Content uploaded by Edda Sant
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Edda Sant on Aug 08, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Review of Educational Research
Month 201X, Vol. XX, No. X, pp. 1 –42
DOI: 10.3102/0034654319862493
Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions
© 2019 AERA. http://rer.aera.net
1
Democratic Education: A Theoretical Review
(2006–2017)
Edda Sant
Manchester Metropolitan University
This theoretical review examines how democratic education is conceptual-
ized within educational scholarship. Three hundred and seventy-seven arti-
cles published in English language peer-reviewed journals between 2006 and
2017 are discursively analyzed. Democratic education functions as a privi-
leged nodal point of different political discourses. Two discourses against
(elitist and neoliberal) and six discourses pro democratic education (liberal,
deliberative, multiculturalist, participatory, critical, and agonistic) construct
its meaning. It is argued that the different versions of democratic education
respond to various (a) ontological and epistemological assumptions, (b) nor-
mative approaches to democracy, and (c) conceptions of the relationship
between education and politics. For educational policy, the review provides
a critique of elitist and neoliberal policies and support for participatory deci-
sion making across discourses. Recommendations for educational practice
are made by identifying pedagogies across democratic education scholarship
as well as specific pedagogies for each discourse.
Keywords: democratic education, education, democracy, educational policy,
curriculum and pedagogy
Since Dewey wrote “Democracy and Education” in 1916 much has been writ-
ten about democratic education in education scholarship and theory. A work ini-
tially subtitled “An Introduction to Philosophy of Education” (MW.9)1 inspired
theory and research not only in philosophy of education but also in education
scholarship more generally (Doddington, 2018). For a long time, “democratic
education” has functioned as a nodal point (Laclau, 2007; Mannion, Biesta,
Priestley, & Ross, 2011) within educational theory and research, serving as a
place of encounter for different educational disciplines, discourses of democracy
and education. But democratic education has been recently disputed, with some
authors warning about crisis (Okoth & Anyango, 2014) and others openly posi-
tioning themselves against democratic education (Pennington, 2014). This review
aims to examine how democratic education is conceptualized within contempo-
rary educational scholarship to support ongoing debate about its viability.
862493RERXXX10.3102/0034654319862493SantDemocratic Education: A Theoretical Review
research-article2019
Sant
2
The question of democratic education is particularly relevant in our moment.
Although there are different historical and philosophical accounts of democracy,
existing Western democracies have their roots in both liberalism and democracy
(Macpherson, 1977). Liberalism is often defined as a political doctrine that aims
to guarantee separation of powers, individual liberty, and the rule of the law.
Democracy is more frequently associated with equality and popular sovereignty.
In liberal democracy, the liberal and the democratic tradition merge. From this
perspective, democracy is both morally and instrumentally appealing. It offers
dignity to its citizens and it is often advantageous in terms of providing stability,
prosperity, and peace (Runciman, 2018). During most of the 20th century, democ-
racy—or more precisely, liberal democracy—was presented as a universal aspira-
tion. After the democratic crisis of the 1930s (see Runciman, 2018), different
international organizations such as the United Nations explicitly committed them-
selves to the promotion and defense of democratic values and practices (United
Nations, 2005) and this commitment spread following the end of the Cold War. At
the close of the 20th Century, approximately half of the population lived under the
rule of some form of electoral democratic system (Isakhan & Stockwell, 2012).
The events of September 11, 2001, first evidenced that liberal democracy
was not as dominant as some predicted (Fukuyama, 1992). It became apparent
that ideological rivalry remained across the globe and that, in a number of coun-
tries, democracy was de facto threatened by semiauthoritarian organizational
structures and values, interethnic conflicts, politically motivated violence, and
structural racism (Isakhan & Stockwell, 2012; Okoth & Anyango, 2014; Waghid,
2009). More recently, the democratic aspirations of some of those participating
in the Arab spring uprisings have been crushed by civil wars reflecting geopo-
litical dynamics that question the transnational relevance of democratic princi-
ples (Tausch, 2019).
Simultaneously, the 2008 financial crisis fueled a “crisis of democratic faith”
(Asmonti, 2013, p. 143) even within well-stablished, institutionalized and nor-
malized (i.e., consolidated) liberal democracies such us those of Western
Europe, the United States of America, or Canada. The hopes in the moderniza-
tion and widening of democratic politics represented (among others) by the
election of Barak Obama in the United States and Synaspismós Rizospastikís
Aristerás SYRIZA (The Coalition of the Radical Left) in Greece were (at least)
partially thwarted by the global market-led politics of austerity. The erosion of
state sovereignty and the reduction of “the capacity of government parties to
implement effective policies and fulfill voters’ expectations” were evidenced
(Martinelli, 2016, p. 13). The perceived distance between political elites and the
electors, and the increase of socioeconomic disparities have contributed to high
levels of frustration, alienation, and cynicism toward conventional politics, par-
ticularly among young people and some marginalized groups (Gibson & Grant,
2012; Ho, Sim, & Alviar-Martin, 2011). At one extreme, some argue for more
(elitist) technocratic forms of governance, where “nonpartisan experts” commit
themselves to pragmatic solutions to political problems (Runciman, 2018). The
other extreme, found in the so-called “populist” movements and parties, defines
“the people” in opposition to the technocratic elites who are considered both
corrupt and illegitimate (Runciman, 2018). This is not a crisis of democracy but,
Democratic Education: A Theoretical Review
3
rather, a crisis of liberal democracy (Martinelli, 2016). This is not liberal democ-
racy’s first crisis, but it is distinctive insofar as liberal democracy “is no longer
young. It lacks the heady sense that existed a century ago of vast, unfulfilled
potential” (Runciman, 2018, p. 71).
The links between democracy and education are implicit in most historical
and philosophical accounts of democracy. The theoretical founders of liberal
democracy conceived education to be instrumental for the ideal society in which
citizens would develop their own potential (Barber, 1994). This conception had
a strong influence in the design of worldwide education systems, particularly in
the universalization and the purposes of formal education (Biesta, 2007). After
Dewey inaugurated the debate on “Democracy and Education” (MW.9), the
struggle for democratic education has been central to key approaches and phi-
losophies of education such as child-centered and critical pedagogies. The ques-
tion of democratic education has expanded to the extent that education as a
discipline is shaped by questions such as: Who, in a democratic society, should
decide educational policies? (Gutmann, 1996) And what would a democratic
curriculum look like? (Apple, 2011).
Democratic education scholars currently draw on these previous debates to
examine potential “antidotes” to present challenges. Different versions of demo-
cratic education permeate educational scholarship, suggesting possible ways in
which education could address democratic threats and/or contribute to the democ-
ratization of countries. With different (and sometimes competing) democratic
aspirations in mind, democratic educators examine and make recommendations
for educational policy and practice. Also, perhaps in a long time, critical voices
have been raised against democratic education and its contemporary perils
(Pennington, 2014). This theoretical review provides a detailed examination of
how the meaning of democratic education is presently shaped in the literature,
considering different normative approaches to democracy and their proposals for
policy and practice in education. The purpose is not to determine the effectiveness
of democratic education practices and policies but rather to provide a map for
examining how theories shape scholarship on democratic education policy and
practice, and to identify possibilities for future discussion.
