Gutmann’s Conception of Democratic Education

Democratic education is, in essence, a philosophical issue that aims to challenge the current issue between individual freedom and civic virtue. Gutmann uses this philosophical issue to prove and promote the concept of democratic education. The tensions surrounding individual freedom and civic virtue have led to several philosophical alternatives that provide a compelling argument for democratic education (Gutmann 1990). In essence, these alternatives barely reduce the tensions providing a pragmatic way of living these tensions (Gutmann 1990). This is the opposite of the education theory, which ensures it provides a principled approach to these tensions. In examining these alternatives to democratic education, Gutmann provides a simplistic way to promote and advance the theory of democratic education. Thus, his conception of democratic education follows his assessment of these alternatives to democratic education weaknesses, which this essay also follows.

The primary alternatives include the family state and the liberal state, which are philosophical conceptions attempting to reduce and eliminate the tensions between individual freedom and civic virtue (Gutmann 1990). The Platonic family state options call for a society that educates children that pursuing their good is immoral and wrong unless they contribute to their social good. Social good is a critical premix of this alternative with which all children must identity their interests (freedom) with this social good (civic virtue) (Gutmann 1990). This reasoning has failed Americans who have enormously searched for the best system that dissolves these tensions (Gutmann 1990). Thus, these alternatives fail to provide a compelling alternative that adequately dissolves these problems without creating others.

However, the family state proposes a solution to these tensions between civic virtue and individual freedom, and its solutions come at high moral costs (Gutmann 1990). The two aspects of this moral cost include the repression children must live with to align to this social good and the political tyranny justified based on educational enlightenment (Gutmann 1990). However, educational enlightenment comes at the cost of individualism, or individual identity lost to social good, which children are compelled to achieve through their interests (Gutmann 1990). In essence, Gutmann resolves that the family state creates more problems than it solves since, using the Socrates approach, someone ought to be wiser than him, or the Platonic approach, which requires governing to politically legitimize the association of individual freedom with civic virtue (Gutmann 1990). Therefore, using the family state, children are undermined in finding an individual identity and, as such, fail to attain their freedom, the opposite of the philosophical approach attempts to dissolve these tensions.

The philosophy of the liberal state is no different from the family state, as it fails to eliminate the tensions between individual freedom and civic virtue, providing another justification for democratic education. The significant differences between a liberal state are that it promotes institutions that support individual freedom and choice. This child-centered approach to education promotes children’s choices by limiting these choices so that children can develop rational choices (Gutmann 1990). Rational choices are critical in promoting a cultural coherence system, such as the American education choice of teaching children English primarily to advance its culture (Gutmann 1990). Moral development is not a justifiable reason for limiting children’s choices, with the liberal state building on culture rather than morality. The liberal state advocates for neutrality, which is evident in American education (Gutmann 1990). Hence, the liberal state’s attempt at teaching children these cultural prejudices is not a substitute for educating children on morality or the principles of morality.

The theory of democratic education develops due to the challenges of both the liberal state and the family state, which require children to choose between liberty and virtue. This choice limits children’s freedom and is morally wrong (Gutmann 1990). Gutmann’s conception is made possible by the challenges of the state and family states. Philosophically democratic education does not offer the solution to individual freedom or civic virtue but makes educational deliberations possible between institutions for these pesky educational problems (Gutmann 1990). These democratic deliberations offer enlightened choices compared to other approaches due to their consideration of the values and virtues of communities compared to those that do not consider these values and virtues (Gutmann 1990). Democratic education is also bounded by other rules that eliminate policies that might be repressive and discriminatory (Gutmann 1990). Thus, these are rules that preserve the foundations of democracy, both social and intellectual.

Any democracy must uphold approaches that are not discriminatory and repressive in any way, upholding the essence of democracy. Children’s education must be constrained to education that shapes and promotes their participation in society, both culturally and individually, upholding social virtues that make up each society (Gutmann 1990). Democratic education is based on political morality, which states that governing requires one to be governed first. This conception is not free of challenges but provides a collective way for citizens can resolve these challenges (Gutmann 1990). In essence, democratic education calls for an alternative approach to the fundamentalist approach to knowledge and morality. This is because the fundamentalist view challenges neutrality (Gutmann 1990). Fundamentalists undermine democratic education and reject the democratic approach that acknowledges the rational differences of opinion that call for deliberation to mutually shape the way of life alongside these differences (Gutmann 1990). Therefore, fundamentalist approaches limit these differences in opinions that constitute our individualism.

The theory of democratic education calls for educational practices that are not repressive. However, as Gutmann expounds, the subject of repressive is also used to critique what entails a democratic education. This critique is based on the idea that democratic teachings amount to repressive education since it fails to consider fundamentalist views. However, Gutmann offers alternative reasoning in support of democratic education, and this is a clarification of repressive education policies. Repressive practices discourage rational understanding or inquiry, which is fundamentalist views. In essence, democratic education, through its approach that calls for deliberation among educational institutions and other stakeholders, promotes rational inquiry and understanding of its practices. Any democratic institution that does not live to these ideals of democracy fails to promote democratic education. Democratic education calls for institutions and the education approach to grant all stakeholders power. Still, authority is retained by these institutions, a reason no majority has the right to eliminate sexual education or create separate racial schools. Therefore, democratic education calls for an approach that eliminates the biases of fundamentalist views.

In conclusion, Gutmann’s conception of democratic education starts by examining the present alternatives that attempt to eliminate tensions between individual freedom and civic virtue. However, these alternatives are the basis of democratic education, giving its view an informed argument. Hence, democratic education calls for deliberations among all stakeholders who hold power within education institutions to institute changes that promote the overall social good but lack authority despite being the majority to institute repressive educational approaches.

References

Gutmann, A. (1990). Democratic education in difficult times. Teachers College Record, 92, 7-20.