Introduction
Citizenship education in liberal societies is “a popular and contested phenomenon”
(Sundstӧm & Fernández, 2013, p. 103). This is because of the various challenges which citizenship
education faces as a result of globalization, increased immigration and the rise of nationalist
movements and terrorist attacks (Banks, 2008b). Globalizing factors, along with an increase in voter
apathy (Kymlicka, 2002) have increased interest among political theorists, as well as among scholars
in the fields of philosophy (Nussbaum, 2008, 2012) and multicultural education (Banks, 1993a, 1993b,
1993c, 2008a, 2008b). The old liberal assimilationist idea of citizenship in which individuals from
different groups would give up their home culture and language to “participate effectively in the
national civic culture” (Banks, 2008b, p. 129) is no longer acceptable in a pluralist society.
Banks (2008b) states that this method may have once worked for most white ethnic groups, but it did
not work for groups of colour. This is due to their continued struggle to achieve structural inclusion
even after becoming culturally assimilated. Furthermore, the demographic of immigrants is changing
from mainly European countries to countries of Asian, African, Middle Eastern and South American
origin (in the case of American immigration). Therefore, scholars have considered the failures of earlier
models of citizenship and citizenship education and now work towards creating a fuller understanding
of citizenship. It is a complex and multifaceted idea which needs to address the cultural, political, social
and civil elements of being a citizen (Banks, 2008b).
Kymlicka (2002) states that “the health and stability of a modern
democracy depends not only on the justice of its basic institutions, but
also on the qualities and attitudes of its citizens: e.g. their sense of
identity, and how they view potentially competing forms of national,
regional, ethnic, or religious identities; their ability to tolerate and
work together with others who are different from themselves; their
desire to participate in the political process in order to promote the
public good and hold political authorities accountable; their
31
Twarog / Citizenship Education: Cultivating a Critical Capacity to Implement Universal…
willingness to show self-restraint and exercise personal responsibility
in their economic demands, and in personal choices which affect their
health and the environment. Without citizens who possess these
qualities, democracies become difficult to govern, even unstable”
(p. 285).
The question then is, what/how should schools teach pupils to foster values that can unite the
members of a diverse society? To create a coherent and unified group of citizens while allowing them
to maintain their diverse beliefs, ways of life, language, and cultural identities is the major goal of
citizenship education, especially in a globalizing world (Banks, 2008b). Achieving this goal has proven
difficult, as balancing between particularistic values of the nation and universal values for all required
a delicate balance. Theories on how to cultivate the morals and values needed to create good citizens
for both national and global participation are grounded in larger theoretical concepts. Many
theoreticians now address citizenship from various backgrounds including but not limited to:
cosmopolitanism (Nussbaum, 2008, 2012; Tan, 2004), multiculturalism (Banks, 1993a, 1993b, 1993c,
1995, 2008a, 2008b) and critical pedagogy (Bartolemé, 2007; Freire, 2000; Weiner, 2007) – offering various possibilities how citizenship education can be addressed to teach “an ever-increasing culturally
and linguistically diverse student body” (Bartolemé, 2007, p. 263).
This paper will address the ideas of Martha Nussbaum and James A. Banks, who present two
possibilities for citizenship education. Nussbaum, although writing on the topic of education, works
predominantly in the area of philosophy, while Banks is a scholar who focuses specifically on
multicultural education. This article will focus on their works on citizenship and citizenship education,
and how they attempt to address the challenges of diversity within a globalizing world.
Nussbaum (2008, 2012) has recently departed from her cosmopolitan position to promote what she
refers to as ‘purified patriotism’ which morally supports a form of Rawlsian political liberalism
(Nussbaum, 2008). She attempts to show how teaching “patriotism can be inspiring, making the nation
an object of love, while also activating rather than silencing the critical faculties” (Nussbaum, 2012,
p. 244). Her departure from cosmopolitanism is linked to her idea that citizens need to feel a love for
the nation before they can critically address any injustice within the nation, and then globally. Banks,
on the other hand, promotes ‘transformative citizenship education’ which “involves civic actions
designed to actualize values and moral principles and ideals beyond those of existing laws and
conventions” (Banks, 2008b, p. 136). This transformative action, similar to Nussbaum’s purified
patriotism, aims to unite citizens under a banner of civic action for the common good. However, Banks
believes that this can be achieved by focusing on cosmopolitan ideals, which are the foundation for
democratic values of civic equality, tolerance and recognition. He believes that citizens must first
understand universal values of justice, equality and tolerance in order to use them as a foundation to
critically evaluate their own beliefs, cultural values and experiences within the nation.
Although Nussbaum and Banks approach citizenship education and the achievement of good
citizenship differently, both scholars place great value on the development of the individual’s critical
capacity. They both believe that a critical capacity to evaluate reality from diverse viewpoints requires
an imagination for thinking anew, which requires the willingness and openness of citizens to succeed.
Their ideas about how citizenship and citizenship education should be addressed in a diverse society
will be discussed below, with contrasting and supporting arguments from various scholars. Scholars
working in the field of critical pedagogy will be used to support further the arguments of Nussbaum
and Banks, that citizenship education should foster a public critical culture which will be reflective,
open and willing to collaborate within a diverse community (nationally and globally) and which will
promote and defend justice, equality and tolerance.
This article has been divided into five sections dealing with values, identity, national narratives and
teacher education training, and is followed by a conclusion. These sections, which address the works
of Nussbaum and Banks, will attempt to disclose the complexity of citizenship and citizenship
education in a global age. As a theoretical analysis of the two authors’ works on citizenship education,
32
Twarog / Citizenship Education: Cultivating a Critical Capacity to Implement Universal…
this article is not able to be a comprehensive analysis of all aspects related to citizenship education.
Furthermore, as this work deals with Nussbaum and Banks, both American scholars, many of the
examples provided within the text come from American and European contexts. However, to make
this paper more relevant for the publication in Sociální pedagogika | Social Education journal, and
better to connect with the Czech reader, several footnotes have been added throughout the paper to
connect some of the main points in the body of the article with Czech examples.
2
Values – particularistic values vs. universal values
The debate about what values students should embrace as citizens is one of the most contested topics
of citizenship and citizenship education (Sundstӧm & Fernández, 2013). This section will discuss the
debate over values; more specifically, it will compare literature which supports national values with
that which emphasizes universal values as the foundation of citizenship education. The implications of
both models are also discussed in relation to a diverse nation state. This is relevant for many Western
democratic nations which have seen changes in their demographic due to immigration, and which have
begun to question what values should be instilled in citizens (Banks, 2008a, 2008b; Kymlicka, 2002).
The focus of political debate is on what collective values society should support and reproduce while
making room for diversity (Sundstӧm & Fernández, 2013). In liberal democratic states, liberal principles
of freedom and equality focus on individual rights, which could undermine distinct cultural group
practices. Within liberal-democracies, “group rights are secondary in relation to individual rights … [in
this way] cultural distinctiveness is desirable only to the extent that it does not undermine liberal
norms and values” (Gressgård, 2010, p. 3). This creates continual tension between respect for the
individual and respect for groups within liberal democracies. This is because the rights of minority
groups are only deemed tolerable or respectable if those groups adhere to the universal values of
individual equality.25 Banks (2004) states that diversity should be recognised within the nation, but
likewise that “every pluralistic nation-state must also be concerned about unity and a set of shared
values that will cement the commonwealth” (p. 3). Often universal values associated with liberal-
democracy26 are chosen to unify the nation as they promote tolerance and recognition of cultural
differences (Gutmann, 2004) and “protect the rights of cultural, ethnic, language, and religious groups”
(Banks, 2008a, p. 19). Some politicians feel the need to focus on the values that bind people such as
“democracy, freedom of speech and equality” (Osler, 2009, p. 89) with an emphasis on common
traditions. These ideas come from a fear that multiculturalism will lead to segregation if common ideals
25 Although it is not in the scope of this paper to “question the cultural specificity of concepts such as ‘rights’
and equality,’ (Gressgård, 2010, p. 4) it is important to note that the universal values discussed are ethnocentric, as they were derived in Western liberal democratic states. Gressgård’s (2010) book
Multicultural dialogue: Dilemmas, Paradoxes, Conflicts addresses and questions the cultural specificity of
concepts, as well as issues related to multiculturalism as a political doctrine. It discusses concepts like planned
pluralism, ethnocentric norms, cultural relativism and multicultural dialogue.