The review begins with a description and justification of the selected method.
The methodological approach, the sampling, and the analytical procedures are
examined, and the main characteristics of the selected articles and the limitations
of the review are then described. This is followed by a section presenting the eight
versions of democratic education that emerged from the analysis. In the discus-
sion, the main differences and trends are identified. The review concludes by
making recommendations for further theory, policy, practice, and research.
Method
This study takes as its starting point an interpretivist understanding that social
realities are constructed through “discourses,” understood in terms of Ernesto
Laclau and Chantal Mouffe’s discourse theory (Jorgensen & Phillips, 2002;
Laclau & Mouffe, 2001). A discourse is a system of meanings and values includ-
ing linguistic exchanges and the actions in which these exchanges are embedded
(Laclau, 2007). This definition is not a denial of the existence of (extradiscursive)
Sant
4
materiality, but rather an acknowledgement that, even if this material reality
“exists independently of any system of social relations” (Laclau, 1990, p. 101),
humans give meaning to this through a “specific discursive configuration”
(Laclau, 1990, p. 101). Thus, it is assumed that while theory and research on
democratic education might be built on political and/or educational nondiscursive
or material data, the meaning of this data is still constructed in relation to particu-
lar ontological, epistemological, and axiological assumptions.
Discourses are constructed around nodal points or signs (Laclau & Mouffe,
2001), places of arrival of several discourses (Mannion et al., 2011, p. 444). Some
of these nodal points operate as “floating signifiers” (Laclau, 2007) or critical but
contested “horizons”: aspirational “signs that different discourses struggle to
invest with meaning in their own particular way” (Jorgensen & Phillips, 2002,
p. 28). For instance, within the political field, “democracy” operates as a floating
signifier of different political discourses. Although liberal democracy is the domi-
nant version within Western democratic politics, the meaning of democracy is not
fixed and there are other discourses struggling to gain predominance (i.e., hege-
mony), presenting their version of democracy as the “real” one (Laclau & Mouffe,
2001). This review begins from the presupposition that democratic education
functions as a floating signifier in education scholarship, receiving structural
pressure from rival projects. Conceptualizing democratic education in these terms
provides us with the methodological and theoretical tools to examine democratic
education as an overarching but contested moral aspiration.
This theoretical review maps out democratic education as a potential floating
signifier. The contested meanings of democratic education, their associated politi-
cal project, their philosophical foundations, and their recommendations for edu-
cation are examined. The exclusions and critiques of these versions are also
analyzed. Specifically, the research questions ask: (1) What are the versions of
democratic education emerging from educational theory and research published
in English language journals? (2) What are the political discourses associated
with these versions? (3) What are the philosophical assumptions underpinning
these discourses? (4) What are the recommendations/critiques of educational pol-
icy and practice emerging from these discourses?
Search Parameters
The search and selection of articles took place in three stages (see Figure 1). In
the first stage (September to October 2017), Web of Science, ERIC, Google
scholar, and Scopus databases were reviewed with the search term democratic
education in the fields of abstract, descriptor, and title. As democratic education
was assumed to be a floating signifier, the search was limited to articles explicitly
discussing the term and aiming to invest it with their own meaning. Sources pub-
lished between 2006 and 2017 were included. The year 2006 was chosen as it
marked the publication of three influential reviews on citizenship (Abowitz &
Harnish, 2006; Osler & Starkey, 2006) and social justice education (North, 2006)
with extended overlaps with the present review.2 The search returned 1,598
sources. After deleting duplicates, 1,046 sources remained.
Four criteria of inclusion/exclusion were used in the second stage. The first
was a quality criterion. Following the example of Ahmad (2017), publication
5
in peer-reviewed journals was considered evidence of quality. Thus, only arti-
cles published in peer-reviewed journals were selected. Second, there was a
language criterion. Only articles published in (or translated to) English lan-
guage were selected. Third, a focus criterion was applied. The abstracts of all
articles were reviewed and, following the example of Wenner and Campbell
(2017), peripheral articles were excluded. An article was considered “periph-
eral” when democratic education was a secondary issue in relation to a clear
focus on another topic of discussion. For instance, Grimes, Sayarath, and
Outhaithany (2011) examine inclusive education within the Lao People’s
Democratic Republic. Besides discussing an educational policy in a Democratic
Republic, no other mention is made of democratic education in this article.
Fourth, there was an accessibility criterion. Only the articles accessible to the
researcher via open source or via library or interlibrary loans were included.
After applying these four criteria, 418 articles remained.
FIGURE 1. Diagram of the review inclusion process.
Sant
6
In the third and final stage, the whole corpus of articles was read and reevalu-
ated. Some articles initially included on the basis of their abstract were rejected
when the article itself did not fulfill the focus criteria. This process resulted in a
total of 377 articles being included in this review.
Included Articles
There are some contextual trends within these 377 articles. The articles were
mainly written by academics based at English-speaking, Western institutions.
Approximately 66% of the articles were written by academics affiliated to
American, British, Australian, or Canadian institutions (see tables in the supple-
mental information available online). The focus of the articles, nevertheless, was
mostly “generic” with almost 60% of the articles discussing democratic education
in universalistic—rather than state-based—terms. Democratic education was, in
some instances, contextualized in relation to particular forms of education.
Discussion privileged formal education, particularly within secondary (23%) and
primary (19%) institutions. As expected, different educational disciplines and
approaches merged within debates on democratic education. It is worth noting
that the fields of philosophy of education (26%), pedagogy and curriculum studies
(37%, including social studies and citizenship), and policy and politics in educa-
tion (12%) proved to be particularly prominent. Unsurprisingly, the reviewed
articles were more often published in specialized journals (Democracy &
Education, 7.2%) or philosophy of education journals (Educational Philosophy
and Theory, 4%; Studies in Philosophy, 3.4%; and Education and Educational
Theory, 3.2%).
Data Analysis
Following the principles of discourse theory, data were qualitatively interro-
gated with the set of research questions in mind (Jorgensen & Phillips, 2002;
Willig, 2013). Procedurally, the analysis took place in three stages. In the first
stage, all 377 articles were uploaded to NVivo 11. Each article was considered a
sampling unit. A coding frame was created containing four categories related to
the study’s research questions. These are political project, philosophical assump-
tions, policy, and practice. Within these categories, analysis was data driven, with
codes emerging from the data. For each category and code, a memorandum was
created defining the name, a description, examples, and decision rules. This was
then followed by the creation of matrix nets and schemes showing the four cate-
gories and codes related to each of them.
