Democracy: From an Abstract Idea to an Everyday Educational Practice

• In Event: Roundtable Session 27
  In Roundtable Session: Democracy, Hegemony, and Totalitarianism: An Educational Study

Abstract

Employing qualitative methods, the purpose of this paper is to examine two basic components of democracy, the notions of individuality and enmassification as they play out in the contemporary democratic project. In this paper, enmassification is described as a process of moving away from individuality – i.e., human plurality – toward becoming part of “the crowd” (Le Bon, 1895/1996) – i.e., masses of people. Further, oral history, which records stories of individuals and groups for the purpose of enriching historical accounts, is taken up as a possible productive form of democratic practice in education. Contemporary examples of (un)democratic practices that involve individuality and enmassification are analyzed, as well as the accounts of Cypriot high school students who have participated in an oral history project in 2011-2012. The space of tension in this work reflects the ways individuality play out in democracy and how voices are un/heard in the particular and in the crowd.
Drawing upon Dewey (1916), Arendt (1958), and Ayers’ (2004) theoretical constructs of democracy and freedom, this paper more specifically examines how individuality and society coexist. Dewey suggests that there needs to be deliberate effort to sustain and extend individualization within the broader needs of a community; Arendt understands that “‘the facts’ of human plurality” (Levinson, 2001, p. 333) are a necessary condition for political action and freedom; Ayers contends that education in a democracy is distinct because of the commitment to the idea that the fullest development of all is the necessary condition for the full development of each. Simultaneously, organized crowds have always played an important part in human history. Le Bon (1896) distinguishes the unconscious action of crowds from the conscious activity of individuals. When individuals are gathered together in a crowd for purposes of political action, new “psychological characteristics” (p. v) evolve, which differ from the mere fact of being assembled.
Aiming to further scrutinize and analyze individuality and enmassification, various examples within the current socio-economic and political context will be examined in Cyprus, Greece, and beyond (e.g., mass migration, massive demonstrations, and the loss of individuality and identity through generalized theories and slogans in education). To examine the value of oral history in the democratic project, data from an oral history project that a group of students conducted with a number of Cypriot freedom fighters of 1955-1959 are analyzed. The analysis concerns both students’ accounts regarding their project involvement and the interviewees’ personal narratives of their 1955-1959 experiences.
This work acquires scholarly significance as it looks for voices that can contribute to and address democracy on the ground. A question posed is, “How might oral history contribute to the democratic project and how can using it in education address democratic practices?” Concluding, I warn that oral history should not be another way of gathering data or merely reading and listening to individual voices but rather should be appreciated as a dynamic interplay between the individual and the collective.

Author

• Nicoletta Christodoulou, Frederick University