26 Ondřej Horák (2015) states that the Czech Republic has a long tradition of citizenship education, one which
was originally based on democratic values. However, the effects of the communist regime caused distrust
among Czechs about the intent of citizenship education: many viewed it as a form of propaganda and political
indoctrination. Unfortunately, this stigma associated with citizenship education has taken decades to improve
and is still not completely gone. Furthermore, while citizenship education was originally adopted into law in
1919, in the present day it does not receive the support and funding needed from the government to ensure
its adequate implementation in schools. In addition to this brief work by Horák, Eliška Urbanová (2016)
published an article in Pedagogika Społeczna which deals specifically with citizenship education in the Czech
context. Many of the ideas presented in this article are echoed in her work, and it is a must-read for anyone
interested in the history and struggle for citizenship education in the Czech Republic. She discussed the
background of citizenship education in Czech policies and the reasons why it has been so difficult to
implement in practice.
33
Twarog / Citizenship Education: Cultivating a Critical Capacity to Implement Universal…
are not promoted. Therefore, figures like Gordon Brown (Osler, 2009) believe that it is the
particularistic values of a nation, founded on “enduring ideals” (p. 89), which shape the national values,
and “in turn influence the way our institutions evolve,” (ibid.) which should be the focus.
Some believe that the best way to teach values to citizens is by focusing on national rather than global
values. Nussbaum (2008) believes that the best way to unify the nation is through ‘purified patriotism’:
a love for the nation which is founded on moral principles which support the political conceptions, in
this case those of democratic liberal states. This ‘love’ would be promoted through national stories of
dissent, which would instil the values needed to be a ‘good citizen,’ one willing to take action and
protect the rights of all citizens. Tan (2004) states that certain scholars, like Scheffler and Shue, worry
about the danger of placing so much value on patriotism. They fear that it would prioritise the rights
of compatriots over the rights of strangers. However, both Nussbaum (2008, 2012) and Tan (2004) feel that this does not have to be the case. If citizens acquire what Nussbaum refers to as ‘purified
patriotism’ (which would not exalt one nation above all others) or what Tan refers to as ‘limited
patriotism’ (which concerns the “relationship between justice and personal pursuits in more familiar
contexts”) (Tan, 2004, p. 140) then compatriots rights would not be placed above the rights of others.
Tan (2004) argues that patriotism is essential and perhaps even “a political virtue,” (p. 137) one which
must exist for democratic citizenship to function. Nussbaum agrees that citizens must feel love toward
their nation before they can defend or criticize it. Tan continues by stating that particularistic values
can coexist with universal values such as those promoted by cosmopolitanism. He references Goodin
who argues that “dividing our duties along national affiliations is one effective way of coordinating and
parcelling up our general universal duties to individuals at large” (Tan, 2004, p. 144). Furthermore, he
references the earlier work of Nussbaum, who agrees with Goodin that if “partial concerns in fact
violate the more fundamental cosmopolitan principles, the partial concern loses its moral ground”
(Tan, 2004, p. 145). Therefore, it seems that particularistic values of a nation-state must also adhere
in some extent to certain universal values if they are to remain moral and just. Both
Nussbaum (2008, 2012) and Banks (1995, 2008a, 2008b) emphasize the continual need to reflect on particularistic values of the nation-state, using citizens’ critical capacities to assess whether particular
national values reinforce or diminish universal values of justice, equality and tolerance.
For particularistic values to remain a viable option for citizenship education in diverse nation-states,
they must adhere to some universal ideals which will protect and be supported by all citizens. But,
more importantly, recent discussions on national values, for example ‘British values’ (Osler, 2009) and
‘Dutch values’ (Doppen, 2007) cannot simply maintain a stagnant position of what these ideals are, but
must continually re-evaluate them with a critical capacity to address the shifting demographic of their
nations. Furthermore, and most importantly, the values by which citizens are told to abide should be
enforced in practice, in political, cultural, civil and social aspects of everyday life (Banks, 2008b).
Multicultural societies need to understand that diversity is not simply a demographical fact, but that it
must become a value, respected and practiced by its citizens. The example used at the beginning of
this section showed how politicians in Britain are stressing a commitment to British values and
traditions. This came as a response to the terrorist attack of September 11th 2001 and the terrorist
bombing in London on 7th July, 2005. Discussions about integration of immigrants, as well as the
immigrant’s role in integrating and “sign[ing] up to British values” (Osler, 2009, p. 92) increased
exponentially after these attacks. Britain began to question whether multicultural citizenship was
viable. The Commission for Racial Equality Chair Trevor Phillips even referred to multiculturalism as a
means of “leading people to live separate lives” and stated that Britons “are sleepwalking [their] way
to segregation… [and are] becoming strangers to each other, and … leaving communities to be
marooned outside the mainstream” (Osler, 2009, p. 89). The goals of the debate became to identify
ways in which the education system could strengthen British values (or Britishness) and achieve social
cohesion with a national identity.
Tension and racism which already existed within British society and institutions escalated (Osler, 2009).
Reforms were proposed to tackle institutional racism, including in the police service and education;
34
Twarog / Citizenship Education: Cultivating a Critical Capacity to Implement Universal…
however, these reforms were not fully implemented. Phillips’ concern about marooning groups
outside the mainstream is a serious fear. However, as Banks (2008b) states, universal conceptions of
citizenship which require citizens to “give up their first languages and cultures to become full
participants in the civic community of the nation-state” (p. 129) are based on assimilationist values.
These values are no longer viable within a multicultural nation. He stresses the importance of ‘cultural
democracy,’ which should coexist with political and economic democratic values. Immigrant and ethnic
groups should be able to retain elements of their own culture while participating in the national civic
culture. If, for example, Britain progresses its national vision of what it means to be British and
incorporates aspects from the diverse experiences, cultures and languages which exist within its
borders, it could enrich the mainstream culture as well (Banks, 2008b). However, it seems that
assimilationist ideas about citizenship, popular in the 1950s, are still present in European nations
today. Certain politicians believe that they can control difference (Castles, 2004) and prevent ethnic
diversity from transforming society. Instead of viewing immigrants as a means of enrichment, they are
viewed as a “problem to nation-states, since they threaten ideologies of cultural homogeneity”
(Castles, 2004). In this regard, traditional fears and methods undermine social cohesion, and do not
cultivate the critical capacity to think anew (Roth & Rӧnnstrӧm, 2015), a skill which is necessary to
support the ever-changing demographic of nations. For it is this ability to think anew using our
imaginations which Nussbaum (2012) believes will help citizens recognize previously marginalized
groups once – thought to be subhuman – as fully human, and in turn help protect their universal rights
within the particularistic framework of the nation-state.
Problems associated with weak identification with the nation-state occur when minority groups do not
feel that their “hopes, dreams, vision and possibilities” (Banks, 2008b, p. 133) are reflected and
protected within national values. Banks (2008b) goes on to state that the men who were responsible
for the London bombing had immigrant parents but were British citizens. They “apparently were not
structurally integrated into British mainstream society and had weak identifications with the nation-
state and with other British citizens” (ibid.). This is not an uncommon phenomenon among immigrant
and minority citizens. This in turn can create “culture clashes” (Castles, 2004, p. 25) between the
majority population and ethnic minorities, wherein neither group is able to identify with the other.