In the second stage, all texts were revised and recoded considering the emer-
gent codes. At this stage, some initial discursive patterns of consistency became
apparent. These patterns comprised articulations of codes across the four different
categories, with academics repeatedly arguing for and against normative
approaches to democracy, their philosophical grounds, and their respective educa-
tional projects. Nine major versions emerged from this second stage, each of them
associated with a distinctive political discourse: seven pro democratic education
(liberal, deliberative, participatory, multicultural, cosmopolitan, critical, and ago-
nistic) and two against (elitist, neoliberal). After careful examination, the decision
was made not to include the cosmopolitanism as an independent version. In brief,
Democratic Education: A Theoretical Review
7
cosmopolitanism emphasizes the global context—beyond nation-state borders—
of democratic education (Abowitz & Harnish, 2006) but in the reviewed articles,
“cosmopolitan” or “global” appeared always within another reference framework
(liberal cosmopolitan, multicultural cosmopolitan, critical cosmopolitan). It was
concluded that, within the reviewed literature, cosmopolitanism could be consid-
ered another nodal point (Mannion et al., 2011) of different discourses rather than
a version of democratic education itself.
In the third and final stage, all articles were codified in relation to the resulting
eight versions and associated political discourses. It is worth emphasizing that
perspectives for and against each version were used to generate each discursive
pattern and therefore are presented as such. For clarity, if an article is used to
illustrate a particular version, this does not necessarily mean the article favors the
particular version of democratic education of this discourse. Rather, it may be that
the proposals or critiques within the article have been used to draw the limits of
the discursive construction or it might be that, two or more versions of democratic
education coexist in the article. However, to fulfill the mapping intention of this
review, some clear proponents of each version are explicitly identified. Considering
word-count limitations, only 137 of the 377 articles are presented in this review3
to illustrate the discussion. A few articles clearly aligned with each of the eight
versions that were selected. In addition, some (less clearly aligned) articles were
included for their rich and detailed discussion, which provided new possibilities
to consider the nuances of the topic.
Limitations of This Study
Limitations to the methodological approach and the empirical procedures need
to be considered. Methodologically, Laclau and Mouffe’s discursive theory has
been challenged for privileging hegemony and antagonism over other potential
discursive logics (Erman, 2009; Jorgensen & Phillips, 2002). More generally, dis-
course theories have been criticized for placing too much emphasis on the discur-
sive nature of reality (Lather, 2016). While acknowledging these critiques, it is
assumed that all methodological approaches might have their own strengths and
drawbacks and that the rigor of the research project needs to be considered within
the limits of each particular methodological understanding (Lincoln, 1995).
Empirically, only English-written journal articles and not dissertations, con-
ference proceedings, books, and so on, or articles written in any other languages,
were included in the search. Although the language criterion is commonly used
in reviews, it is still important to acknowledge that this criterion might have
conditioned the perspective of the reviewed articles. However, the review
includes articles from authors working in academic institutions across 38 differ-
ent countries. In order to maintain the focus of the study, contextual information
is provided only when the context is essential to understand the nature of the
authors’ claims.
The criterion of selecting only journal articles was taken for accessibility and
quality-assurance reasons. This decision facilitated the systematization of the
search, collection, and analysis process but limited the scope of this review.
Acknowledging this limitation, this review does not profess to map out versions
of democratic education on all education debates but rather explicitly limits its
Sant
8
findings to democratic education within theory and research published in English
language journals.4
The Contested Meaning of Democratic Education
This section presents the eight versions of democratic education that emerged
from the analysis. For each version, the associated political discourse and its phil-
osophical principles, the educational implications for policy and practice, and the
debates and critiques are examined.
Elitist Democratic Education
Key Principles
The elitist version of democratic education is linked to elitist discourses of
democracy. Advocates of democratic elite theory follow Joseph A.
Schumpeter’s and Walter Lippmann’s understandings of elitist democracy
(Buck & Geissel, 2009; Fallace, 2016), and propose that politics should be in
the hands of a small elite who would guarantee the stability of democratic
societies. In this perspective, elites are conceived as more politically active
and, consequently, to have a greater understanding and commitment to demo-
cratic values (Ho, 2012). Organized in competing groups, these political elites
are periodically accountable to the masses who evaluate their performance
through voting (Buck & Geissel, 2009).
Underpinning the elitist discourse is the belief that elites are necessary for the
functioning of any society. The social space is here understood as a complicated
and conflicted reality, underneath which there is a Platonic absolute structural
“truth” (Covaleskie, 2006). Knowledge of this truth, Plato assumes, brings “vir-
tue” but it is not easily accessible. It demands levels of ability, self-sacrifice and
commitment only available to a minority. In the elitist ideal society, only the elites
—the aristocracy or the philosopher-king in Plato’s Republic—should rule the
polis and be involved in politics. The elites are the only ones who have access to
knowledge and consequent virtue, and, as a consequence of this knowledge, they
are more likely to know how the social space should be organized.
Educational Implications
Elitists recommend different educational practices for students conditioned
by the social role that each student will pursue. For instance, in Singapore,
three distinctive citizenship programs exist, one for the elite of cosmopolitan
leaders, one for mid-level workers, and one for “local” followers (Ho, 2012).
More generally, authors describe two different forms of democratic education:
one orientated to the elites and another orientated to the masses. For the elites,
cosmopolitan forms of knowledge and values are particularly relevant. Upper-
class students learn other languages and cultures, study abroad, and engage
with the Western canon (Duarte, 2016). For the masses, alternative curricula
are proposed. In some occasions, these students are not expected to be edu-
cated to participate (Wisler, 2009). It is assumed that “nonelite” students will
automatically learn about democracy because schools are embedded within
democratic systems (Hawley, Hostetler, & Mooney, 2016). In other instances,
participation is reduced to the act of voting (Buck & Geissel, 2009) and
Democratic Education: A Theoretical Review
9
nonelite students are expected to gain knowledge on formal political structures
(Pike, 2009; Zyngier, Traverso, & Murriello, 2015) so they can evaluate the
elites’ performance.
Debates and Critiques
Elitism is not a strong discourse framing democratic education. Indeed, among
the reviewed articles, only Bai (2011) appears to favor this version. Elitism is
more often a discourse against which democratic education is constructed. The
elites are not perceived as virtuous but rather as potentially undemocratic (Ho,
2012). Ching-Sze Wang (2009), for instance, cites Dewey’s point that “the world
has suffered more from leaders and authorities than from the masses” (LW.4.365).5
Education in democracy, as discussed by elitists, is considered to be minimally
democratic (Pike, 2009).
Liberal Democratic Education
Key Principles
Liberalism is likely the most powerful discourse shaping the meaning of
democratic education. Liberal democracy is often considered to be the domi-
nant version of democracy (Carr, 2008). Liberal democracy functions as a
tacit social contract between individuals and the state in which representative-
ness and plurality are key features (Buck & Geissel, 2009; Schoeman, 2006).
As elitists, liberals argue for the division of society into those who govern and
those who are governed (Feu, Serra, Canimas, Làzaro, & Simó-Gil, 2017);
however, in contrast to elitist views, they defend the equality of citizens as the
starting point and affirm the primacy of the individual over the social (Walzer,
2012).
