Symposium Introduction: Education for Democratic Sustainability and Transformation

Abstract

This symposium was initiated by Michele Moses to coincide with her term as President of the Philosophy of Education Society in 2023 under the conference theme “Democratic Education in Undemocratic Times.” In her 2023 Presidential Address, Moses urged philosophers of education to respond to what she framed as a democratic “crisis” in the United States and around the world.¹ Moses was referring specifically to legislation coming from the political right that aims to halt efforts such as diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs seeking to create more inclusive schools and the teaching of race or other so-called “divisive issues.” She also expressed concern about the “post-truth” culture that undermines democracy by spreading misinformation in a (quite successful) strategy that leaves the public unable to agree on the facts that matter for solving our most complex social problems. In the address, Moses argued that “As scholars we have a special responsibility to use our expertise to counter antidemocratic forces like these. In particular, as philosophers of education we can do what we do so well: analyze the debates, clarify key concepts, and offer recommendations towards democracy-sustaining — or perhaps more importantly — democracy-transforming education.”² This symposium takes up Moses's call.

Papers in the symposium were selected from those submitted through a call for proposals. Early drafts were developed through a preconference workshop cosponsored by Educational Theory and the Philosophy of Education Society at the society's 2023 annual conference in Chicago, Illinois. The preconference was led by Paula McAvoy, Rebecca M. Taylor, and Terri S. Wilson. In addition to Paula McAvoy, Li-Ching Ho, Demetri Morgan, and Tony Laden served as lead discussants on the paper drafts. Following the preconference, and formal comments from its leaders, authors revised and resubmitted their papers for final review.

The resulting collection addresses the following questions: In the context of “undemocratic times,” what are the aims and practices of democracy-sustaining education? What responsibilities do educators have to enact these forms of democratic education? What ethical challenges emerge for teachers and what does good judgment require? The authors approach these questions from a diverse array of philosophical foundations, including pragmatism, liberal political philosophy, capabilities theory, queer theory, epistemic injustice, ancient philosophy, and womanism. Together, they consider democratic education across the life span, with attention to early childhood, K–12, higher education, and adult education.

The first set of papers addresses the aims of democratic education. The opening article by Sarah Stitzlein offers a pragmatist view of citizenship education in the context of rising populism. Stitzlein investigates an underexamined area in citizenship education: the nature of truth.³ Comparing populist truth with pragmatist truth, she argues for an understanding of pragmatic truth that broadens citizenship education to include helping students understand the populist critique of liberal democracy and to develop the civic habit of inquiry. Next, Sheron Fraser-Burgess and Chris Higgins reject the idea that political polarization is a new phenomenon and instead interrogate whether the concept sets up “false choice” between civic unity and a fractured society.⁴ Instead, they draw upon views of pluralism and citizenship to argue for a form of “deep pluralism” that is attentive to psychological and social challenges of trying to be an individual within a social order. They argue for a conception of pluralism that “communicate[s] our common interest in confronting our incommensurabilities” as a path through these apparent contradictions. Last, Josh Coleman and Jon Wargo present an analysis of two policies that bear on queer civics education: one that bans LGBTQ+ content from public spaces for young children and another that requires inclusion of LGBTQ+ content in the public school history curriculum.⁵ By reading across these two policies, they identify hermeneutical injustices that arise in relation to both exclusionary policies and policies that aim to be inclusive. They argue that “the (Queer) Child is an organizing logic that aligns civic education with the cis-straight state.” Their critical analysis points to possibilities for reimagining queer civics education.

The next set turns to the work of teachers in schools. Joy Dangora Erickson and Winston Thompson address so-called “divisive concepts” legislation and the ways in which these mandates create ethical challenges for early childhood educators.⁶ Their paper frames civic education as moral education and argues that early childhood is an important moment for teaching about bias and racism. They then present a qualitative case example of a kindergarten teacher navigating between a state mandate that prohibits “teaching discrimination” and what she regards as appropriate strategies for developing an inclusive civic culture in the classroom. The authors shape their analysis through a discussion of the professional, personal, and pedagogical risks that one teacher confronts as she makes decisions about her classroom practices. In an analysis of the political rhetoric surrounding so-called “anti-CRT” legislation, Jane Lo and candace moore trace the ways in which distrust of public schools is cultivated through the exploitation of natural disagreements among parents over what is taught.⁷ The result of this heightened distrust is that teachers and administrators often want to retreat from the democratic purposes of schools. The authors report findings from a qualitative study to discuss the ways in which teachers draw upon relational trust from the community to maintain institutional trust and continue to engage students in discussions of controversial issues. Last, Eric Torres addresses a long-standing question for teachers and philosophers: which questions should be presented to students as controversial (open for discussion), and what should be taught directively (presented as true).⁸ This question has increasing salience within a hyperpolarized, “post-truth” climate, because what might look like obvious facts to the teacher may be viewed as partisan political disclosure to the students. Torres takes seriously the possibility that teachers might make “bad calls” about what ought to be taught directively and defends a “practice of epistemic refocusing that involves partially shifting student attention from the issues themselves to the social and epistemic conditions.”

The final pair of papers looks at democratic education for college students and adults. Turning to the role of higher education institutions, Caitlin Murphy Brust and Hannah Widmaier focus on the duty of elite colleges and universities to promote civic equality.⁹ They argue that in order to fulfill this duty elite colleges and universities should offer training in informal political representation, teaching their students both when and how to take on this role and how to be appropriately responsive to others' engagement as informal political representatives. They also consider the role of informal political representation in potentially ameliorating injustices experienced by students from marginalized communities that arise within elite institutions. Tony DeCesare further expands on democratic education across the lifespan with attention to adult education.¹⁰ Efforts to sustain and transform our democracy in the midst of crisis should extend beyond PK–16 schooling to consider informal democratic education opportunities for adult citizens. DeCesare theorizes adult democratic education from a foundation in the capabilities approach. He argues for the importance of two capabilities: “democratic capability and the capability to participate in [adult democratic education].”

It is often tempting for some in the public to look at the state of democracy around the world and think that the solution can be found in schools and civic education. By drawing on a variety of philosophical traditions and a diverse array of educational contexts, the papers in this symposium contribute to a nuanced understanding of both the limits and possibilities of schooling for sustaining and potentially transforming democratic life. The authors provide both philosophical insights and practical pathways for fostering a more equitable, inclusive, and critically engaged democratic society, while also reckoning seriously with contemporary challenges. In doing so, they advance Michele Moses's call for democratic education that responds to today's crises, not merely by preserving democracy but by reimagining it for a more just future.