Banks references studies conducted in the United States which indicated that immigrant youth do not
define their national identities as American. Rather they view themselves as “Palestinian, Vietnamese
or Pakistani” (ibid.) while acknowledging their American citizenship as “they valued the privileged legal status and other opportunities it gave them” (Banks, 2008b, p. 134). They distinguish between national
identity and citizenship, and although they viewed themselves as American citizens, they did not view
themselves as American. This is a result of the narrative which they have been taught, and which has
made them view ‘American’ as something that “required an individual to be White and mainstream”
(Banks, 2008b, p. 134). This is the danger of teaching national values which are too strictly rooted in
traditional history as fabric of the national identity and values. As immigration and diversification
within the nation is increasing (rather than decreasing), it is even more important that not only the
values taught in schools but also the narrative used to teach them include the histories, perspectives,
cultures and languages of its diverse citizens.
Nussbaum’s idea of patriotism, rooted in certain moral values, can function in a multicultural nation
only when there is “a social space for intercultural communication and accommodation”
(Castles, 2004, p. 25). Weak patriotism which respects global justice is not enough to ensure that all
citizens of a nation are represented. Citizenship values, then, should encompass global principles of
human rights, justice, tolerance, and respect as a foundation for national implementation. This, as
discussed above, seems to be generally agreed upon by all liberal democratic states, as it is also the
foundation of democratic values. However, while the nation must use global values, it must
contextualize them within the diverse demographic of its citizens, and in so doing must also make
national values more equitable with regard to racial, cultural, gender and language diversity. Only in
this way will ideas like multiculturalism and inclusion go from being a good policy in theory to good
practice in society. This can happen when diversity is respected and structurally incorporated into
35
Twarog / Citizenship Education: Cultivating a Critical Capacity to Implement Universal…
society (Banks, 2008b) through deliberation, which in turn should bring out understanding. Only when
people within the nation create mutual respect through what Freire (2000) refers to as “dialogue
theory” (p. 167) can the nation expect to achieve devotion to the nation from all its citizens. This is
because values cannot be imposed; they need to be part of a dialogue which is the foundation of
cooperation (Banks, 2008b; Freire, 2000). By doing this, citizens who once only saw themselves as
citizens of a nation for the values it brought them would then begin to trust the nation seeing that its
values included them as well. Only when deliberation using the critical capacity to reflect on individual
values (as well as national values collectively) will citizens be able to choose to be patriotic to the nation
– a choice made from free will and not coercion. This is a difficult task, as it tasks citizens to address
reality critically rather than to idealise the nation.
The idea of critically analysing the nation and its values is agreed upon by many scholars (Apple, 2014;
Banks 2008a, 2008b; Kymlicka, 2002; Nussbaum, 2008, 2012) who believe that citizens need to have a critical capacity to analyse the nation for what it is as opposed to an idealised version. Apple (2014)
states that being critical does not means “fault-finding, … [but] involves understanding the sets of
historically contingent circumstances and contradictory power relationships that create the conditions
in which we live” (p. 5). Sundstӧm and Fernández (2013) state that citizens in a democratic society
should possess the ability to think critically and to form their own opinions based on factual knowledge
they have obtained about the history and structure of their society.27 Nussbaum (2008, 2012) places a
significant importance on “a vigorous critical culture” (Nussbaum, 2008, p. 83) which will ensure that
citizenship is not attained through coercion but through critical thinking.
Nussbaum (2012) believes that citizens cannot be “good dissenters in or critics of a nation unless they
first care about the nation and its history” (p. 245). She hopes that this love can be linked to good
values from the beginning to become a “basis for criticizing bad values” (ibid.) later on. Nussbaum
believes that particularistic tales of the nation will lead to critical thinking, which will even lead to a
critique of the patriotic narrative itself. Nussbaum places importance on particularistic attachment
before the critical capacity to analyse universal value implementation. Banks (2008a), on the other
hand, feels that national attachments already “in most nations are strong and tenacious” (p. 29)
– especially among mainstream citizens – and that what is important is helping students develop global
identifications. Furthermore, “nonreflective and unexamined cultural attachments may prevent the
development of a cohesive nation with clearly defined national goals and policies. Although we need
to help students develop reflective and clarified cultural identifications, they must also be helped to
clarify their identifications with their nation-states” (Banks, 2008a, p. 28). Therefore, the critical
capacity to critique and reflect comes first, before an individual can clarify his or her attachment to
national and global identity. Unlike Nussbaum (2008, 2012), Banks (2008a) feels that the critical capacity must come first, rooted in universal values and a cosmopolitan idea of allegiance “to the
worldwide community of human beings” (p. 27). Furthermore, using Nussbaum’s former cosmopolitan
argument, he states that “a focus on nationalism may prevent students from developing a
commitment to cosmopolitan values such as human rights and social justice – values which transcend
national boundaries, cultures, and times” (ibid.). Unlike Nussbaum, Banks believes that particularistic
attachment should come after an individual comes to a reflective understanding of what universal
values are and how they should be implemented on a national level.
27 The definition of citizenship education which Horák (2015) presents (although there is no official definition in
the Czech Republic) comes from the Civic Education Centre, which states, “[c]itizenship education empowers
citizens to actively engage in public affairs and contribute to developing a democratic society in an informed
and responsible way” (p. 2). This working definition of citizenship education in the Czech Republic
corresponds well with the beliefs of the scholars in this section, specifically the need to develop critical
thinking and a deep understanding of public affairs (both historically and in relation to power structures).
36
Twarog / Citizenship Education: Cultivating a Critical Capacity to Implement Universal…
3
Identity – co-created and co-related
Democratic values founded on equality, tolerance and mutual respect are the foundation of the ideals
of citizenship. They are rooted in the Enlightenment, and throughout history have not always been
available to all citizens. Although today ethnic, racial and gender differences have been fought for by
multiculturalists and feminists alike, there remain remnants of exclusionary tendencies within Western
democratic societies and institutions. The previous section discussed how citizens from marginalized
groups can identify as citizens of a nation but still not feel a belonging to that nationality. This is evident
in the example Banks gives of the Vietnamese student who identifies as an American citizen but not as
American, because this term represented “White and mainstream” (Banks, 2008b, p. 134). This weak
form of identification with the nation causes many problems, as the example of the London bombers
shows: men who were British citizens committed horrendous crimes against their fellow citizens
(Banks, 2008b). This is because of the divide between the theoretical notion of citizenship as universal,
and its practical implementation which has made minority individuals feel excluded and marginalized
(Ladson-Billings, 2004).
For the most part the concept of citizenship and citizenship education has focused on “the equality of
individuals before the law, whereas nationality is closely interwoven with notions of a moral and
cultural community” (Mannitz, 2011, p. 316). Traditionally, nation-states have enjoyed a certain level
of cultural homogeneity which solved the problem of nationality and loyalty. Whether this
homogeneity was real or simply perceived will not be debated; however, the “ideal was to create a
collectivity of citizens with common cultural attributes so that their ultimate loyalty was to the state”
(Oommen, 2004, p. 334). Today, the identities of diverse group are being addressed in multicultural
democratic societies. It has not been easy for nation-states to balance between incorporating the
diversity of citizens while maintaining an overarching set of shared values (Banks, 2008a). The attempts
were to centre citizenship around a set of values – democratic values, which could be supported and
adhered to by all citizens. However, supporting and adhering to values which are political pillars of the
nation does not necessarily equate to identification, attachment and belonging to a nation. So, the
question remains: how can nation-states “recognize and legitimize difference and yet construct an
overarching national identity that incorporates the voices, experiences, and hopes of the diverse
groups that compose it” (Banks, 2008b, p. 133)?
