Page 178 - Šolsko polje, XXX, 2019, št. 5-6: Civic, citizenship and rhetorical education in a rapidly changing world, eds. Janja Žmavc and Plamen Mirazchiyski
P. 178
šolsko polje, letnik xxx, številka 5–6
important being their massiveness and impressive reach. Educational sys-
tems process entire generations for decades on end. It is not shocking that
states and stakeholders would turn to mandatory education when trying
to reproduce/change populations’ dispositions. Or as Strandbrink puts it:
All kinds of states and governments use education to encourage pupils
and citizens to absorb and embrace prevailing values and civic, norma-
tive, religious, ideological, and ethical content. As soon as comprehen-
sive systems of public education are established, they provide a prima-
ry arena for states’ and stakeholders’ ambitions /…/ to provide normative,
worldview-elaborating instruction intended to inspire allegiance, com-
mitment, cohesion, and a sense of community on a massive scale across
populations. (2017, p. vi).
Before we move the presented duality in tension forward, it is sensi-
ble to present some of the most intriguing observations and argumenta-
tions in the book. Even though a significant part of Strandbrink’s work
oscillates in common-sense topics, he puts great effort into elaborating
on trivial presumptions. He also contributes, to some extent, to concep-
tual flexibility by pushing matters of political and educational theory out
of their rightful domiciles. He seems to switch, with no observable effort,
between questions of normativity in liberal democratic societies as politi-
cal spaces and normativity in the educational sense (normative in this case
as compared to factual education). Lucid remarks, which are worth men-
tioning, are not imminently impressive, but create a convincing patch-
work of combinations and affiliations:
Uneasy ambivalence at the heart of civic-normative education. Un-
easy ambivalence as can be observed conceptually or pragmatically is not
ground-breaking. But the author goes further than usual narratives of
“conceptual dilemmas” like citizenship education vs. patriotic education,
embracing national culture vs. promoting multiculturalism or dilemmas
leaking out of traditional dichotomies like liberal-conservative, emanci-
patory-repressive, local-cosmopolitan, national-international, ... (for ex-
ample Štrajn, 2004; Kodelja, 2011) He moves out of this circular solution
searching and turns to powerlessness of civic-normative education: even
if we solved dilemmas - there is no sustainable way for implementing the
“canonized civics and citizenship” into educational processes. Firstly, be-
cause state authorities in Strandbrink’s opinion do not possess such power
over teaching input, processes and contents as they are customarily attrib-
uted with. And even if they did – they do not “control” the relation: ped-
agogical input à pupil/citizen output. In civic and citizenship education,
more than in other educational areas, seemingly normative frames tend to
176
important being their massiveness and impressive reach. Educational sys-
tems process entire generations for decades on end. It is not shocking that
states and stakeholders would turn to mandatory education when trying
to reproduce/change populations’ dispositions. Or as Strandbrink puts it:
All kinds of states and governments use education to encourage pupils
and citizens to absorb and embrace prevailing values and civic, norma-
tive, religious, ideological, and ethical content. As soon as comprehen-
sive systems of public education are established, they provide a prima-
ry arena for states’ and stakeholders’ ambitions /…/ to provide normative,
worldview-elaborating instruction intended to inspire allegiance, com-
mitment, cohesion, and a sense of community on a massive scale across
populations. (2017, p. vi).
Before we move the presented duality in tension forward, it is sensi-
ble to present some of the most intriguing observations and argumenta-
tions in the book. Even though a significant part of Strandbrink’s work
oscillates in common-sense topics, he puts great effort into elaborating
on trivial presumptions. He also contributes, to some extent, to concep-
tual flexibility by pushing matters of political and educational theory out
of their rightful domiciles. He seems to switch, with no observable effort,
between questions of normativity in liberal democratic societies as politi-
cal spaces and normativity in the educational sense (normative in this case
as compared to factual education). Lucid remarks, which are worth men-
tioning, are not imminently impressive, but create a convincing patch-
work of combinations and affiliations:
Uneasy ambivalence at the heart of civic-normative education. Un-
easy ambivalence as can be observed conceptually or pragmatically is not
ground-breaking. But the author goes further than usual narratives of
“conceptual dilemmas” like citizenship education vs. patriotic education,
embracing national culture vs. promoting multiculturalism or dilemmas
leaking out of traditional dichotomies like liberal-conservative, emanci-
patory-repressive, local-cosmopolitan, national-international, ... (for ex-
ample Štrajn, 2004; Kodelja, 2011) He moves out of this circular solution
searching and turns to powerlessness of civic-normative education: even
if we solved dilemmas - there is no sustainable way for implementing the
“canonized civics and citizenship” into educational processes. Firstly, be-
cause state authorities in Strandbrink’s opinion do not possess such power
over teaching input, processes and contents as they are customarily attrib-
uted with. And even if they did – they do not “control” the relation: ped-
agogical input à pupil/citizen output. In civic and citizenship education,
more than in other educational areas, seemingly normative frames tend to
176
