Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Democracy and Education: A Theoretical Proposal for the Analysis of Democratic Practices in Schools

  • Published:
Studies in Philosophy and Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the educational sphere, the concept of democracy is used in many and varied ways, though the hegemonic school culture often starts from a concept of democracy that is taken for granted, and it is understood that the entire educational community shares a similar concept. As a result of the research project “Democracy, participation and inclusive education in schools” (EDU2012-39556-C02-01/02) we realized that the above-mentioned concept is used without being accurately defined in the school setting. This observation is what has prompted us to write this article, basically structured in two parts. In the first part, based on the theoretical debate occurring in the field of social sciences, we delimit the concept of democracy and structure it in four basic dimensions: governance, inhabitance, otherness and ethos. In the second part, we specify and examine in depth these four dimensions in the school setting in order to construct a broad and transversal, yet specific, definition, with which to be able to develop ambitious democratic projects and, in turn, contribute to scientific debate.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. According to other authors, the issue is not the lack of definition of the concept, but the degradation of democratic practices. Thus, Daniel Bensaïd (2011, p. 16) states that popular sovereignty today lies hidden behind democratic formalism, and Wolin (2008) speaks of a fugitive democracy, a mere episodic expression of the legitimate rights of the people.

  2. "Democracy now" and "they call it democracy, but it is not" are some of the most popular slogans chanted in the 15M demonstrations in Spain, just as they were in other countries like the United States, with the OWS (Occupy Wall Street) movement that began in New York, or the United Kingdom, with the OL (Occupy London) movement in London.

  3. We use the concept governance in its most generic sense, of "forms of government", and more specifically to refer to processes, devices or mechanisms designed for decision making. We are not referring to the concept of governance as it has been defined since the 1990s as a "new form of government characterized by the interaction of institutions at different levels and by public administrations interacting and working in network with civil society or private organizations" (Rhodes 1997; Subirats 2010).

  4. Never a complete consensus: from Marxism it has always been considered that liberal democracy, which left economics outside the scope of popular sovereignty, focused on formal aspects (possibility to choose and to be elected) and renounced substantive aspects (under this form of democracy it is possible that the whole of the demos may not be able to decide on fundamental aspects that affect their existence and that frequently remain unresolved); hence, it was considered to be a somewhat less than democratic form of government that must be overcome in favor of the process of emancipation they pursued for the whole of humanity (Marx 1975 [1843]; MacPherson 1973).

  5. Apart from the usual distinction between direct, indirect or representative democracy and participatory democracy, the proposal of "deliberative democracy" (Bessette 1980; Habermas 1998; Blattberg 2003; Talisse 2005), which places emphasis on the examination of public debate and the reasons of justice and general interest, seems especially appropriate for the field of education (for the educational dimension it entails). This model can be contrasted with the model of democracy based on negotiation, which starts from the capacity to reach agreements or establish counterparts based on the power and negotiating capacity of each actor and in which the common good may prove to be secondary. To understand the distinction between the deliberative and the aggregative models (not necessarily liberal), Young (2000), and Hanson and Howe (2011) are particularly enlightening.

  6. His approach based on "capabilities" ties in with the idea of positive freedom (the actual ability of a person to be or do something), instead of negative freedom (the absence of prohibitions).

  7. Nussbaum identifies ten core capabilities, which have to do with (1) longevity, (2) physical health, (3) physical integrity, (4) the senses, imagination and thought, (5) emotions, (6) practical reason, (7) membership, (8) the relationship with other species, (9) play, and lastly, (10) control over one's environment. (Nussbaum 2011: pp. 52–55). Of these ten core capabilities identified by Nussbaum, governance covers only certain aspects, while the remainder refer to inhabitance and otherness. (Nussbaum 2011: pp. 33–35).

  8. Talking about citizenry is not easy, because this concept depends, in part, on the political project and the ideology that supports it.

  9. The texts of Pettit (1997a, b), Sandel (1998, 2004) and Agulló (2014) adequately describe the two traditions, while helping to position our proposal in relation to them.