Banks (2008b) states that citizenship education should help students realize that “no local loyalty can
ever justify forgetting that each human being has responsibilities to every other” (p. 134). He feels that
this can be achieved by using cosmopolitan ideas, teaching students to identify and attach to all
humanity. Also, since this will not solve the problem of national identity, citizens must be taught that
identity is multifaceted, complex and evolving. Banks (2008a) argues that students need to be taught
how to develop “a delicate balance of cultural, national, regional and global identifications and
allegiances” (p. 28) to “acquire the knowledge, attitudes, and skills needed to function within and
across diverse groups and the commitment to make their nations and the world more just and
humane” (p. 29). The multicultural conception of identity is that citizens who can have a clear and
thoughtful attachment to their community culture and values will be better able to develop reflective
identifications with their nation-state (Banks, 2008a). This should, in turn, form more culturally
democratic citizens who can commit to actions which can transform society – locally, nationally and
globally.
While Banks feels that it is important to look outward using cosmopolitanism, Nussbaum has recently
denounced this view, and now believes that it is national patriotism which will solve the problem of
identity. For Nussbaum (2008, 2012), patriotic emotion is when citizens “embrace one another as a
family of sorts, sharing common purposes; thus, stigma is overcome (for a time at least) by imagination
and love” (Nussbaum, 2012, p. 223). Patriotism is a particularistic love which Nussbaum believes
should be attached to political liberalism. In Rawls’ terms, political liberalism would serve as a
“module,” thin and narrow in extent, and would not use religious or metaphysical notions so that
37
Twarog / Citizenship Education: Cultivating a Critical Capacity to Implement Universal…
“citizens can join [it] to their own comprehensive doctrines, thus forming what he [Rawls] calls an
‘overlapping consensus’” (Nussbaum, 2015, p. 70). Because by itself political liberalism is not enough
to unify people, Nussbaum believes that adding a moral sentiment of compassion toward the nation,
a patriotism, would unite its citizens. Nussbaum feels that this particularism is what is needed, as
peoples’ imagination is too limited to care for an abstract concept like ‘all humanity.’ Her belief is that
individuals, like animals, have a limited capacity to feel genuine altruistic concern beyond a limited
group. Therefore, the nation would already extend the human moral imagination of citizens.
Nussbaum feels that this is the largest group for which individuals can feel an attachment. She believes
that this can be achieved through teaching “another person’s stories of woe” (Nussbaum, 2012, p. 220)
within a national ‘narrative’; this should trigger the altruistic emotion, and as such a love for the nation.
Identity is not only a matter of how to get minority group citizens to identify and feel attachment to
the nation. It is not simply a question of how they view themselves, but also how are they viewed by
others within the dominant society. Citizens from the dominant society often question the nationality
of ethnic and racial minorities, a scenario which creates barriers for them to feel an attachment to the
national identity. Both Banks and Nussbaum identify this as an issue facing citizenship. Banks (2008a)
references Brodkin, who made a distinction between “ethnoracial assignment and ethnoracial
identity” (p.22). These terms describe the relationship between the way outsiders define people of
certain groups and how individuals define themselves. 28 Nussbaum (2012) feels that stories of suffering
and dissent should be taught to combat division. These stories should incorporate “denigrated group[s]
as part of a ‘we’ that suffered together in the past and suggest that ‘we’ are planning together for a
future of struggle, but also hope” (p. 223). Banks (2008a, 2008b) argues that before marginalized
groups can be recognized as full citizens, they need to have institutional inclusion. The uneven
distribution of power needs to be addressed: power needs to be “placed on the table, negotiated, and
shared” (Banks, 2008a, p. 106). Once this is achieved, educators need to implement prejudice
reduction strategies, which will help deconstruct the myth of Western homogeneity. Banks states that
mainstream Americans need to be given the opportunity to confront their “cultural assumptions,
beliefs, values and perspectives, because the school culture usually reinforces those that they learn at
home and their community” (Banks, 2008a, p. 110). It is this lack of reflection – and the lack of
opportunity to reflect – which leads to cultural assumptions “that are monocultural, that devalue
African, Asian, and other cultures, and that stereotype people of color and people who are poor or
who are victimized in other ways” (ibid.). These same cultural assumptions, which the school
unknowing protects are causing minority groups of colour to feel that nationality is always out of
reach.29 This gives evidence that multicultural education is not just for people of colour, it is just as
important for students from the dominant culture for them to understand the struggles of others, and
join them in making changes.
Nussbaum’s idea to include content about diverse racial, ethnic, gender and language groups is a start,
but it is not enough. What Nussbaum suggests is a “way in which teachers use examples, data and
information from a variety of cultures and groups to illustrate key concepts, principles, generalizations
and theories” (Banks, 1993a, p. 5). Nussbaum’s idea about including the ‘other’ into the ‘we’ could also
be linked to one of Banks’ dimensions – empowering school culture – but only if these stories identify
28 Taťána Součová’s paper (2015) – The Ukrainian Minority in Brno: A Qualitative Research on Ethnic Identity
(Součová, 2015) – presents the Ukrainian perspective of ethnic identity and offers contrasting views from
Czech citizens. The results show that there is a discrepancy between their perceptions of Ukrainian identity.
Součová states that Czech citizens generally have a negative view of Ukrainians and tend to associate Ukraine
with Russia. Furthermore, she indicates that Czech citizens interviewed show a lack of both interest and
motivation to reflect on their perception of the Ukrainian minority. A lack of willingness, and limited
experience with Ukrainians have allowed for misconceptions of the Ukrainian culture and ethnic identity. This
article presents the concept of identity as co-created and co-related within the Czech context.
29 Barany (2002) discusses how this is also the case for Roma in East Europe; The Roma have overwhelmingly
been viewed in a negative light (as the outsider) even though their history dates back centuries within various
nation-states.
38
Twarog / Citizenship Education: Cultivating a Critical Capacity to Implement Universal…
the power relations within society and work toward restructuring them. Only when students share
power equally can this allow for equal-status dialogue. This involves the transformation of the
classroom so it focuses on creating “deep citizens” (Banks, 2008b, p. 136). Banks (2008b) uses Clarke’s
definition of deep citizenship, which would mean acquiring the knowledge, values and skills to make
students conscious that “identity of self and the identity of other is co-related and co-creative”
(p. 136). This involves a reflective process which would address how our particularistic identity
(whether that be gender identity, occupation or community member) affects our ability to view
ourselves and others as part of the nation. It is these particular identities which individuals impose on
themselves and others which are co-created and co-related, and they need to be address to
understand critically how they were formed in the imagination of individuals. This will also help citizens
understand how these identities have either been promoted or supressed through national histories
or national institutions such as schools, and also help them find creative solutions to recreate the
identities of themselves and those around them in a way that supports universal values and justice.
The following section will discuss the implications of Nussbaum’s and Banks’ ideas discussed above in
the context of teaching national history. Whether it is called narrative (Nussbaum, 2008) or canon
(Banks, 2008a), the basis of citizenship education is based on certain standards and “criterion used to
define, select and evaluate knowledge in the school and university curriculum within a nation”
(Banks, 2008a, p. 133). It is a way in which the national story is told, and in education it attempts to
teach national values and identity.
