Parker, Walter C. (2003). Teaching democracy: Unity and diversity in public life. New York: Teachers College Press
Pp. xxiii + 191
$25.95 ISBN 0-8077-4272-4
Reviewed by Becky Ropers-Huilman
Louisiana State University
April 24, 2004
There is perhaps no more pressing problem in the world today than how to teach diverse individuals and groups to live and work together with mutual support and benefit. With increasing globalization, continuing population shifts, and changing environmental and social needs, it is crucial that citizens engage in the participatory self-governance that is often termed “democracy.” Walter C. Parker’s text on Teaching democracy explores how “enlightened political engagement” can be fostered in democratic societies, paying particular attention to both the potential and limitations of educational institutions in the United States. Throughout the text, Parker argues that “Schools are ideal places to educate citizens for democratic living in a diverse society” (p. 160). Couching this assertion within historical events and understandings, his message is particularly compelling.
Essential to his thematic development, Parker first frames his work around the need to move from “idiocy” to “citizenship.” He argues that idiocy refers to a self-centered individual who is not concerned with, and essentially ignores, public engagement. He further defines idiocy as “self- and familial-indulgence at the expense of the common good” (p. 33). Referring to the contributions of Alexis de Tocqueville (1848/1969), Parker suggests that “idiots are idiotic precisely because they are indifferent to the conditions and contexts of their own freedom” (p. 4). This self-serving approach limits the effectiveness of both government and communities, and has substantially negative results for both those involved in decision-making processes, as well as those who are not.
Parker strongly advocates that our society and world will benefit from a move from idiocy to engaged citizenry, and that schools have a key role to play in this transition. In formulating his argument, he suggests that three guiding ideas can help educators and other community members alike live as democratic citizens through enlightened political engagement. Specifically, he poses the concepts of path, participation, and pluralism. By “path,” Parker means to indicate that democracy is not something that is accomplished or attained. Rather, it is a process – a path – of continued and deepening engagement that yields benefits to those who walk it, as well as to the communities to which they contribute. By “participation,” Parker suggests that democratic citizens must do more than think about the ways that they could make their lives and communities better. Indeed, their participation goes beyond accepting alternatives presented by others and, perhaps, voting on those alternatives. Instead, democratic citizens participate fully in the creation of alternatives, solutions, and processes through which to self-govern. Finally, with the term “pluralism,” Parker puts forth that diversity is a necessary part of liberty and nurtures democracy. As this last point is particularly prevalent in Parker’s work, I turn now to a more focused examination of that idea.
Throughout this text, Parker asserts that democracy and diversity rely on and strengthen each other. Indeed, as Parker writes, “Democratic citizenship education seeks to teach, among other things, that diversity is a social fact, that it is a social good, why this is so, and how diversity and democracy require one another” (p. 1). Powerfully using quotes from and concepts embraced by Martin Luther King, Jr., he suggests that interpersonal relations at both the individual and community levels must be considered in all their diversity if a democracy is to move toward its ideal form. Specifically, he writes, “To seek virtue and social justice is to understand that the individual and the community must be known simultaneously” (p. 75). Problems that may arise from these attempts to understand others (both in the individual and community sense) can be framed not as stumbling blocks, but rather as essential elements that foster important dialogue and deliberation in democracies. Through engagement in active deliberation, all are able to – and have a responsibility to – contribute to understandings and solutions that are generated.
At the same time, Parker asserts, it must be acknowledged that actors come to deliberative dialogue with different relationships to privilege. Both those with greater access to privilege in a given community, and those with less access, benefit from democratic education, as all stand to gain deeper understandings of the communities in which they live. Still, it is important to note, “Difference is not only a social fact but a political fact, because power is involved” (p. 160). Democratic interactions must consciously be aware of they ways that power and privilege affect their interactions, identification of problems, processes, and solutions. Indeed, Parker indicates, at times social groups may wish to consciously privilege people who are situated in particular ways, as those people (having “insider knowledge” or “epistemic privilege”) may be particularly well suited to contribute perspectives that are essential to the solving of community problems.
