above: Kevin Donnelly's vision of education curricula in Australia excludes education for active and critical citizenship
The following article puts the case for curriculum reform promoting active citizenship and critical thinking amongst young Australian students. Specifically, the author argues there should be cross-partisan consensus were all parties truly committed to democracy in practice...
Conservative Education commentator, Kevin Donnelly has again
been in the headlines – attacking progressive aspects of secondary curricula in
Australia . On November 3rd in Melbourne ’s
“Herald-Sun” Donnelly was quoted as criticising the lack of emphasis on Britain
in the origins of Australia ’s
system of government. But Donnelly also went further – condemning civics and
citizenship provisions in curricula as encouraging students to become “cultural
warriors for the Left”. Indeed Donnelly
indicated he was “concerned” by the “active citizenship” emphasis.
(Herald-Sun, 3/11/2012, p 22)
I have a number of arguments in response to Donnelly’s
stance.
To begin – to be opposed to “active citizenship” ‘in
principle’ is suggestive of a disdain for democracy.. Active and critical citizenship are the
foundation for any robust democracy as any genuine liberal and/or democrat
should be able to grasp. Democracy only functions when an informed, mobilised
and engaged citizenship is capable of (and inclined and willing to) hold the
powerful – including politicians – to account.
When active citizenship decays, so too does democracy – and in this
sense the cynicism and disengagement of Australian citizens is a genuine
threat.
But in order to engage constructively citizens require
certain ‘intellectual tools’ – to help in formulating cohesive values systems,
a sense of their interests, and of different perspectives on the proper rights
and responsibilities of citizenship.
Arguably what is required is “education for ideological literacy” and
the imparting of ‘skills of deconstruction’ which assist tomorrow’s active
citizens in discerning the ways in which ideologies and institutions themselves
(both on the Left and the Right) have been socially and historically
constructed. For some the word ‘deconstruction’
is synonymous with ‘nihilism’; but this need not be the case if we do not
choose for it to be so. There remains
scope for a certain kind of
deconstruction side-by-side the positing of certain ‘universals’: the value of
life, liberty, community and a sense of universal humanity; of kindness and
altruism; and the value of culture and science as forces driving improved
quality of life and self-realisation for all of us.
Both the Labor Party and the Liberal Party are experiencing
severe organisational decline in Australia
– and have been for some time. You would
think there would be a cross-party commitment to the principles of active
citizenship as a remedy for the drift towards the scenario of a “detached political
caste” governing over a disillusioned and disengaged populace. Education for active and informed citizenship
need not simply be a ‘Trojan horse’ for either the Left or the Right – but
rather should be considered a revitalising factor for democracy generally; and
an empowering factor for all young people.
An emphasis on active and ideologically literate citizenship is about
encouraging young people to think critically and empowering them to see through
the ‘spin’ employed by all political parties in today’s society, with its
emphasis on the short term media cycle.
The result of a more robust ‘active and critical’ civics and citizenship
education curriculum would be a stronger democracy; with young citizens capable
of ‘reading against the grain’ whether the texts in question are of a
conservative, liberal or socialist perspective.
As a consequence we would have not only more committed liberals or socialists – but also more committed conservatives. While we might see some young people gravitating towards socialist, labour and human
rights organisations, we could just as easily see other young people grappling
with economic liberalism; engaging with the ideas of values of, say, Hayek or
Burkean Conservatism; or of ‘Christian social welfare centrism’. Underscoring an active/critical agenda would
be an inclusive pluralism as the basis for cross-party consensus.
And this could be achieved in the context of education
regarding the principles of the ‘liberal democratic settlement’; a settlement of agreed liberal, social and
democratic rights which provide a ‘framework for relative conciliation’ for
societies such as ours. (although in the
spirit of critical enquiry even this would be open to relativisation from
critiques both from the Left and Right; including those seeking ‘a new
constitution’; which is the substance of any political revolution) The point would be to consider the role of democracy
in ‘setting oppositions free’, but also resolving them peacefully; though
accepting civil disobedience as a legitimate strategy where differences are
irreconcilable – but not accepting a descent into escalating violence.
Why is Kevin Donnelly so determinedly opposed to such a
scenario?
Both the authoritarian Left and the authoritarian Right
would likely “have problems” with an education system which seeks to empower
and mobilise individuals to think deeply and critically, and encourage them to express
themselves, organise, and participate.
But leftists, liberals, democratic conservatives – should all at least
hold to a ‘shared political ground’ when it comes to empowering young
Australians with tools of ideological literacy and criticism – not as a ‘Trojan
Horse’ for either the Left or Right – but on the assumption that ‘democracy is
a good in of itself’.
Perhaps Donnelly has a point: that education about Australia ’s
historic cultural and political ties to Britain
are important – even though ‘unfashionable’ for those planning and formulating
this nation’s curricula. But if there is
an important place for recognising the place of Britain
in the Australian nation’s cultural heritage, surely there must also be a place
for ideological and cultural literacy.
In part this means communicating the experience of people
otherwise excluded in Australia ’s
historical cultural narratives: including the experiences of women, migrants
and indigenous Australians. But it
should also involve critical engagement
with other sources of Australian identity and tradition: whether ‘the ANZAC
spirit’, or ‘the spirit of Eureka ’. Importantly: curricula need to be pluralist,
inclusive and balanced with regards such content.
English can play a central role in encouraging critical
thinking and critical writing – regardless of any ideological prejudice. The study of History, meanwhile, could be
framed in such a way as to critically interrogate values systems – whether that
means exploring critiques of capitalism looking at the Great Depression; or
exploring the sources of totalitarianism in both its Stalinist and Fascist
forms. To be balanced there could also,
for instance, be a consideration of ‘both sides’ of the debate with the retreat
of the welfare state and mixed economy from the 1970s. And Politics can provide
for a more direct engagement with the political philosophies which underscore
our pluralist society: whether socialist, liberal or conservative.
Finally Pluralism itself needs to be the
underlying principle of all such attempts, also: to maintain a cross-partisan
consensus on the need for education for active and critical citizenship.
As a socialist I can nonetheless appreciate the wisdom in
Edmund Burke’s words: "All that’s necessary for evil in the
world to triumph is for good men to do nothing”.
An active/critical civics and citizenship education model is about
encouraging students to think carefully about what is right, and then to stand
up for that in the context of participatory democracy.
I implore Kevin Donnelly: think again about your opposition
to education for active and critical citizenship. Commit yourself to a new consensus – based on
a genuinely pluralist curricula – which can only strengthen the democracy that
we all claim we believe in.
Posts