4
National Narrative – Teaching the universal through the particularistic
Teaching national history is an inevitable component of citizenship education. Education is and has
often been “seen as an important tool for developing national identity” (Castles, 2004, p. 31) and
cultivating national values. National history is particularistic as it focuses on the specific values, stories
and identities within the nation-state. The particularistic element of national history cannot be
eliminated, but changes can be made to address critically whence particularistic values and knowledge
are derived and how they include or exclude the experiences of diverse groups. Citizens learn about
national values and identity through the story of the nation, which is often done to teach society what
they are supposed to reproduce and defend (Sundstrӧm & Fernández, 2013). Nussbaum agrees with
this point and says that “the story of the past has to tell people what is worth fighting for in the future”
(Nussbaum, 2012, p. 221). Traditionally, in Western nations this has been done by telling the story
from a single epistemological perspective, which believed that “western history, literature, and
culture” (Banks, 1993c, p. 4) were most important, and which often placed European male
achievement above all else. Those who still believe that this is the best way to teach national values
and identity are traditionalists. However, marginalized racial, ethnic and gender groups, as well as new
immigrants in nation-states have increasingly begun to demand that they receive recognition for their
role in nation-building. Beginning in the 1960s and 1970s with the Civil Rights movement in the United
States, “multiculturalists want[ed] a more truthful, complex, and diverse version of the West taught in
the schools” (Banks, 2008a, p. 107). Banks (1993a, 2008a) states that this began a polarized debate
between traditionalists and multiculturalists about “the extent to which the histories and cultures of
women and people of color should be incorporated into the study of Western civilization in the nation’s
schools, colleges, and universities”30 (Banks, 1993a, p. 4). This polarized debate about content
30 If the history and culture of marginalized groups is presented in a narrow way, this limited exposure runs the
risk of causing more damage than good. An example from the Czech context of the danger of having a limited
narrative of minorities is presented in Amnesty International’s review (2015) – Must try harder: ethnic discrimination of Romani children in Czech Schools. In the paper, they presented a grade 8 textbook on civic
education from a practical school (which often have high representation of Roma pupils) which gave a
summary of two ethnic minorities living in the Czech Republic: Jews and Roma. In this textbook, Roma are
“described as people who ‘came from India hundreds of years ago, when they had started their journey
39
Twarog / Citizenship Education: Cultivating a Critical Capacity to Implement Universal…
integration, which Banks warns is the most popular and misconceived view of multicultural education,
placed a shadow over its greater purpose: understanding knowledge construction and taking
transformative action.
How then can minorities be recognized in the telling of national history? Nussbaum believes the
answer lies in developing a national narrative which hooks31 people in “through several concrete
features: for example, named individuals (founders, heroes), physical particulars (features of
landscape, and vivid images and metaphors), and, above all, narratives of struggle, involving suffering
and hope” (Nussbaum, 2012, p. 220). Nussbaum explains that this narrative would be selected from
the history of the nation, specifically stories of struggle and dissent, which would unify the nation to
work toward a future for the common good. She believes that figures such as Martin Luther King can
bring “forward valuable general ideals from the past and use them to find fault with an unjust reality”
(p. 233). Banks (2008b) also uses the historical figure Rosa Parks and her refusal to give up her seat to
a white man on the bus, a pivotal event leading to the end of segregation on transportation in the
American South. Her actions were a part of transformative citizenship, in that she “took action to
actualize social justice, even though what [she] did was illegal and challenged existing laws, customs,
and conventions” (p. 137). Stories of dissent can help students understand that although Western
democratic states believe in universal values of equality, justice and tolerance, these basic rights are
not always provided to all citizens.
However, stories of opposition to oppression and suffering within the nation are problematic on their
own, as they do not necessarily emit the sentiment of solidarity from those who have either not
suffered along with the oppressed or who find themselves the oppressors in the stories of dissent.
Nussbaum (2012) as well as Freire (2000) recognize this as a problem to solidarity. As Freire states,
“Discovering [one]self to be an oppressor may cause considerable anguish, but does not necessarily
lead to solidarity with the oppressed” (p. 49). Furthermore, Banks (2008b) agrees with this problematic
result by referring to Cohen and her colleagues who “consistently found that contact among different
groups without deliberate interventions to increase equal-status and positive interactions among them
will increase rather than reduce intergroup tension” (p. 136). Whitt (2016) refers to “distancing
strategies,” a mechanism used by students (usually those of privilege) to distance themselves from any
around the world. With horses harnessed into carriages, they moved from one place to another and because
they differed from the Europeans by the colour of their skin and their lifestyle, they were viewed with distrust
and hostility’” (p. 32). This limited description of the Roma contrast strongly with the description provided
about the Jewish minority, “described as one that contributed to the culture, science, and art of the country
… [and] were victims of the Nazi Holocaust” (ibid.). There is a stark contrast between the portrayal of these
groups; it tells a limited story of the Roma, highlighting negative views of the group. This image of the Roma
is further propelled by largely negative stories in the media. As Barany (2002) states this is a disservice, to the
Roma and society “because Romani integration will be difficult to achieve in a society that lacks tolerance of
and solidarity with a marginal minority” (p. 350). For Roma to fully participate as citizens in the Czech
Republic, the government, media and education systems need to replace the negative perception for Roma
with a more thorough and comprehensive one, to inform society “about centuries-long marginalization and
persecution to which states and societies have subjected the Gypsies [in order] to be able to understand and
put into context the Roma’s contemporary predicament” (Barany, 2012, p. 350). He goes on to say that this
process takes time, that it is unlikely that Czech citizens will suddenly ‘like’ Roma minorities, but they should
recognize them as citizens and treat them with universal values of tolerance, and ensure that they receive
fair and equal opportunity as citizens. For a deeper history of Roma people in Eastern Europe, Barany’s book
The East European Gypsies: regime change, marginality and ethnopolitics is a good source of information in
English. Another article dealing with “anti-Gypsyism” in the Czech Republic is Renata Weinerová’s (2014) Anti-
Gypsyism in the Czech Republic: Czech’s perception of Roma in cultural stereotypes. Furthermore, the
Museum of Romani Culture located in Brno, CZ has dedicated staff and resources which can be utilized by
teachers looking to make their classrooms more inclusive to all citizens. This is especially relevant as the Czech
Republic has initiated an Education Reform (2015), which will mean the inclusion of many marginalized Roma
pupils from practical schools in mainstream classrooms.
31 A word specifically used by Nussbaum (2012) to describe what the narrative should do.
40
Twarog / Citizenship Education: Cultivating a Critical Capacity to Implement Universal…
involvement in systemic injustice. However, Whitt states that this is too narrow a conception, as it only
looks at individual culpability. It is not simply “that distancing prevents students from ‘getting it right’
about injustice, but that, with regard to knowing and learning, distancing prevents students from
‘doing it well’” (Whitt, 2016, p. 428). He continues by saying that this is because distancing is
“a particular kind of resistance to critical thinking, there is much more at stake in distancing,
pedagogically speaking, than unreflective denials of complicity” (ibid.). Considering the new emerging
branch of philosophy called epistemologies of ignorance, Whitt states that this is not simply an
individual condition but also political “insofar as different social positions and power relations tend to
encourage different modes of knowing, ignoring, revealing, and dissembling” (p. 431). Furthermore,
adding content (or refocusing the content) of marginalized people and their struggle against
oppression is not enough. Banks (2008a) states that the goal of multicultural education “is to transform
the curriculum so that students develop an understanding of how knowledge is constructed and the
extent to which it is influenced by the personal, social, cultural, and gender experiences of knowledge
producers” (p. 89).
