent but collective goods (Taylor, 2003).
- The concept of good citizenship is not about knowledge to be tested and evaluated, but about experience and attitudes that may be trained and reflected via the simulation of the situations from the everyday public life.
- Educational training in good citizenship demands mechanisms of checks and balances preventing any of the actors from identifying the question of civic principles with intentionally or unwittingly promoted particular worldviews or ideological beliefs.
- The concept of good citizenship should therefore reflect the actor’s own embeddedness in liberal discourse and a constructivist paradigm, since only on this condition the preferred ideal of neutrality and impartiality can be accepted, not as the absence of preferences and interests or even a naïve belief in the existence of platonic values independent of social ideas and expressions about human life, but as an intentional declaration of the actor’s own attitudes and behaviours that the actor is willing to change through a dialogue with competing visions.
- Civic education is also assumed to forestall any kind of relativist indications, an idea which would suggest that the acceptance of the pluralism of meanings and their dependence on particular social contexts is expected to support the anything goes principle instead of treating rational public debate as the optimal tool to enforce particular sets of beliefs in a more just and fair way than a mere reliance on traditional authoritarian and tautological techniques such as the universalist language of an assumed “normality.”
- A postmodern understanding of good citizenship should therefore also endeavour to replace the traditional conception of language as a universal depiction of social reality and a sum of absolutes with a discursive understanding of terms as merely floating signifiers (Mehlman, 1972) which must be permanently discussed and re-interpreted (Foucault, 2002, Hanan, 2015; Burtonwood, 2006).
Methods used in this e-module
- individual work
- team work
- discussion
- case study
- movie analysis
- discourse analysis
- writing
- critical analysis of the text