  10. Primarily based on the work of Taguieff (1990). In Spain, San Román (1996) includes many of the contributions of the French philosopher, and Carbonell (2000), has effectively transferred them to the field of education. Serra (2002) exposes the criticism to the first multiculturalism and presents the basic axes of critical multiculturalism and interculturalism. Authors like Delgado (2003) move away from the optimism or possibilism of others, and continue to raise profound criticism of both multicultural and intercultural approaches.

References

  • Agulló, M.V. 2014. La democracia republicana: Problemas y límites de un modelo alternativo a la democracia liberal. Revista Española de Investigaciones Sociológicas 146: 217–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Álvarez, E. 2004. Participación en la escuela: Visión crítica y propuestas para su mejora. Aula Abierta 83: 53–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ainscow, M., T. Booth, and A. Dyson. 2004. Understanding and developing inclusive practices in schools: A collaborative action research network. International Journal of Inclusive Education 8 (2): 125–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Apple, M.W., and J.A. Beane. 1995. Democratic schools. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barber, B.R. 1984. Strong democracy. participatory politics for a new age. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbosa, M. 2000. Educar per a una ciutadania democràtica a les escoles: Una discussió de models. Temps d’Educació 24: 359–373.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bertran, M. 2005. Relacions entre famílies immigrades i institucions educatives en l’etapa de zero a sis anys. Barcelona: Fundació Jaume Bofill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein, R. 2010. Filosofia y Democracia: John Dewey. Barcelona: Herder.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bessette, J.M. 1980. Deliberative democracy: The majority principle in republican government. In How democratic is the constitution, ed. R. Goldwin, and W. Shambra. Washington, DC: AEI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bensaïd, D. 2011 [2009]. Permanent scandal. In Democracy in what state?, 38–43. New York: Columbia University Press.

  • Biesta, G., R. Lawy, and N. Kelly. 2009. Understanding young people’s citizenship learning in everyday life: The role of contexts, relationships and dispositions. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice 4 (1): 5–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blanqui, A. 2006. Lettre à Maillard (6 juin 1852). In Maintenant, il faut des armes. París: La Fabrique.

  • Blattberg, C. 2003. Patriotic, not deliberative, democracy. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 6 (1): 155–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bobbio, N. 1986. [1984]. El futuro de la democracia. Mexico: Fondo de Cultura Económica.

  • Brady, H.E., S. Verba, and K. Lehman. 1995. Beyond SES: A resource model of political participation. The American Political Science Review 89 (2): 271–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, W. 2011. [2009]. We are all democrats now. In Democracy in what state?, 44–57, New York: Columbia University Press.

  • Carbonell, F. 2000. Educació i immigració: els reptes educatius de la diversitat cultural i l’exclusió social. Barcelona: Mediterrània.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delgado, M. (ed.). 2003. Inmigración y cultura. Ciudad e inmigración II. Barcelona: Centre de Cultura Contemporània de Barcelona.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edelstein, W. 2011. Education for democracy: Reasons and strategies. European Journal of Education 46 (1): 127–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feito, R. 2009. Éxito escolar para todos. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación 50: 131–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feito, R. 2010. Escuela y democracia. Política y sociedad 47 (2): 47–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feu, J., Simó, N. Serra C., and Canimas, J. 2017. Dimensiones, características e indicadores para una escuela democrática. (Dimensions, characteristics and indicators for a democratic school) Estudios Pedagógicos (in press).