Parker does not limit his work to how democratic engagement can be fostered in schools. Instead, a key strength of this text is that he draws from his knowledge of interactions outside of schools, both to illustrate how out-of-school (or out-of-class) interactions can be important to democratic development, as well as to draw ideas from other contexts into schools to explore how they can be used to reach students in more formal settings. As one example of how out-of-school experiences can foster learning toward citizenship, he discusses what involvement in voluntary associations teaches its participants. Specifically, he suggests that such involvement helps one learn about pluralism, through an expansion of the types of people and perspectives that one comes into contact with. That expansion, he argues, allows one to understand community problems, rather than problems that are only immediately apparent in one’s own individual or familial situation. Through deliberation about community problems, Parker believes that better understandings of diverse others will be developed, as well as better solutions to common problems.
Turning more directly to schools, Parker argues that while mere school attendance has been shown to be significant in fostering political engagement, it is imperative that educators think deliberately about their practices to ensure that they are proactively working to educate citizens in their communities. In his argument, he draws on Cherryholmes (1980) to explain that what has been termed “citizenship education” can be classified as either critical or non-critical, helping students to either actively participate in existing structures (non-critical) or to actively shape democratic dialogue about how existing structures embrace certain problems and solutions at the expense of others (critical). From these approaches has arisen a tension between approaches that emphasize participation, and those that emphasize transmission. In other words, some believe that in order for schools to effectively help students learn how to be democratic actors, they must themselves be arranged democratically. In this way, students can learn through participation in one of their primary social settings about how to be enlightened political actors. On the other hand, some believe that schools’ primary role in citizenship education must be the transmission of knowledge about how democracy was formed, how it is enacted today, and why it might be important to become a democratic participant. Notably, Parker argues that these approaches can be enacted in complementary ways, but that educators must consciously work to do this, rather than hope that either knowledge or skills will be somehow absorbed without conscious and focused pedagogical efforts.
Another dimension of the tension Parker articulates between participation and transmission in schools is further explored in a discussion of two groups of those explicitly working to promote social justice: those oriented to promote engagement and those oriented to promote enlightenment. In this text, the reader can see the parallels between justice and democratic engagement through the tensions associate with participation/transmission and engagement/enlightenment. While this connection is clearly important to explore, it is perhaps Parker’s insistence on the role of justice in democratic education that is most significant. Specifically, he writes, “We should not overlook the fact that deploying either [the engagement or enlightenment perspective] presupposes that we have grappled with the meaning of justice, that we ourselves have attempted to think it through, that we have searched for a personal understanding of what it means to do the right thing” (p. 55). In this way, Parker asks educators to actively engage with the knowledge and action that they are attempting to value in their interactions with students. He implicitly poses the questions: If we value democratic citizenship enough to prioritize it in our schools, shouldn’t we each, as educators, value it – and practice it – in our lives? And, if so, shouldn’t we do so in as “just” and moral way as possible? These bold questions are not often framed so poignantly in academic literature, and they urge readers to seriously consider the roles that they play, not just as teachers or administrators, but also as democratic citizens who may or may not be involved in enlightened political engagement.
The latter part of the book turns to a discussion of concrete practices and ideas that educators may wish to implement to engage with the concepts offered earlier in the text. While these suggestions range from concrete and specific to the more abstract, and from elementary school through secondary schools, they are guided by the principles Parker associates with the concept of “deliberation.” To situate the need for deliberation in schools, Parker asserts that educational interactions that lead to democratic understandings can be characterized in three ways. First, they increase the interactions among diverse participants. Second, interaction is fostered around common problems – whether focused on academic subject matter or interpersonal relations. Third, inclusive deliberation is expected, taught, and modeled. With this background, Parker asserts that deliberation, which can be employed at every level of education, is a creative and problem-oriented experience, drawing on relationships among participants and ultimately crafting a “particular kind of democratic public culture among the deliberators” (p. 80). Parker emphasizes that deliberation is not the only approach to solving problems in democracies. Instead, he asserts, public decision-making is more often characterized by voting, debate, or negotiation. Yet, deliberation is particularly important for strengthening relationships across difference, as more common approaches to democratic interactions tend to set up adversarial relationships that do not necessarily lead to a fuller understanding of community, rather than individual, problems. Referring to the underlying theme of the entire text, Parker reminds us that dialogue across/within difference is essential to the development of communities that are truly multicultural and inclusive.