Liberals privilege freedom over any other democratic value (Buck & Geissel,
2009; Walzer, 2012). The question of freedom, however, is controversial even
within this framework. Democratic educators often use Isaiah Berlin’s distinc-
tion between negative and positive liberty (Alexander, 2007; Carleheden, 2006;
Covaleskie, 2006). Negative liberty is defined in relation to Thomas Hobbes’s
work as the absence of external impediments (Carleheden, 2006; Corngold,
2011; Fraser-Burgess, 2012). From this perspective, democracy is instrumentally
valuable as it is effective in guaranteeing individual liberty. But it is the notion of
positive liberty that has attracted the attention of most liberal democratic educa-
tors. For them, as for Immanuel Kant, liberty is the freedom to be ruled by one’s
own rationality (Fraser-Burgess, 2012; Hanson & Howe, 2011). Rationality and
aspiration for freedom are conceived as part of the natural “makeup” of human
beings (Alexander, 2007; Biesta, 2007). Thus, “through strict, unswerving adher-
ence to the dictates of reason” (Corngold, 2011, p. 73), all humans are expected
to have the capacity to access social truth. This truth is understood as being atten-
tive to universal “moral law” (Corngold, 2011; Sünker, 2007). Liberals assume
that rational citizens will use their freedom to act for the common good (Buck &
Geissel, 2009; Covaleskie, 2006; Evans, 2010). From this point of view, democ-
racy is morally valuable: It functions as a political expression of the liberal value
of self-fulfillment and it fosters (political) equality by providing equal rights to
participate in political and social life.
Sant
10
Educational Implications
Proponents of liberal democratic education include Duarte (2016), Msila
(2013) and Şanlı and Altun (2015). For them, education is essential for political,
epistemological, and moral reasons. Political equality can only be guaranteed in a
society of knowledgeable and rational citizens, and so democracy demands the
universalization of education (Msila, 2013) to guarantee equal opportunities of
self-realization (Belcastro, 2015). Mass schooling policies worldwide, currently
acknowledged in the Declaration of Human Rights and in the UNESCO’s
Education For All program (Okoth & Anyango, 2014), have (at least partially)
their roots on this conception (Duarte, 2016).
Liberal educators also advocate for an education for democratic citizenship
based on knowledge and reason (Biesta, 2007; Gibson & Grant, 2012). In terms
of knowledge, liberal educators worldwide recommend that students should
acquire knowledge of democratic institutions and procedures. Particularly, they
emphasize knowledge of local and national political and juridical systems and
governments (Biseth, 2009; Burgh & Yorshansky, 2011; Sabia, 2012; Walzer,
2012), of democratic values (Sabia, 2012), and of individuals’ rights and duties
(Gibson & Grant, 2012; Waghid, 2009). Liberal educators also recommend that
students study the history of democratic institutions and practices (Burgh &
Yorshansky, 2011; Gibson & Grant, 2012; Walzer, 2012) and examine the poten-
tial strengths and weakness of democratic systems when compared with other
forms of government (Biseth, 2009). Cosmopolitan liberals advocate the need for
a cosmopolitan democratic education that examines the ethical basis of human
rights (Aguilar & Molina Zavaleta, 2012; Ho et al., 2011). History and social stud-
ies are identified as subjects that are particularly helpful for these examinations
(Duarte, 2016; Gibson & Grant, 2012; Şanlı & Altun, 2015).
Rational citizens, in this liberal framework, also require the ability to think
critically (Abowitz & Harnish, 2006; Duarte, 2016). Since social ills are consid-
ered to arise from irrational living (Sibbett, 2016), the content of democratic
education programs, Şanlı and Altun (2015) argue, “should be based on scien-
tific truths and should reflect scientific knowledge correctly” (p. 5). Liberal
educators recommend that teachers should focus on helping students develop an
ability to weigh evidence, evaluate views and potential truths, detect contradic-
tions, form and articulate opinions, and respond to those who disagree (Abowitz
& Harnish, 2006). Educating these critical thinking abilities becomes an educa-
tional purpose across all curricular areas including mathematics education
(Aguilar & Molina, 2012).
Debates and Critiques
Liberal democratic education is perceived in two different ways. Some authors
critically identify the potential deficits of their present or past systems when com-
pared with the principles of liberal democracy. This is the case, for instance, of
authors writing from South Africa (Msila, 2013) or Spain (Aubert, Villarejo,
Cabré, & Santos, 2016). From this perspective, liberal democracy is considered as
aspirational and democratic education a vehicle toward this possible outcome.
Others, writing from consolidated liberal democracies such as the United States or
the United Kingdom, often discuss the deficits of liberal democratic systems and
Democratic Education: A Theoretical Review
11
liberal democratic education. In this respect, most versions of democratic educa-
tion could be considered as a reaction to liberal democratic education. From a
deliberative perspective, for instance, Lim (2011) discuss how the Kantian con-
ception of (individual) rational autonomy undermines the potential role that com-
munication and the public sphere can play in democratic education. From a
participatory perspective, Biesta and Lawy (2006) criticize the lack of participa-
tion in liberal democratic education programs.
Neoliberal Democratic Education
Key Principles
Neoliberalism is connected with aggregative theories of democracy.
Aggregative theorists define democracy as the aggregation of individual prefer-
ences (Biesta, 2011; Feu et al., 2017) regulated through procedures similar to
those of the market (Meens & Howe, 2016). Competition is a key feature here
(Abowitz & Harnish, 2006; Meens & Howe, 2016). Citizens are conceived as
rational consumers who, through voting, compete so that their views and private
interests prevail. Political candidates are expected to compete for people’s votes
and democracy itself becomes the political equivalent of the economic market.
There are four main differences between the underlying assumptions framing
liberal and neoliberal discourses. First, in contrast with liberals, neoliberals privi-
lege the negative approach to liberty. Freedom is conceived as the absence of
external coercion (Carleheden, 2006; Corngold, 2011). Second, democracy is
denuded from any moral aspiration. It functions as a political system that effec-
tively guarantees individuals’ freedom and prevents social violence and fraud
(Pennington, 2014). Third, where if liberals aim to balance societal rights and
responsibilities between individuals and the state, neoliberals swing the balance
toward the former. Following Friedrich Hayek (1952; see also Pennington, 2014),
objective truths might exist, but individuals are unlikely to have access to them.
Under this situation of permanent ignorance, toleration of individuals’ perspec-
tives and the protection of the private sphere are needed against uncheckable uni-
versal claims that attack individuals’ liberty. Fourth, markets are understood to
exceed the economic sphere and operate as a forum where individuals’ views
compete (Ichilov, 2012). Markets perform three main social functions: they create
spaces where producers and consumers bid for all kind of resources, they “per-
form a public learning function ( . . . ) determining which goods are in fact valued”
(Pennington, 2014, p. 8), and they increase the diversity and the quality of oppor-
tunities. Markets, therefore, are understood as better organizers of the social
space. The expectation is that, if all individuals pursue their self-interest, the total
sum of “rational choices” will result in better social and economic organization
(Sung, 2010).