So, what is the solution which would create solidarity among all citizens, and increase the application
of universal values in practice as opposed to simply an ideal, the solution which would not result in
increased tension or distancing? In her earlier work, Nussbaum (2002) asks – “should a liberal32
education be an acculturation into the time-honored values of one’s own culture? Or should it follow
Socrates, arguing that ‘the examined life’ is the best preparation for citizenship?” (p. 290). This debate
is still prevalent today between traditionalists and multiculturalists. However, the former sections have
shown that assimilationist single narratives do not include minorities into the knowledge construction;
content integration is not enough for understanding knowledge construction and different ways of
knowing. Therefore, it seems that for citizenship education to be successful, it needs to focus on
creating a critical public culture which will not only hold the values of justice, equality and tolerance as
ideals but have the tools to implement them in their attitudes, beliefs and actions. Roth and Rӧnnstrӧm
(2015) state that this requires “a willingness to change the way or ways we understand ourselves,
others and the world, and to create new ways of thinking and understanding” (p. 706). This involves
an epistemological study to recognize “that knowledge contains both subjective and objective
elements … in which the social location produces subjectivity and influences the construction of
knowledge, [which we must be aware of in order to] interrogate established knowledge that
contributes to the opposition of marginalized and victimized groups” (Banks, 1995, p. 15).
As Nussbaum states, coercion goes against liberal democratic values, which means that this willingness
must come voluntarily from citizens who use their critical capacity to recognize injustice and seek to
change the situation. As a response to the universal values of justice and equality for all, individuals
must use their imagination to be openminded and continually address their particularistic values,
which could limit their imaginative capacity to think anew.
Critical thinking, then, is the missing component in contemporary citizenship education, a component
which can help foster the necessary sentiment to achieve universal values. By asking citizens to be
reflective critics on traditional practices and power structures, they can change their attitudes and
beliefs. Citizenship education must help students recognize that individuals’ particular values are
affected by the knowledge they receive from the curriculum, society, their culture and their personal
experiences. Nussbaum (2002) believes that for students, philosophy can be a great way to acquire
the capacity for “critically examining oneself and one’s traditions” (p. 293). Adding a critical culture to
the national story and analysing the epistemic origins of our knowledge is consistent with both
Banks’ (2008a) idea of a transformative curriculum and Nussbaum’s (2002, 2012) arguments (in her earlier work Education for Citizenship in an Era of Global Connection). Education should be designed
to help students “view concepts, events, and situations from diverse racial, ethnic, gender, and social-
32 Nussbaum’s (2002) use of the word liberal refers to Seneca’s definition of the term as “an education is truly
‘liberal’ only if it is one that ‘liberates’ the student’s mind, encouraging him or her to take action of his or own
thinking, leading the Socratic examined life and becoming a reflective critic of traditional practices” (p. 290).
41
Twarog / Citizenship Education: Cultivating a Critical Capacity to Implement Universal…
class perspectives. The transformative curriculum also helps students to construct their own
interpretations of the past, present and future” (Banks, 2008a, p. 136). By critically looking at the
national story from various perspectives, individuals will be better prepared to come up with creative
ways to solve the problems associated with a pluralist society. This will not be a simple process and
requires a lot work. Citizens will have to take part in a constructive debate about citizenship and
education; these issues are at present very polarised. Often, the debate has taken place in mass media
and political debate, arenas where it has been oversimplified. The dialogue has centred on “polarizing
binarism and uncritical appeals to the discourse of experience” (Freire & Macedo, 1995, p. 381) which
has focused too much on “each side stating briefs and then marshalling evidence to support its
position” (Banks, 1993a, p. 4). Banks (1993a, 2008a) states that this debate has caused more problems
than stimulated any exchange of ideas which could find creative solutions. Nussbaum (2002) agrees
that too often “good reasoning can be found on both sides, and at many levels. But so often the
dominant concern of both journalists and politicians is for how things ‘play,’ for ‘spin,’ rather than for
the quality of ideas and arguments” (p. 293).
Creating a critical culture among citizens is the hard work which citizenship education must take on:
not only to teach universal values of tolerance, respect and justice in society but also to create the
reflective attitudes and beliefs needed to take action in the face of injustice, both nationally and
internationally. This requires making changes to the current curriculum to focus more on deliberation
and dialogue rather than debate, which states facts and simple defences. Nussbaum (2002) states that
citizens must have respect for their own intellect and for that of others, and must genuinely care about
the deliberative process to be able to navigate through the landmines of simplistic information. They
also need this capacity and willingness to think anew, access their personal values in a critical way and
reflectively understand their identity and the identity of others with diverse cultures, races and
genders, and to be able to deliberate with each other with equal status. This is the most important
universal capacity which is needed in democratic nation-states. If citizens have a universal respect for
critical reflection, they will be better prepared to discuss openly the particularistic implementation of
values within their nations, and have the capacity to defend universal values globally.
When citizens are taught to enter a deliberative dialogue rather than a mere exchange of subjective
facts, they will be able to find creative solutions to support a diverse society. Paulo Freire refers to this
as dialogical action, a “dialogue [which] does not impose, does not manipulate, does not dominate,
does not sloganize” (Freire, 2000, p. 168). For citizens to feel particularistic ‘patriotic love’ or universal
‘love for all humanity,’ they must first authentically adhere to their critical capacity and participate in
communication among people, a process “mediated by reality” (ibid.). When people are educated
about the realities of the world around them (cultural, ethnic, linguistic and gender perspectives), they
will grow to trust themselves and trust those with whom they share the nation and the globe.
Nussbaum (2002) states that “political deliberation can proceed well in a pluralistic society – if citizens
have sufficient respect for their own reasoning and really care about the substance of ideas and the
structure of arguments. The responsibility for instilling these values lies with our institutions of higher
education” (p. 294). Fostering a critical capacity to assess particularistic values and how they support
or hinder the achievement of universal values of justice is an open-ended endeavour. It is a continual
re-examination and reflection of current events and situations to achieve compromise which will
support the civil, cultural and political rights of all citizens.
The following section will briefly look at how teacher education programs can better prepare teachers
for a deliberative classroom which fosters critical thinking. Aided by a dialogue between
Freire and Macedo (1995) and their discussion of the role of the teacher, it will show how the ideas
found in Nussbaum and Banks can be put to work. It will address the issue of preparing teachers for
their role as educator, and present ways in which teachers can address their position in the classroom
to provide an adequate space for navigating values, attitudes and beliefs both within the nation-state
and globally.
42
Twarog / Citizenship Education: Cultivating a Critical Capacity to Implement Universal…
5
Teacher education programs – Cultivating critical educators
“The educator who dares to teach has to stimulate learners to live a critically conscious presence in
the pedagogical and historical process” (Freire & Macedo, 1995, p. 379) .
The global challenges to citizenship and the challenges diversity places on the education system to
foster citizens who are critical, reflective and willing to work toward making their nation-states and
the world a more just place for all is discussed above. The task of successful implementation of the
necessary changes to citizenship education, and even to education more broadly, is the responsibility
of teachers who interpret the national curriculum and implement it in practice. Teachers have a
personal relationship with their students, which places them in a powerful and significant position to
influence their students’ attitudes, values and identities – both positively and negatively. Teacher
education programs must teach prospective educators how to effectively prepare students who come
from diverse ethnic, religious, racial and gender backgrounds for their roles as citizens.33 For teachers
to instil the critical capacity in their students needed to take transformative action, they themselves
need to possess this capacity. However, as there is a demographical distinction between the teaching
population (predominantly made up of women from the majority culture) and the students they teach
(Banks, 2008a), there is likewise a greater demand that educators also possess ideological clarity.
Ideological clarity is, as Bartolomé (2007) explains, “the process by
which individuals struggle to identify and compare their own
explanations for the existing socioeconomic and political hierarchy
with the dominant society’s. The juxtaposing of ideologies should help
teachers to better understand if, when and how their belief systems
uncritically reflect those of the dominant society and thus maintain
unequal and what should be unacceptable conditions that so many
students experience on a daily basis” (p.264).
