Possibilities and Constraints for a More Critical-Democratic Citizenship in Contemporary Education? The Role of Psychology

• In Event: Is “Political Apathy” a Danger for Our Future Democracy? Possibilities for Better Educational Practices

Abstract

The moral is always embedded in social and political power relationships. The paper concentrates on educational possibilities for the type of citizenship that one seeks to develop. Is contemporary educational policy and practice more focused on an adaptive type of citizenship, or on an individualistic or a critical-democratic type that stresses both autonomy and social commitment and moral values diversity? What are the possibilities for a more critical-democratic type of citizenship and citizenship education in contemporary society? How do these different types of citizenship relate with educational practices? And what is the role of psychological theory and practical thinking in possibilities and constraints for a more critical-democratic citizenship?

In research, quantitative and qualitative, we presented pedagogical goals (moral values) to teachers, school leaders, students and parents (Veugelers, 2007; Leenders, Veugelers & De Kat, 2008a; 2008b, 2012). We asked them how important they find these pedagogical goals, how much attention is paid to them in practice and which learning effects they observe. In analyzing the data we find three clusters of goals: on discipline, on autonomy, and on social concern. We can link these goals to three types of citizenship. The adaptive type of citizenship tries to adapt people to existing social and political power relations, without taking a critical stance. The individualistic type of citizenship embraces personal autonomy of the individual and neglects social relationships to other people. The critical-democratic type of citizenship focuses on building social relationships, diversity and democracy and tries to stimulate an active and critical engagement of citizens. The adaptive development is mostly linked with whole classroom instruction that aims for the transfer and reproduction of fixed knowledge. The pedagogical approach is characterized by following the rules set by the authority. The individualistic development focuses on personal autonomy, selection, competition and individual performance. The knowledge development is seen as individually constructive. The critical-democratic development demands dialogue, diversity, critical reflection, analysis of power relationships, and social action. Cooperative and dialogical learning; knowledge construction as social-constructivism.

The paper will show strong differences between the intended and realized practices in education. Our own studies and international comparative studies like ICCS and World values study show that Dutch youngsters are strongly oriented to autonomy, results on social concern show a mixed view. In the analyses of the goals and practices we focus at the discourses on the level of the policy, schools, teachers’ narratives, and academic disciplines. In this paper we will in particular focus on the role of psychology, both academic and popular. On the level of the policy a neo-liberal discourse is dominant, in schools selection and focus on the individual, in practice self-regulated learning, and academic and practice educational and psychological discourse is child-centered and individualized. The student is seen as an individual, not as a social human being. How can these educational practices be changed in a more social-oriented direction? What kind of psychology do we need?

Author

• Wiel M. Veugelers, University of Humanistic Studies Utrecht