  • Fishkin, J. 1995. Democracia y deliberación. Nuevas perspectivas para la reforma democrática. Barcelona: Ariel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishkin, J. 2009. When the people speak. Deliberative democracy and public consultation. Nueva York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flores d’Arcais, P. 2005. El sobirà i el dissident. La democràcia considerada seriosament. Lleida: Pagès.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flutter, J. 2007. Teacher development and pupil voice. Curriculum Journal 18 (3): 343–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galston, W.A. 1991. Liberal purposes: Goods, virtues, and diversity in the liberal state. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Garreta, J. 2008. La participación de las familias en la escuela pública. Las asociaciones de madres y padres del alumnado. Madrid: CEAPA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garreta, J. 2009. Escuela y familias inmigradas. Relaciones complejas. Revista Complutense de Educación 20 (2): 275–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giner, S. 1998. Las razones del republicanismo. Claves de Razón Práctica 81: 2–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giroux, H. 2005. Estudios culturales, pedagogía crítica y democracia radical. Madrid: Popular.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guarro, A. 2002. Currículum y democracia. Por un cambio de la cultura escolar. Barcelona: Octaedro.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guarro, A. 2005. La transformación democrática de la cultura escolar: Una respuesta justa a las necesidades del alumnado de zonas desfavorecidas. Profesorado. Revista de Currículum y Formación del Profesorado 9 (1): 1–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutmann, A., and D. Thompson. 1996. Democracy and disagreement. Cambridge: Belknap Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. 1998. [1992] Política deliberativa: Un concepto procedimental de democracia. In Facticidad y validez. Madrid: Trotta.

  • Habermas, J. 1999. Tres modelos normativos de democracia. In La inclusión del otro. Estudios de teoría política. Barcelona: Paidós.

  • Hanson, J.S., and K. Howe. 2011. The potential for deliberative democratic civic education. Democracy and Education 19 (2): 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Honneth, A. 1997. [1992]. La lucha por el reconocimiento. Por una gramática moral de los conflictos sociales. Barcelona: Crítica.

  • Kymlicka, W. 1995a. Multicultural citizenship. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kymlicka, W. 1995b. The rights of minority cultures. London: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawy, R., and G. Biesta. 2006. Citizenship-as-practice: The educational implications of an inclusive and relational understanding of citizenship. British Journal of Educational Studies 54 (1): 34–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levinson, M. 2012. The civic empowerment gap. In No citizen left behind, ed. M. Levinson. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Luengo, F. 2006. El proyecto atlántida: Experiencias para fortalecer el eje escuela, familia y municipio. Revista de Educación 339: 177–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macedo, S. 1990. Liberal virtues: Citizenship, virtue, and community in liberal constitutionalism. Nueva York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macpherson, C.B. ed. 1973. Post-liberal-democracy? In Democratic theory: Essays in retrieval. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marx, K. 1975. [1843]. On the jewish question. In Early writing, ed. K. Marx. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

  • Nancy, J.-L. 2011. [2009]. Finite and infinite democracy. In Democracy in what state?, 58–75. New York: Columbia University Press.

  • Nussbaum, M. 2011. Creating capabilities: The human development approach. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ovejero, F., Martí, J.L. and Gargarella, R. 2004. La alternativa republicana. In Nuevas ideas republicanas. Autogobierno y libertad, ed. F. Ovejero et al. Barcelona: Paidós.

  • Palaudàrias, J.M. 2002. Escola i immigració estrangera a Catalunya: La integració escolar. Papers 66: 199–213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palaudàrias, J. M. and Feu, J. 1997. La acogida del alumnado extranjero en las escuelas públicas. Una reflexión necesaria para favorecer la integración plural. In ¿Educación o exclusión de la diversidad?, ed. F.J. García Castaño and A. Granados. Granada: Universidad de Granada.

  • Peña, J. 2000. La ciudadanía hoy. Problemas y propuestas. Valladolid: Universidad de Valladolid.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pettit, P. 1997a. Republicanism: A theory of freedom and government. Nueva York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pettit, P. 1997. Libéralisme et républicanisme. In Dictionnaire d’éthique et de philosophie morale. París: Presses Universitaires de France.

  • Rancière, J. 2011 [2009]. Democracies against democracy. In Democracy in what state?, 76–80. New York: Columbia University Press.