Educational Implications
Neoliberals recommend the replacement of public education with free market
practices (Ichilov, 2012). Following Mill, the freedom of individuals to form their
ideas will be inevitably conditioned in state schools (Covaleskie, 2006) and thus,
neoliberals reject any form of curriculum for education for democratic citizenship
(Evans, 2010; Pennington, 2014). They do, however, support educational policies
Sant
12
in the line of aggregative democracy they conceive to be less invasive for the
individual. The neoliberal discourse is articulated around two main principles.
First, discussions about school choice (Meens & Howe, 2016; Menashy, 2007;
Perry, 2009), parental choice (Hantzopoulos, 2015; Pennington, 2014; Sung,
2010), and students as consumers (Carr, 2008; Menashy, 2007) are embedded
within this framework and can be found worldwide. The “Choice in School” gov-
ernmental bill in Sweden, charter schools in the United States, academies in the
United Kingdom, and private schools in Australia and Argentina (Arreman &
Holm, 2011; Zyngier et al., 2015) are only a few examples. The logic supporting
these policies is both moral and economic (Sung, 2010). Insofar as no educational
practices can be proved to be universally desirable, students or their parents
should have the individual liberty to decide (Pennington, 2014). Simultaneously,
it is expected that choice would generate more diverse and higher quality educa-
tional opportunities (Pennington, 2014) and that the total sum of rational choices
will equate “with the structuration of an effective education system as a market
scenario would expect” (Sung, 2010, p. 74). Second, standards, assessments, and
accountability are emphasized (Menashy, 2007). Neoliberals recommend that
educational institutions need to be accountable to the public. Establishing com-
mon standards, such as the Common Core State Standards in the United States,
reflects a commitment to the idea of quality education for all, because it fosters
transparency of practices and more efficient procedures (M. Levinson, 2011).
Independent audits like the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development’s Programme of International Student Assessment (Belcastro,
2015), the English Quality Assurance Framework for the Higher Institutions
(Bacon & Sloam, 2010), or the High stakes testing under the US “No Child Left
Behind” policy (Meens & Howe, 2016), help prevent fraud and allow citizen-
consumers to make more informed choices (Pennington, 2014).
Debates and Critiques
If liberalism initially framed formal education within democratic societies,
neoliberalism appears to be a dominant discourse in current educational policy
almost worldwide. However, the extent to which aggregation, choice and account-
ability can be framed as democratic education is, nevertheless, questionable. As
with citizenship educators (Abowitz & Harnish, 2006), democratic educators
rarely explicitly identify themselves with neoliberal principles. Rather, neoliberal
educational practices are often presented as antagonistic to democratic education
even by proponents of neoliberalism themselves (Pennington, 2014). Indeed,
democratic educators often write about how neoliberalism represents an attack on
equality as a democratic value (Menashy, 2007).6 Research conducted in Australia,
the United States, and the United Kingdom suggests that “choice” practices privi-
lege the middle and the upper classes (Meens & Howe, 2016; Perry, 2009). Some
parents might struggle with the information, resources, and time to conduct the
so-called rational choices required to identify “higher status” schools (Perry,
2009; Sung, 2010). They also might fear weaknesses in the capacity of their chil-
dren to adjust to the demands of these schools (Sung, 2010) or they might simply
not find better options available (Meens & Howe, 2016). Simultaneously, schools
populated with low-income children more often appear to be prone to budget cuts
Democratic Education: A Theoretical Review
13
(O’Donnell, 2018) or to be considered in need of improvement in accountability
audits (Meens & Howe, 2016). Standards and assessment procedures do in them-
selves contribute to inequality by “sorting” students into different groups (M.
Levinson, 2011). Social cohesion is also damaged by neoliberal discourses on
democracy and education. Aggregative forms of democracy restrict the spaces for
public deliberation on the common good (Biesta, 2011; Hanson & Howe, 2011;
Meens & Howe, 2016), while the practices of choice undermine social cohesion
and the sense of education as a public good (Perry, 2009).
Neoliberalism, democratic educators argue, also undermines the possibility of
democratic educational policies and practices. In a number of Western societies,
school choice policies have taken the process of decision making from the hands
of communities and school boards, and increasingly concentrated the power in the
hands of business interests or other unelected institutions (Bindewald, Tannebaum,
& Womac, 2016; Perry, 2009). Simultaneously, processes of accountability have
evolved into authoritarian and technocratic models in which teachers’ profession-
alism is questioned by expert bureaucrats (M. Levinson, 2011; Sabia, 2012).
Neoliberalist educational practices have also limited the diversity of opportunities
that the same neoliberalists recommend (Pennington, 2014). Individuality and
competition are fostered through choice (Sung, 2010) and accountability practices
(Gibson & Grant, 2012; Sabia, 2012), creating a hegemonic discourse that limits
individuals and communities’ choices outside of these discourses. The lack of
diversity also affects curricula and students’ learning (Bickmore & Parker, 2014;
Menashy, 2007). Accountability procedures have limited the diversity of provi-
sion (M. Levinson, 2011). With a focus on what is quantifiable, nonquantifiable
outcomes are marginalized from the curriculum (Apple, 2011; Menashy, 2007).
With minor exceptions, worldwide teaching has become test based, with students
having to look for the single “correct” answer (B. Levinson & Brantmeier, 2006;
Menashy, 2007). In this context, opportunities for critical dissent—which for
some is considered essential to democratic practices—are minimized (Bickmore
& Parker, 2014) and compliance with the dominant system is promoted (M.
Levinson, 2011; Tannock, 2017).
Deliberative Democratic Education
Key Principles
Deliberative democrats, such as Seyla Benhabib, Amy Gutmann, and Dennis
Thompson, propose the existence of public forums where all citizens can pro-
vide reasons that will be discussed under conditions of equality (Abowitz &
Harnish, 2006; Lefrançois & Ethier, 2010). In contrast with neoliberal, liberal,
and elitist discourses, deliberative democrats conceive all citizens as de facto
coauthors of public decisions (Sabia, 2012), reducing the gap between the pub-
lic and actual decision-making processes (Lefrançois & Ethier, 2010). Reason
and inclusivity are key features. Deliberative democrats argue that participants
in deliberative processes can commit themselves to the values of rationality
and impartiality, seeking the best collective reasons (Biesta, 2011; Hanson &
Howe, 2011). The most compelling reasons will operate as the moral impera-
tive that needs to be accepted by those who are bound by it (Bindewald et al.,
2016; Fraser-Burgess, 2012). The legitimacy of deliberative democracy relies
Sant
14
on the inclusiveness of the deliberation processes (Boone, 2007). The perspec-
tives of all who are governed by public decisions need to be considered
(Camicia, 2009; Hanson & Howe, 2011).
