Sociální pedagogika | Social Education

ISSN 1805-8825

E: editorsoced@fhs.utb.cz

W: http://www.soced.cz

Citizenship Education: Cultivating a Critical Capacity to Implement

Universal Values Nationally

Katarzyna Twarog

To cite this article: Twarog, K. (2017). Citizenship Education: Cultivating a Critical

Capacity to Implement Universal Values Nationally [Kultivace kritického myšlení k

implementaci univerzálních hodnot vnitrostátně]. Sociální pedagogika/Social

Education, 5(1), 29–47. doi:10.7441/soced.2017.05.01.02

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.7441/soced.2017.05.01.02

Published online: 15 April 2017

Download at www.soced.cz in multiple formats (PDF, MOBI, HTML, EPUB)

Share via email, FB,  Twitter, Google+, LinkedIn

CrossMark

Indexing: List of non-impact peer-reviewed journals published in the Czech Republic, ERIH

PLUS, ERA, EBSCO, CEJSH, DOAJ, SSRN, ProQuest, Ulrich’s Periodicals Directory, The Keepers

Registry, Research Gate, Academia.edu, Academic Resource Index, Google Scholar and provides

DOI and CrossMark (CrossRef).

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY).

Copyright © 2017 by the author and publisher, TBU in Zlín.

Sociální pedagogika | Social Education 29

volume 5, issue 1, pp. 29–47, April 2017

ISSN 1805-8825 | doi:10.7441/soced.2017.05.01.02

Citizenship Education: Cultivating a Critical Capacity

to Implement Universal Values Nationally

Katarzyna Twarog

Abstract: Citizenship and citizenship education face challenges

due to globalizing factors affecting modern liberal-democratic

states. Earlier models of citizenship, which were based on

assimilation into the dominant society, have been challenged by

scholars seeking to create a fuller understanding of citizenship

more inclusive of diversity. This paper addresses the works of

Martha Nussbaum and James A. Banks who present two

possibilities for citizenship education: purified patriotism

(Nussbaum) and transformative citizenship education (Banks).

By considering values, identity and the national narrative, this

paper compares their views in relation to these topics as well as

gives supporting and opposing ideas from other scholars. It

concludes by stating that these authors share a common

commitment to the need for a critical civic culture, which in turn

requires a willingness and openness on the part of all citizens to

use their imagination and help foster the critical capacity to think

anew. In this way, the traditional dichotomous debate over

citizenship, values and identity within the nation and the world

might be transformed. By utilizing what Freire refers to as

deliberative dialogue, we can foster creative solutions to ensure

that universal values of justice, tolerance, recognition and

equality are not merely democratic ideals, but are practiced by

all individuals and institutions. Furthermore, this paper

addresses the need for a teacher training program which would

teach educators how to promote and endorse a critical culture

through dialogue within the classroom and create citizens who

Contact to author

are capable of using their imagination and critical thinking to

Stockholm University

function cooperatively within a multicultural society.

Department of Education

Universitetsvägen 10

Keywords: citizenship, citizenship education, multiculturalism,

114 18 Stockholm

values, identity, national narrative, critical capacity, imagination,

katw1560@student.su.se

dialogue, liberal-democracy

Kultivace kritického myšlení k implementaci

univerzálních hodnot vnitrostátně

Abstrakt: Občanství a výchova k občanství čelí řadě výzev

vzhledem ke globalizačním faktorům, které ovlivňují moderní

liberální demokratické státy. Dřívější modely občanství založené

na asimilaci do majoritní společnosti byly zpochybněné vědci

snažící se o vytvoření celistvějšího pochopení občanství, které by

bylo inkluzivní směrem k rozmanitosti. Tento text se zabývá díly

Martha Nussbauma a James A. Bankse, kteří představili dvě

možnosti výchovy k občanství; ryzí patriotismus (Nussbaum)

30

Twarog / Citizenship Education: Cultivating a Critical Capacity to Implement Universal…

a transformační výchova k občanství (Banks). Porovnávám zde

jejich názory ve vztahu k tématům hodnot, identity a národního

vyprávění a zároveň uvádím odlišné postoje dalších badatelů.

Článek dochází k závěru, že tito autoři sdílejí společný názor na

potřebu kritické občanské kultury vyžadující ochotu a otevřenost

ze strany všech občanů aktivovat jejich představivost a přemýšlet

novým způsobem. Tradiční dichotomická debata o občanství,

hodnotách a identitě v rámci národa a světa by tímto způsobem

mohla být transformována. K tomu by mohlo být využito

Freireho deliberativního dialogu, který nabízí kreativní řešení,

že univerzální hodnoty spravedlnosti, tolerance, uznání

a rovnosti nejsou pouze demokratickými ideály, nýbrž jsou

vyznávány všemi lidmi a institucemi. V závěru se tato práce

Correspondence:

zabývá potřebou učitelských studijních programů, jež by vedly

katw1560@student.su.se

pedagogy k prosazování a podpoře kritické kultury

prostřednictvím dialogů v rámci výuky a vytvářely by tak občany

Copyright © 2017 by authors

schopné používat svou představivost a kritické myšlení

and publisher TBU in Zlín.

ke spolupráci v rámci multikulturní společnosti.

This work is licensed under the

Creative Commons Attribution

Klíčová

slova:

občanství,

výchova

k

občanství,

International License (CC BY).

multikulturalismus, hodnoty, identita, národní vyprávění,

potřebné schopnosti, představivost, dialog, liberální demokracie

1

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

Table of Contents

(Sundstӧm & Fernández, 2013, p. 103).

(Banks, 2008b).

(2015)