Just as critically examining ones’ beliefs and attitudes is hard work for citizens, this will be hard work
for prospective teachers. Now, too little attention is paid to teachers’ own assumptions, values and
beliefs and the manner in which these consciously or subconsciously inform their teaching habits.34
33 James Banks’ book An introduction to Multicultural Education (2008b) is a good starting point for teachers looking to utilize multicultural education and perspectives in their classroom. Although Banks specifically uses
examples from the American context, there is a lot of inspiration and possibility to adapt certain ideas for the
Czech context – specifically chapter 6, Teaching with Powerful Ideas, which gives practical examples of how
to teach history and mathematics from a multicultural perspective.
34 Doppen (2007) presents a study which was conducted in the Netherlands to determine the perceptions of
teachers on certain issues related to social diversity. The participants were asked to define
burgerschapsvorming (civic education). Half of the participants in the study stated that teaching democratic
values also included teaching what it means to be Dutch. Even though all the participants agree that civic
education is important, half of the participants had reservations about teaching it as it reminded them of
nationalism, Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia. They were asked about their inclusion of certain events or
concepts into their classrooms. One of these topics was September 11th, 2001. All the teachers stated that
they devoted some to considerable time discussing it with their students. The teachers mentioned that
Muslim students after learning about this event questioned how their presence in the Netherlands would be
perceived. However, when asked about multicultural education, and their students’ knowledge about Islam,
the teachers unanimously stated that their Dutch students have no real understanding of Islam, and that their
Muslim students have limited knowledge. Furthermore, when asked if they dedicate specific time in their
classes to teach about Islam, teachers admitted that they had little knowledge about the topic and some even
stated that they did not feel it was necessary. This is an example of teachers who lack reflective ideological
clarity, and lack the knowledge, attitudes and beliefs needed to educate students of diverse backgrounds.
Furthermore, this example shows the danger of teachers’ unwillingness to learn and demonstrates a lack of
43
Twarog / Citizenship Education: Cultivating a Critical Capacity to Implement Universal…
Within a knowledge-based society, education in liberal-democratic societies expects students to learn
to be innovative and creative in order to be employable, both nationally and internationally. However,
these goals are “strongly motivated by economic interests and not necessarily by interest in or concern
for cultivating students as moral cosmopolitan beings and world citizens” (Roth & Rӧnnstrӧm, 2015,
p. 706). Therefore, teacher education programs need to devote more time for the exploration of
values, attitudes and beliefs in order to give teachers the critical capacity to identify with their own
ideological clarity to find innovative and creative ways to cultivate students’ moral values to function
in a diverse society. Once teachers have been able to “identify and clarify their values,” they can “make
reflective moral choices” (Banks, 2008a, p. 87) in their teaching practices, and instil the same capacities
in their students.
Freire and Macedo (1995) believe that for this
The demographic of many liberal-
to be successful, teachers need to take on the
role of educator, not facilitator. While
democratic nations is becoming more
“facilitator” has become a new term to define
diverse due to internationalization
teachers, Freire and Macedo explain that this
and globalization. Citizenship
is “dishonest, and undermines the power
within their position which needs to be
education must nurture a critical
“pedagogically and critically radical” (p. 379).
culture in pupils so they are able to
Educators should “assume the authority as a
assess the world around them, to be
teacher whose direction of education includes
helping learners get involved in planning
willing and open to think anew and to
education, helping them create the critical
find creative ways to enforce the
capacity to consider and participate in the
direction and dreams of education, rather than
universal values of justice, tolerance
merely following blindly” (ibid.). This is not a
and equality for all citizens – to
simple process, as it requires the teacher to
collaborate within a diverse society.
maintain a power position while not
overshadowing their students’ “curious
presence” (ibid.), nor allowing their students to overshadow their own. They should use dialogue not
as a simple means of conversation which simply focuses on “individual’s lived experiences, which
remains strictly within the psychological sphere” (p. 381), but rather as “a process of learning and
knowing” (ibid.) – a process which “recognizes the social and not merely the individualistic character
of the process of knowing” (p. 379). These processes require a considerable amount of openness and
a willingness to take powerful ideas (Banks, 2008a), and address them both in theory and in practice.
Freire and Macedo (1995) state that being “dialogical educators” (p. 384) involves “both students and
teachers engage[d] in a search for the knowledge already obtained so they can adopt a dialogue
posture as a response to their epistemological inquietude that forces the revision of what is already
known so they can know it better” (p. 383).
This process of learning anew, and of critically analysing one’s values, beliefs and identity, is something
which has been covered in this paper. This quest should always keep in mind the political and social
structures which enable individuals to hold such a position of knowing. It seems that Freire and
Macedo explain this process the best; therefore, their words have been used extensively in this section
understanding of how teaching certain historical events can affect a student’s social construction of identity
of him or herself and of others. Without these basic skills and a critical capacity to discuss the topic of Islam
with their students, teachers are omitting an important component of their students understanding of
identity and thereby perpetuating social ignorance. This gap in understanding and knowledge can be solved
though cooperation with various actors from the community. By using the knowledge and experience of
different community experts, teachers can provide diverse perceptions of knowledge construction and
cultural relevance, and deepen their own knowledge along with that of their students. This simply requires
teachers to be open and willing to incorporate this as a technique in their everyday practice.
44
Twarog / Citizenship Education: Cultivating a Critical Capacity to Implement Universal…
to identify what a future educator needs to create a socially critical culture. Teaching is not a simple
task, especially in an ever-diversifying world. Teacher education programs need to spend more time
challenging teachers and their critical capacities to entrust them with such a powerful position within
curriculum implementation. To make this powerful position and the work involved appealing to
prospective teachers, the positon must also be given both social and economic respect. Teachers must
be willing to take on the important role, and their education program must provide them the tools to
fulfil their roles as educators in a diverse nation-state which always keeps in mind the universal values
which should be protected and supported by all citizens, nationally and globally.
6
Conclusion
The world is changing. Global factors are increasing the diversity within nation-states at an ever more
rapid pace due to the influence of immigration, migration and growth of national minorities. The
education systems of nation-states need to work just as rapidly to make changes to counteract deeply
rooted problems like ethnocentrism and racism, problems which “denigrate the value of minority
culture to modernizing ideologies of nation building that privilege uniformity and homogeneity over
diversity” (Kymlicka, 2004, p. 13). These problems, if not addressed, can lead to even greater increase
in nationalist movements and terrorist attacks. Merely adding content about diverse groups into the
citizenship curriculum is not enough. It must address the values, attitudes and beliefs which individuals
hold with regards to their social, political, cultural and civic positions within society. Both Banks and
Nussbaum agree that this requires the willingness and openness of individuals to use their imagination
and critical capacity to think anew. It requires creative solutions which ensure that the universal values
of justice, tolerance and equality are not merely ideals of democratic nation-states but the actual
practice of individuals – individuals with diverse ethnic, racial, language, and gender backgrounds
within the institutions of democratic nation-states. This requires not only the use of multicultural
education but also of critical pedagogy, which when combined, create “critical multiculturalism”
(Sleeter & Delego Bernal, 2004, p. 241). Critical multiculturalism (or what Banks refers to as
transformative multiculturalism) utilizes the language of multicultural education, but also addresses
Freire’s notion of dialogue, which critically engages with ideas of power, voice and culture. This is
important for the development of citizenship education, to recognize that certain individuals or groups
from various ethnic and cultural backgrounds have often been marginalized or left out entirely during
the formation of national narratives. The development of a critical capacity in teacher education
programs is not only beneficial to diverse students but is also useful for new teachers. This is because
multicultural education alone does not significantly address ideology, which refers to “the formation
of the consciousness of the individuals in a society, particularly their consciousness about how their
society works” (Apple, cited in Sleeter & Delego Bernal, 2004, p. 242). For teachers, who are often
members of the dominant social group, this provides them with a deeper understanding of how their
society works, how it has affected their beliefs, attitudes and values and the capacity to see diverse
members of their society as full citizens, even when their voices and culture have been marginalized.