This work is informative on multiple levels. Educators at all levels, as well as community activists and others interested in democratic interactions, could benefit from engaging in this text. A key strength of Parker’s work is that it illustrates precisely what it advocates. Specifically, it opens doors for conversation among the various strands of thought that comprise citizenship education. It is exceptionally well-referenced in ways that allow readers to seek further sources and enter the debates that Parker frames. Through his engaging text, Parker enters into deep and sustained dialogue with important scholars, and introduces new ways of thinking about their work. He further roots that dialogue in both historical and contemporary problems and texts, thereby engaging in democratic education at the same time as illustrating the complexities of such engagement.
My reading of the text would have been enriched had I been privy to several additional discussions. First, the beginning of the book was substantially more engaging on a theoretical level, whereas the second part was more directly practical. For those persons wishing to translate the ideas posed in this book into contexts other than those discussed here, further discussion on how the prevailing ideas could be translated into multiple contexts (particularly those at the post-secondary level) would have been appreciated. Second, stylistically, it was not always clear how the various chapters were intertwined. As was indicated in the preface, many of the chapters presented in this book were originally crafted for different audiences. While clear attempts were made to build bridges between the sections, at times the breaks between the chapters created a loss of momentum that was so evident within chapters. Third, while Parker provided examples from multiple levels in K-12 education, I believe the discussion would have benefited from an integration of knowledge about the education of citizens in postsecondary education (e.g., Astin, 1993; Colby, Ehrlich, Beaumont, & Stephens, 2003; Hamrick, 1998; Rhoads, 1998). Finally, while I appreciated the acknowledgement that the discussions Parker presented in this book were difficult both to understand and implement, I would nevertheless have appreciated a fuller discussion on how democracy is imperfect and has been misused. Does Parker believe that there is a need for students to be critical of democracy itself? Does the deliberation that he proposes about how to solve social problems go as far as a critique of the deep underpinnings of a presumably beneficial social arrangement? Especially because of his clear and thorough knowledge of civil rights in particular and history more generally, I would have welcomed his perspectives on this important question.
As I finished reading this text, I was left with the following questions: In what ways are schools and universities currently functioning as places where students can learn to be democratic citizens? In what ways are educators’ efforts to promote deliberation in their classrooms stymied or facilitated by administrative practices that affect their ability to include students in real problem-based learning? Conversely, in what ways are administrators’ efforts to promote engagement hindered or facilitated by faculty who do not see the benefits of such approaches? How will the push for increased productivity and accountability in our nation’s institutions affect schools’ abilities to proceed in the manner Parker advises? Further, in communities in which educational institutions remain heavily segregated, and are often divided into the “haves” and “have-nots,” how can the diversity necessary for democratic deliberation be best fostered and embraced? Parker’s text on Teaching democracy speaks to all of these questions. Yet, it also emphasizes the need for further dialogue and deliberation on the important subject of educating diverse citizens for democratic engagement.
References
Astin, A. W. (1993). Diversity and multiculturalism on the campus: How are students affected? Change, 25(1), p. 44-49.
Cherryholmes, C. H. (1980). Social knowledge and citizenship education: Two views of truth and criticism. Curriculum Inquiry, 10. 115-151.
Colby, A., Ehrlich, T., Beaumont, E., & Stephens, J. (2003). Educating citizens: Preparing America’s undergraduates for lives of moral and civic responsibility. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hamrick, F. A. (1998). Democratic citizenship and student activism. Journal of College Student Development, 39, 449-60.
Rhoads, R. A. (1998). Freedom’s web: Student activism in an age of cultural diversity. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins.
Tocqueville, A. d. (1848/1969). Democracy in America. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
About the Reviewer
Becky Ropers-Huilman is an Associate Professor of Higher Education and Women’s and Gender Studies at Louisiana State University. Her scholarly interests focus on social justice, college teaching, diversity, and activism in higher education. Her work as appeared in The Review of Higher Education, National Women’s Studies Association Journal, and The International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, as well as other professional outlets and three books, including Feminist teaching in theory and practice: Situating power and knowledge in poststructural classrooms, Women in higher education: A feminist perspective, and Gendered futures in higher education: Critical perspectives for change.
~
ER home |
Reseņas Educativas |
Resenhas Educativas ~
~
overview | reviews | editors | submit | guidelines | announcements
~