In deliberative democracy theory, rationality is constructed using both prag-
matist and liberal claims. Following Kant, liberals understand that reason and
morality are unavoidably connected. Deliberative democrats, in contrast, follow
John Rawls and Jürgen Habermas and argue for a consensual rationality described
as an “overlapping consensus of citizens committed to diverse conceptions of the
good” (Ferkany & Whyte, 2013, p. 8; see also Carleheden, 2006; Corngold,
2011; Johnston, 2012). Thus, rationality moves from being subject centered to
being intersubjective (Biesta, 2007; Dotts, 2016; Johnston, 2012). To “deliber-
ate” is not so much a matter of finding universal solutions for universal prob-
lems, but rather a public inquiry to make decisions in relation to contextualized
problematic situations (Johnston, 2012). The role of communication is essential.
Following Dewey, deliberative democrats believe that communication fulfils
socializing, rhetorical, and epistemological functions (Burgh & Yorshansky,
2011; Dotts, 2016). Through communication we influence and are influenced by
others and we create meaning through these interactions. Furthermore, delibera-
tive theorists understand that regulated communication processes can create the
necessary conditions for inclusive decision making (Freedman, 2007; Jónsson,
2012). In a situation of free, open, and symmetrical communication, fair consen-
sus in public decisions can be achieved (Lefrançois & Ethier, 2010).
Educational Implications
Influential proponents of deliberative democracy educators, such us Parker
(2010), Hess (2008), Lefrançois and Ethier (2010), Carleheden (2006), and
Hanson and Howe (2011), discuss both educational policy and practice.
Deliberative educators advocate for educational policies framed through delibera-
tive decision-making processes. Following Gutmann, deliberative educators
examine who should have the authority to make decisions in education and what
should be the limits of such authority (Fraser-Burgess, 2012). Questions such as
how the content of the curriculum is determined are particularly relevant
(Freedman, 2007; Kessel, 2009). According to Gutmann and others who take up
her work, decisions in education should be taken in a process of deliberation
involving parents, citizens, and professional educators (Corngold, 2011; Fraser-
Burgess, 2012; Kessel, 2009). Hinchliffe (2013) examines the case of School
Boards in England (1870–1902) as a historical example of this co–decision-mak-
ing process. Professionals, but also “[l]ocal businesses, universities, elected offi-
cials, and especially parents all have stakes in the future of their community and
its children” (Bradshaw, 2014, p. 2). The authority of these groups, nevertheless,
should be morally bound to ensure the inclusiveness of the deliberative process
(Fraser-Burgess, 2012). Gutmann identifies here two principles to guarantee
inclusive deliberation. The first is nonrepression. Citizens cannot be excluded
from the deliberation process because of their conceptions of the good (Boone,
2007; Corngold, 2011; Fraser-Burgess, 2012). The second is nondiscrimination.
Citizens cannot be denied participation in deliberative processes on the basis of
group differences (Fraser-Burgess, 2012; Meens & Howe, 2016; Perry, 2009).
Democratic Education: A Theoretical Review
15
Deriving from this second principle, deliberative educators emphasize the need of
a democratic threshold (Corngold, 2011; Fraser-Burgess, 2012; Meens & Howe,
2016). The Mozert v. Hawkins case in 1987, in which a group of fundamentalist
Christian parents in Tennessee filed a suit against the Hawkins County schools for
not allowing their children to opt out from the character education curriculum, is
still used as an example of this principle (Kessel, 2015). Here, deliberative educa-
tors favor the Hawkins schools. Although all moral conceptions are welcome, the
plurality of options for all children needs to be guaranteed. Thus, public education
“for” democratic citizenship is essential (Bindewald et al., 2016).
Deliberative educators understand education for democratic citizenship as the
education of skills and values for public deliberation (Fraser-Burgess, 2012; Haav,
2008; Lefrançois & Ethier, 2010). Multiple pedagogical strategies have been sug-
gested. Deliberative educators drawing on the work of Dewey suggest that stu-
dents and teachers should be organized in communities of inquiry (Burgh &
Yorshansky, 2011) to examine real problems such as the challenges that can
appear in everyday school life (Gibson & Grant, 2012; Lefrançois & Ethier,
2010). Here, problem-solving activities become a key feature (Haav, 2008), with
researchers identifying certain curricular content such as mathematics (Aguilar &
Molina Zavaleta, 2012; Allen, 2011) or social studies (Schoeman, 2006) as being
particularly amenable areas to work within.
Those drawing on deliberative democracy, as constructed by Habermas and
Rawls, recommend deliberative pedagogies, including generic deliberative peda-
gogical strategies (Kessel, 2015; Parker, 2010; Waghid, 2009), working with con-
troversial issues (Camicia & Dobson, 2010; Hess, 2008; Tannebaum, Peterson, &
Tierney, 2015), and with structured academic controversies (Bickmore & Parker,
2014; Lo, 2017; Parker, 2010). In all these strategies, students engage with aca-
demic evidence from multiple perspectives to interrogate a particular issue and
then look for consensual solutions (Camicia, 2009; DiCamillo & Pace, 2010; Lan,
2013; Lo, 2017; Stitzlein, 2011). Deliberative democrats, as liberals, identify
social studies, geography, and history as the key curricular subjects providing
historical and current content to interrogate these controversies (Fallace, 2016;
Payne, 2017; Tannebaum et al., 2015).
Communicative education, such as rhetoric (Carleheden, 2006; Sabia, 2012) or
media education (Ho et al., 2011; Stoddard, 2014; Lan, 2013), are also essential.
Language (Payne, 2017), arts, dance, and drama (Catalano & Leonard, 2016) and
philosophy education (DeCesare, 2012) are also particularly fruitful.
Debates and Critiques
Deliberative democratic education has had a strong influence on the way con-
temporary democratic education is conceptualized (Ruitenberg, 2015), been one
of the most highly supported versions of democratic education in journals on edu-
cational philosophy and pedagogy, particularly in English-speaking countries.
Yet, it is not exempt from critique. Multiculturalists have argued that delibera-
tion—in both policy and practice—might be discriminatory in itself, since lan-
guage and communication is never neutral (Backer, 2017; Fraser-Burgess, 2012;
Lo, 2017). Social groups or students who believe that they do not have the right to
speak might be easily excluded (Lo, 2017). As an example, Sibbett (2016)
Sant
16
discusses the case of Amanda, a high-achiever Black student in a majoritarian
White U.S. high school,7 whose voice was silenced by other students. Deliberation,
agonistic democrats argue, is also repressive. It values consensus over conflict
and plurality (Lo, 2017; Ruitenberg, 2015), and it generates a false rational–emo-
tional binary that weakens the possibilities of affective political engagement
(Backer, 2017; Lo, 2017; Ruitenberg, 2009).
Multicultural Democratic Education
Key Principles
In the context of this article, multiculturalist democracy includes a wide
range of theories and perspectives from difference multiculturalism to trans-
figurative multiculturalism (T. McDonough, 2008). Although various disagree-
ments have arisen within this group, all multiculturalists have in common an
understanding that debates on plurality and diversity should be prioritized
(Haav, 2008). Similarly to liberal pluralists such as Robert A. Dahl (Belcastro,
2015; Lan, 2013) and John Gray (Alexander, 2007; Fraser-Burgess, 2009), mul-
ticulturalists advocate a multiplicity of spaces (i.e., formal, informal) where
democratic practices might take place (Gibson & Grant, 2012; T. McDonough,
2008; Todd, 2011). Diversity, nevertheless, is the primary democratic feature.
If, for Gutmann (Fraser-Burgess, 2009; Gibson & Grant, 2012), Green (Nesbitt
& Trott, 2006), and Gray (Alexander, 2007; Fraser-Burgess, 2009), democracy
is grounded on the values of freedom and diversity, for multiculturalist scholars,
diversity and freedom are not easily reconcilable (Kessel, 2015). What happens,
they wonder, if communities do not share the liberal value of freedom?
Multiculturalists argue that, in a democratic context, diversity and plurality—
even if they undermine freedom—must be protected (Kessel, 2015). More than
in any other discourse, the focus here is on questions about “who” is the demo-
cratic subject and the consequences of intersectionality between race/gender
and citizenship. According to multiculturalists, a democratic society is a society
that guarantees the plurality of ways of being.
The underling distinction between multiculturalist, liberal, and deliberative per-
spectives is that, while liberal and deliberative take, to some extent, a universalistic
position, multiculturalists position themselves as particularists. Liberal and delib-
erative authors operate within a dominant cultural framework of reference that they
understand to be universal—that is, liberal institutions, communicative rationality.
Multiculturalists, in contrast, deny the universality and priority of any frame of ref-
erence (Fraser-Burgess, 2009). Within multiculturalist scholarship, the key dis-
agreement is the extent to which this particularism applies (Fraser-Burgess, 2009; T.
McDonough, 2008). For instance, difference multiculturalists challenge the univer-
sality of any moral and cultural framework (Alexander, 2007; Fraser-Burgess, 2012;
Kessel, 2015). As posed by Fraser-Burgess (2009) in her discussion of Gray, “In
some cases even reasonable people cannot provide hierarchical ordering of values”
(p. 5). Critical multiculturalists go farther and challenge the primacy of social and
political institutions. The priority of the liberal state and liberal institutions are here
directly questioned and other communities, and social and political organizations
are considered to have the same democratic legitimacy (Alexander, 2007; T.
McDonough, 2008). Taking account of postcolonialist and new materialist debates,
Democratic Education: A Theoretical Review
17
transfigurative multiculturalists challenge the primacy of any ontological and epis-
temological framework and argue for a multiplicity of epistemologies that challenge
dominant conceptions of being and knowing (Cooks, 2007; Darder, 2016; Sibbett,
2016).
Educational Implications
Proponents of multiculturalist democracy include Alexander (2007), Cooks
(2007), Camicia and Dobson (2010), Fraser-Burgess (2009), and Osler and
Starkey (2006). Multiculturalist educators have made recommendations for dem-
ocratic educational policy and practice. Whether the state should have the author-
ity to make educational decisions over communities is often a matter of discussion.
The views on policy of multiculturalists vary in relation to their relative position
in the universalist–particularist spectrum. On the particularist side, some argue
that parents must be free to raise their children within their own way of life, even
if this implies excluding them from the education system (Kessel, 2015). In the
previous example of the Mozert case, for instance, multiculturalist democrats
argue that fundamentalist Christian parents in the Hawkins County should have
been allowed to “opt out” from school curricula (Kessel, 2015). Homeschooling
or non-schooling become a clear alternative (Álvarez, 2011). On the universalist
side, other scholars argue for schools with a heterogeneous school body that allow
students to interact with those different to themselves. Writing from Israel, Ichilov
(2012) proposes that “public schools must be a meeting place for male and female
students of diverse socioeconomic, racial, and cultural backgrounds” (p. 285).
Students, however, could be exempt from attending specific classes or activities
(Álvarez, 2011). In between these two perspectives, others argue for the existence
of religious or ethnic schools that allow parents to educate their children in their
own values (Alexander, 2007; Fraser-Burgess, 2009).
Multiculturalist educators also pay particular attention to democratic curricula
and pedagogies. Multiculturalists advocate for students to have opportunities to
better understand their own culture (Alexander, 2007), where they might be able
to learn in their native language(s) (Mutekwe & Sedibe, 2015) and engage with
indigenous knowledge systems (Mutekwe & Sedibe, 2015; Okoth & Anyango,
2014). Darder (2016), for instance, defends the banned Mexican American Studies
within Arizona secondary schools. Students should be given opportunities to
reflect to better understand themselves and to comprehend the nature of the ste-
reotypes they hold (Alexander, 2007; Camicia & Dobson, 2010). Religious edu-
cation has been considered a key curricular subject where this process of inquiry
can take place (K. McDonough, 2011). This process of inquiry should also allow
students opportunities to engage with multiple identities (Kumi-Yeboah & Smith,
2016) and to examine and disrupt essentialist understandings of culture (T.
McDonough, 2008). Students should also be confronted with the Other. They
should learn of other traditions and experiences (Alexander, 2007; De Lissovoy,
2018), which should be made visible and normalized in the curriculum (Feu et al.,
2017). The curriculum should reflect the cultural history, present expectations,
and aspirations of different cultures (Camicia & Dobson, 2010; Fraser-Burgess,
2009). The understanding of oneself and the encounter with the Other should
facilitate students’ abilities to communicate with others through what has been
Sant
18
described as intercultural, translation, or dialogue competency (T. McDonough,
2008; K. McDonough, 2011).
Critical and transfigurative multiculturalists also argue for a curriculum that
exposes the relations between power and culture (Darder, 2016; De Lissovoy,
2018). They are particularly concerned about institutional racism within educa-
tional institutions including teachers’ lack of knowledge of students’ cultural,
social, and language backgrounds. Teachers in the United States, for instance,
appear to lack relevant knowledge on the experiences of Black immigrant stu-
dents (Kumi-Yeboah & Smith, 2016). Critical and transfigurative multicultural-
ists propose pedagogies that challenge Eurocentric understandings (DiCamillo &
Pace, 2010) and recommend that students should engage with non-Cartesian epis-
temologies (Cooks, 2007; Gibson & Grant, 2012). As an example, Cooks (2007)
describes an intervention to question the Cartesian binary of body/mind in the
context of an American HE institution.
Debates and Critiques
Multiculturalist proposals on democratic education are critiqued for their stand
on particularism. First, there is a question about the coherence of particularism
itself. As Fraser-Burgess (2009) describes, “[a]pproaches to the problem of plu-
ralizing education that privilege the particular over the universal fail because their
demands for equality are premised on universal principles” (p. 14). Second, it can
be argued that denying universality might privilege the status quo. Barbour (2010)
wonders if, without a demand for universality, conformity with the status quo is
unavoidable. Third, particularist educational policies might foster the isolation of
communities. In faith and/or ethnic-based schools, students might be isolated
from others. Intercultural dialogue might require educational spaces where stu-
dents have opportunities to interact with others different to them (Waghid, 2009).