  • Rawls, J. 1993. Political liberalism. Nueva York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reay, D. 2011. Schooling for democracy: A common school and a common university? A response to ‘schooling for democracy. Democracy and Education 19 (1): 1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes, R. 1997. Understanding governance: Policy networks, governance and reflexivity. Londres: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosanvallon, P. 2013. The society of equals. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rubio, J. 2005. Ciudadanos sin democracia. Nuevos ensayos sobre ciudadanía, ética y democracia. Granada: Comares.

  • Sandel, M. 1996. Democracy’s discontent. america in search of a public philosophy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandel, M. 1998. Liberalism and the limits of justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sandel, M. 2004. La república procedimental y el yo desvinculado. In Nuevas ideas republicanas. Autogobierno y libertad, ed. M. Canto-Sperber. Barcelona: Paidós.

  • San Román, T. 1996. Los muros de la separación. Ensayo sobre alterofobia y filantropía. Madrid: Tecnos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A.K. 1999. Development as freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A.K. 2009. The idea of justice. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Serra, C. 2002. Antropologia de l’educació: L’etnografia i l’estudi de les relacions interètniques en l’àmbit de l’educació. Girona: Servei de Publicacions de la UdG.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simó, N., A. Parareda, and L. Domingo. 2016. Towards a democratic school: The experience of secondary school pupils. Improving Schools 16 (3): 181–196. doi:10.1177/1365480216631080.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, Q. 2004. Las paradojas de la libertad política. In Nuevas ideas republicanas. Autogobierno y libertad, ed. F. Ovejero et al. Barcelona: Paidós.

  • Subirats, J. 2010. Si la respuesta es gobernanza, ¿cuál es la pregunta? Factores de cambio en la política y en las políticas. Ekonomiaz 74: 16–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sunstein, C.R. 2004. Más allá del resurgimiento republicano. In Nuevas ideas republicanas. Autogobierno y libertad, eds. F. Ovejero et al. Barcelona: Paidós.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutherland, G. 2006. Voice of change: Embedding student voice work. Curriculum Briefing 4 (3): 8–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taguieff, P.A. 1990. La force du préjugé. Essai sur le racisme et ses doubles. París: Gallimard.

    Google Scholar 

  • Talisse, R. 2005. Democracy after liberalism. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, C. 1994. The Politics of recognition. In Multiculturalism: Examining the politics of recognition, ed. A. Gutman. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tawney, R.H. 1964. The radical tradition. Harmondworth: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornberg, R., and H. Elvstran. 2012. Children’s experiences of democracy, participation, and trust in school. International Journal of Educational Research 53: 44–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vasak, K. 1977. A 30-year struggle. The sustained efforts to give force of law to the universal declaration of human rights. The UNESCO Courier, XXX 11: 29–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vasak, K. 1984. Pour une troisième génération des droits de l’homme. In Études et essais sur le Droit International Humanitaire et sur les principes du CICR en l’honneur à Jean Pictet, ed. C. Swinarski. La Haya: Martinus Nijhoff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolin, S. 2008. Democracy incorporated: Managed democracy and the specter of inverted totalitarianism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, I.M. 2000. Inclusion and democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This article is part of the research project “Democracy, participation and inclusive education in primary schools” (EDU2012-39556-C02-01/02) carried out by the research team Democracy and Education: Demoskole, and funded by the Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness from the Spanish Government.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pedagogy, University of Girona, Girona, Spain

    Jordi Feu, Carles Serra, Joan Canimas & Laura Làzaro

  2. Department of Pedagogy, University of Vic-Central University of Catalonia, Barcelona, Spain

    Núria Simó-Gil

Authors
  1. Jordi Feu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Carles Serra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Joan Canimas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Laura Làzaro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Núria Simó-Gil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Núria Simó-Gil.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Feu, J., Serra, C., Canimas, J. et al. Democracy and Education: A Theoretical Proposal for the Analysis of Democratic Practices in Schools. Stud Philos Educ 36, 647–661 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-017-9570-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-017-9570-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation