Page 179 - Šolsko polje, XXX, 2019, št. 5-6: Civic, citizenship and rhetorical education in a rapidly changing world, eds. Janja Žmavc and Plamen Mirazchiyski
P. 179
book reviews
be merged with other educational contents, local contexts, families, peers,
other institutions like churches and clubs. All these together mould pu-
pils into “citizens”. The merging of influences also decreases the chance of
the evaluation of educational work:
When it comes to teaching young people which good life to espouse
and how to become normatively good and proper citizens/residents of
national community, there are no neutral criteria for a priori defining or
later evaluating if this goal has been fulfilled, or indeed if fulfilment has
been caused by education or other influences... (2017, p. viii).
On the same notion: Normative civic education normally flows
from a nation state’s cultural needs (in Strandbrink’s articulation: the
normative fabric of society) which entails that more critical, post-nation-
al or post-cultural ideals of communal cohabitation are almost impossible
to envision in normative education.
“Overlooked” selectiveness, out-sourcing of bad values and normative
bias. In order to educationally compose pupils into citizens, there must be
a factual and value-ridden framework designed into which citizens-to-be
are supposed to “enter”. Accompanying good lives, desirable values and
worldviews, good ideological stances; there also exist bad and undesira-
ble lifestyles, values, worldviews (so educational distinction is possible). In
normative civic and citizenship education, this endeavour presents prob-
lematic turns on two levels: the first one; how can cosmopolitanism, plu-
rality, diversity and tolerance be pedagogic upon in neutral and normative
ways? And the second one: How can a set of good/bad values be select-
ed? The first remark Strandbrink makes is that – no matter the value-set
choice – it cannot be neutral and can hardly present itself as such. It is
deeply tied to historical, social, national, generational context and can be
immensely exclusive to marginalized social groups. In the authors’ words:
When European states or the European Commission evoke Europe’s
impressive heritage of good values, there is normally no mention of its
shadowy legacy of bad values. It is unnecessary to stretch the imagination
very far to realise that Europe, normatively speaking, has a strong track
record also of misogyny, colonialism, authoritarianism, exploitation, fas-
cism, racism, /…/ to mention some of the more shadowy traditions that
co-contribute to the European ideological and moral legacy. (2017, p. 74).
It merely exposes the upsides. The downsides (racism, sexism, slav-
ery and so on) are also generally present in educational curricula, but “al-
ways located elsewhere, expelled from and foreign to the properly updated
identity of European society and civic culture.” (Strandbrink, 2017, p. 74).
177
be merged with other educational contents, local contexts, families, peers,
other institutions like churches and clubs. All these together mould pu-
pils into “citizens”. The merging of influences also decreases the chance of
the evaluation of educational work:
When it comes to teaching young people which good life to espouse
and how to become normatively good and proper citizens/residents of
national community, there are no neutral criteria for a priori defining or
later evaluating if this goal has been fulfilled, or indeed if fulfilment has
been caused by education or other influences... (2017, p. viii).
On the same notion: Normative civic education normally flows
from a nation state’s cultural needs (in Strandbrink’s articulation: the
normative fabric of society) which entails that more critical, post-nation-
al or post-cultural ideals of communal cohabitation are almost impossible
to envision in normative education.
“Overlooked” selectiveness, out-sourcing of bad values and normative
bias. In order to educationally compose pupils into citizens, there must be
a factual and value-ridden framework designed into which citizens-to-be
are supposed to “enter”. Accompanying good lives, desirable values and
worldviews, good ideological stances; there also exist bad and undesira-
ble lifestyles, values, worldviews (so educational distinction is possible). In
normative civic and citizenship education, this endeavour presents prob-
lematic turns on two levels: the first one; how can cosmopolitanism, plu-
rality, diversity and tolerance be pedagogic upon in neutral and normative
ways? And the second one: How can a set of good/bad values be select-
ed? The first remark Strandbrink makes is that – no matter the value-set
choice – it cannot be neutral and can hardly present itself as such. It is
deeply tied to historical, social, national, generational context and can be
immensely exclusive to marginalized social groups. In the authors’ words:
When European states or the European Commission evoke Europe’s
impressive heritage of good values, there is normally no mention of its
shadowy legacy of bad values. It is unnecessary to stretch the imagination
very far to realise that Europe, normatively speaking, has a strong track
record also of misogyny, colonialism, authoritarianism, exploitation, fas-
cism, racism, /…/ to mention some of the more shadowy traditions that
co-contribute to the European ideological and moral legacy. (2017, p. 74).
It merely exposes the upsides. The downsides (racism, sexism, slav-
ery and so on) are also generally present in educational curricula, but “al-
ways located elsewhere, expelled from and foreign to the properly updated
identity of European society and civic culture.” (Strandbrink, 2017, p. 74).
177