This is a critical component in the process of thinking anew. A deep analysis of power relations within
society and achieving personal ideological clarity are necessary to enter a dialogue with others and
then to make changes to the concept of citizenship and citizenship education. Therefore, citizenship
education should focus on fostering citizens who are willing to think anew and take action to support
and defend the universal values of justice, tolerance and equality; citizenship education must recognize
all citizens in order to support diversity while simultaneously fostering unity based on mutual respect.
References
Amnesty International. (2015, April 23). Must Try Harder: ethnic discrimination of Romani children in
the Czech schools. Retrieved from http://www.amnestyusa.org/research/reports/must-try-
harder-ethnic-discrimination-of-romani-children-in-czech-schools
45
Twarog / Citizenship Education: Cultivating a Critical Capacity to Implement Universal…
Apple, M. (2014). Official knowledge: Democratic education in a conservative age. New York:
Routledge.
Banks, J. A. (1993a). Multicultural education: Historical development, dimensions, and practice. Review
of
Research
in
Education,
19,
3–49.
Retrieved
from
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1167339?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Banks, J. A. (1993b). Multicultural education: Development, dimensions, and challenges. The Phi Delta
Kappan,
75(1),
22–28.
Retrieved
from
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20405019?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Banks, J. A. (1993c). The Canon debate, knowledge construction, and multicultural education.
Education Researcher, 22(5), 4–14. doi:10.3102/0013189X022005004
Banks, J. A. (1995). The Historical reconstruction of knowledge about race: Implications for
transformative
teaching.
Education
Researcher,
24(2),
15–25.
Retrieved
from
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1176421?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Banks, J. A. (2004). Democratic citizenship education in multicultural societies. In J. A. Banks (Ed.),
Diversity and citizenship education: Global perspectives (pp. 3–15) San Francisco: Jossy-Bass
Publishing.
Banks, J. A. (2008a). An introduction to multicultural education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Banks, J. A. (2008b). Diversity, group identity, and citizenship education in a global age. Educational
Researcher, 37(3), 129–139. doi:10.3102/0013189X08317501
Barany, Z. (2002). The East European Gypsies: Regime change, marginality, and ethnopolitics.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bartolomé, L. I. (2007). Critical pedagogy and teacher education: Radicalizing prospective teachers. In
P. McLauren, & J. L. Kincheloe (Eds.), Critical pedagogy: Where are we now? (pp. 263–286). New
York: Peter Lang Publishing.
Castles, S. (2004). Migration, citizenship, and education. In J. A. Banks (Ed.), Diversity and citizenship
education: Global perspectives (pp. 17–48). San Francisco: Jossy-Bass Publishing.
Doppen, F. H. (2007). Now what? Rethinking civic education in the Netherlands . Education, Citizenship
and Social Justice, 2(2), 103–118. doi:10.1177/1746197907077043
Freire, P., & Macedo, D. (1995). A dialogue: Culture, language, and race. Harvard Education Review,
65(3), 377–403. doi:10.17763/haer.65.3.12g1923330p1xhj8
Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Gressgård, R. (2010). Multicultural dialogue: Dilemmas, paradoxes, conflicts. New York: Berghahn
Books.
Gutmann, A. (2004). Unity and diversity in democratic multicultural education. In J. A. Banks (Ed.),
Diversity and citizenship education: Global perspectives (pp. 71–96). San Francisco: Jossy-Bass
Publishing.
Horák, O. (2015, May 5). Citizenship education in the Czech Republic. Retrieved from
http://www.bpb.de/veranstaltungen/netzwerke/nece/206031/citizenship-education-in-the-
czech-republic
Kymlicka, W. (2002). Contemporary political philosophy: An introduction. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Kymlicka, W. (2004). Forward. In J. A. Banks (Ed.), Diversity and citizenship education: Global
perspectives (pp. 13–18). San Francisco: Jossy-Bass Publishing.
46
Twarog / Citizenship Education: Cultivating a Critical Capacity to Implement Universal…
Ladson-Billings, G. (2004). Culture versus citizenship, the challenges of racialized citizenship in the
United States. In J. A. Banks (Ed.), Diversity and citizenship education: Global perspectives (pp.
99–126). San Francisco: Jossy-Bass Publishing.
Mannitz, S. (2011). Public’ negotiations of cultural difference, identity management and discursive
assimilation. In G. Baumann, & S. Vertovec (Eds.), Multiculturalism (pp. 316–380) New York:
Routledge.
Nussbaum, M. (2002). Education for citizenship in an era of global connection. Studies of Philosophy
and Education, 21, 289–303. doi:10.1023/A:1019837105053
Nussbaum, M. (2008). Toward a globally sensitive patriotism . Daedalus, 137(3), 78–93. Retrieved from
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40543800?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Nussbaum, M. (2012). Teaching patriotism: Love and critical freedom. The University of Chicago Law
Review,
79,
213–250.
Retrieved
from
https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/sites/lawreview.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/79_1/09%20Nuss
baum%20SYMP.pdf
Nussbaum, M. (2015). Political liberalism and global justice. Journal of Global Ethics, 11, 68–79.
doi:10.1080/17449626.2015.1015081
Oommen, T. K. (2004). Crisis of citizenship education in the Indian Republic, contestation between
cultural monists and pluralists. In J. A. Banks (Ed.), Diversity and citizenship education: Global
perspectives (pp. 333–354). San Francisco: Jossy-Bass Publishing.
Osler, A. (2009). Patriotism, multiculturalism and belonging: Political discourse and the teaching of
history. Education Review, 61, 85–100. doi:10.1080/00131910802684813
Roth, K., & Rӧnnstrӧm, N. (2015). Teacher education and the work of teachers in an age of globalization
and cosmopolitization – The case in Sweden. Policy Futures in Education, 13(6), 705–711.
doi:0.1177/1478210315595170
Sleeter, C. E., & Delago Bernal, D. (2004). Critical pedagogy, critical race theory, and antiracial
education: Implications for multicultural education. In J. A. Banks (Ed.), Handbook of research
on multicultural education (pp. 240–258). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Součková, T. (2015). The Ukrainian minority in Brno: A qualitative research on ethnic identity.
Ethnologia Actualis, 15(2), 66–80. doi:10.1515/eas-2015-0017
Sundstӧm, M., & Fernández, Ch. (2013). Citizenship education and diversity in liberal societies: Theory
and policy in a comparative perspective. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 8(2), 103–117.
doi:0.1177/1746197913483635
Tan, C. (2004). Justice without boarders: Cosmopolitanism, nationalism and patriotism. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Urbanová, E. (2016). Citizenship education in the Czech Republic with focus on participation of children
at
schools.
Pedagogika
Społeczna,
60(2),
111–131.
Retrieved
from
http://pedagogikaspoleczna.com/wp-content/content/abstrakt/SP%202%20(2016)%20111-
131.pdf
Weiner, E. J. (2007) Critical pedagogy and the crisis of imagination. In P. McLauren, & J. L. Kincheloe
(Eds.), Critical pedagogy: Where are we now? (pp. 57–77). New York: Peter Lang Publishing.
Weinerova, R. (2014). Anti-gypsyism in the Czech Republic: Czechs’ perception of Roma cultural
stereotypes. Acta Ethnographica Hungarica, 59(1), 211–221. doi:10.1556/AEthn.59.2014.1.10
47
Twarog / Citizenship Education: Cultivating a Critical Capacity to Implement Universal…
Whitt, M. S. (2016). Other people’s problem: Student distancing, epistemic responsibility, and injustice.
Studies
in
Philosophy
and
Education,
35(5),
427–444.
Retrieved
from
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11217-015-9484-1
