9: Democracy

In many of my past posts I have discussed the divisions that exist in education and our daily lives that are often left unquestioned. By pointing to these divisions- and reflecting on them- I have been able to engage with concepts, hierarchies and theories that are often inherent and invisible in the practice of early childhood education. This seems to be the kind of conversation and thought that Michael Sandel (2010) is seeking to bring to political debate in the video below as he suggests “that we too rarely, articulate, defend, and argue about [the] big questions [...] of moral philosophy and justice” that underlie passionate political arguments. However; thinking with the philosopher Hannah Arendt and the works of Gert Biesta (2007), I have come to question how much of this thought remains embedded in an unarticulated paradigm that “thinks of education as the ‘production’ of a subject with particular qualities, most notably the quality of rationality” (p.740).

These ideas present a number of divisions that are embodied in the separation of theory and practice: rational vs. irrational, individual vs. social, and public vs. private. Arendt (as cited in Biesta, 2007) takes up these divisions in her work in ways that reveal how the lines between these divisions have become blurred as the discourses of individual freedom have seeped in to the public spaces and practices of our classrooms and society. Biesta takes up Arendt’s argument as he questions democratic education and what it means to be a democratic subject. He presents a subject that is neither individualistic nor social- but political. Biesta argues that the social subject (as presented by John Dewey) is still rooted in an individualistic understanding of the democratic subject who obtains social intelligence for him/herself through a democratic education. The political subject, on the other hand – is only a subject when others respond to his or her actions. 

These actions- as defined by Arendt- are not simply physical; they are a complex interconnection of thoughts, and acts, and new beginnings. They are also commonplace: Biesta(2007) states that “although action is about invention and creation, we shouldn’t think of it as something exceptional or spectacular” (p.754). Through a friction of words, movements, listenings, and other acts we come in to the world- as new beginnings whose innovation is defined by our own histories and the complexity of the responses we meet, rather than because it has not been done before. This beginning can also be denied if it is not responded to, and we learn about what it means to be a subject- and a democratic/political subject- through these denials as well as through the acts where there is a beginning.

Michael Sandel (2010) proposes that we have “lost the art of democratic debate.” Biesta and Arendt (2007) question instead “how much action is actually possible in schools” and society?”(p.759). What space is there for difference- and the diverse frictions of beginnings- in an idea of democracy that is limited to rational debate? How do we create public spaces and spaces of education where children, students and people can inter-act? Sandel has begun to question the ways we engage with democracy- but I think we need to go beyond this to question what it means to be a democratic subject. How do we create truly public spaces where we can engage together as plural beings?

Biesta, G. (2007). Education and the democratic person: Towards a political conception of democratic education. Teachers College Record, 109 (3), 740-769. 

Sandel, M. (Speaker). (2010). Michael Sandel: The Lost Art of Democratic Debate [online video]. New York: Ted Conference LLC. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_sandel_the_lost_art_of_democratic_debate.html