Participatory Democratic Education
Key Principles
Different political and philosophical traditions that consider participation as
the key democratic feature converge on participatory democracy. This includes
John Stuart Mill’s and Thomas Hill Green’s liberalism, Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s,
Benjamin R. Barber’s and Hannah Arendt’s civic republicanism, and John
Dewey’s pragmatism (Kessel, 2009; Narey, 2012; Nesbitt & Trott, 2006; Sabia,
2012). Participatory democrats understand elitism to be against democracy itself,
restricting the participation of most citizens (Feu et al., 2017; Lan, 2013).
Participatory democrats argue for a strong democracy based on an “aristocracy of
everyone” (Barber, 1994; see also Feu et al., 2017; Lan, 2013; Meens & Howe,
2016; Zyngier et al., 2015), where democratic practices are not limited to politics
(Evans, 2010) but rather, as posed by Dewey, they become the general way of
“associated living” (MW.9.94).8 There are numerous overlaps between delibera-
tive and participatory understandings of democratic education—likely deriving
from Dewey’s defense of both principles (Bacon & Sloam, 2010; Lim, 2011;
Narey, 2012). But whereas deliberative democrats privilege communication and
consensus, participatory democrats privilege action and praxis.
Democratic Education: A Theoretical Review
19
The relevance of participation, within the participatory democratic discourse,
is justified in relation to normative and functionalist principles. Normatively, par-
ticipation is understood to be the prime responsibility of the citizenry (Bacon &
Sloam, 2010). Following Pateman and Barber, Buck and Geissel (2009) explain
that a “good citizen is a citizen who participates in politics” (p. 226). Drawing on
the work of Dewey and Arendt (Bacon & Sloam, 2010; Biesta, 2007), participa-
tory democrats argue that participation fulfils four main functions. First, accord-
ing to Dewey, action is epistemologically relevant. There is no assumed distinction
between the human and the world, and knowledge itself is intralinked with experi-
ence (Heilbronn, 2017). Through action—interacting with others and the environ-
ment—we become who we are (Bacon & Sloam, 2010; Biesta, 2007; Schutz,
2011). Second, participation humanizes us. Arendt writes that (political) action is
one of the three basic activities of human beings (Biesta, 2007; Kessel, 2009;
Todd, 2011). It is what makes each human distinct (Schutz, 2011; Todd, 2011) to
the extent that if “people [are] leading more private lives, they are becoming less
human” (Lo, 2017, p. 3). Third, through our active engagement with the “outside
world” we are able to modify this world. Participatory democratic educators
emphasize Arendt’s notion of natality: “The potential for renewal that every birth
of a child brings into the world” (Burgh & Yorshansky, 2011, p. 448; see also
Biesta, 2011). Fourth, participation is also educative. Learning is conceived as
experiential (Bacon & Sloam, 2010; Fallace, 2016) and thus, only by participating
in democracy can one learn about it (Biesta, 2007; Bradshaw, 2014; Sünker,
2007). Participation and education are intrinsically connected.
Educational Implications
Participatory democratic educators, including Bacon and Sloam (2010),
Brough (2012), Kahne, Hodgin, and Eidman-Aadahl (2016), Pearl and Knight
(2010), and Zyngier et al. (2015), often advocate for action-centered pedagogies.
Generally, students are expected to be able to openly participate in educational
activities, raising their voices and having their views taken into account (Brough,
2012). In the literature, this is often defined as open class, climate, and ethos
pedagogies (Bacon & Sloam, 2010; Zyngier et al., 2015). Participation in class,
school, and youth councils is often emphasized as a priority (Engel, 2008;
McCowan, 2010). Worldwide and across all educational stages, students are also
encouraged to participate in other activities such as curriculum codevelopment
(Biesta, 2007), student unions (Rautiainen & Räihä, 2012), and student media
(Helfenbein & Shudak, 2009). Opportunities also need to be created for students
to engage in activities outside institutions such as service learning, community
learning (Kahne et al., 2016; B. Levinson & Brantmeier, 2006; Zyngier et al.,
2015), and media production activities (Kahne et al., 2016; Lan, 2013).
Debates and Critiques
Participatory democratic educators disagree on whether participation, in the
educative context, should foster social reproduction or social reconstruction.
At one extreme, progressive educators, following the work of Jean-Jacques
Rousseau, Alexander Neil, Maria Montessori (among others), and certain inter-
pretations of Dewey, endorse child-centered (Burgh & Yorshansky, 2011),
Sant
20
student-centered (Brough, 2012), or learner-centered pedagogies (Mncube &
Harber, 2010). Students are here expected to “recover knowledge from within”
themselves (Goldstein, 2013, p. 311) to create new worlds (see also Michaud,
2012). Examples of this often relate to particular schools such as Summerhill
(Osler & Starkey, 2006) or Dewey’s Lab schools (Engel, 2008). At the opposite
extreme, advocates of the social reproduction approach argue for an education
for (future) citizenship. In the line with what Westheimer and Kahne have
described as participatory citizenship education (Lan, 2013; Sibbett, 2016;
Zyngier et al., 2015), participatory pedagogies are expected to allow younger
generations to engage with participatory values that have been defined by the
previous generations (Belcastro, 2015; Buck & Geissel, 2009; Zyngier et al.,
2015). The curriculum for civic studies in British Columbia (Canada), for
instance, explicitly specifies its aim in relation to active citizenship (Ruitenberg,
2015). Considering the main function of students’ participation is an educative
one, “nonreal” participatory pedagogies such as mock elections, parliaments
(Burgh & Yorshansky, 2011; Ching-Sze Wang, 2009; De Groot, 2017) and
other simulations (B. Levinson & Brantmeier, 2006; Nesbitt & Trott, 2006;
Stoddard, 2014) are recommended.
In between these two approaches, those who favor Dewey’s pragmatism—nei-
ther traditionalist nor progressive—(Bacon & Sloam, 2010), argue for an educa-
tion “through” democracy (Biesta, 2007). Education is not considered
child-centered or a preparation for life, but rather as social life itself (Biesta, 2007;
Bradshaw, 2014). Through social action, both education and politics are con-
ceived as a continuous reconstruction of experiences and subjectivities (Biesta,
2007; Evans, 2010; Mutekwe & Sedibe, 2015). In this later line of thought, Biesta
(2007, 2011) recommends a democratic education in which students have real
opportunities to take initiatives in and beyond schools and to reflect on those situ-
ations in which action is (not) possible.
Critical Democratic Education
Key Principles
In the context of this article, proposals for democratic education made by the
critical pedagogy school are defined as critical democratic education.9 Emerging
from the Marxist-orientated Frankfurt school, the writings of Antonio Gramsci
and Paulo Freire and, to some extent, from Dewey’s work on democracy and edu-
cation (Brent Edwards, 2010; Hantzopoulos, 2015; Veugelers, 2007), critical edu-
cators pursue equality and social transformation. Critical democrats are concerned
with the deficits of aggregative and liberal systems as they reproduce inequality
and existing power relations. Most present-day democracies, they argue, function
as “thin” versions of democracy where the society is atomized into individuals
whose voice is confined within the market system, limiting the possibilities for
real social change (Carr, 2008; Lim, 2011; Menashy, 2007; Veugelers, 2007).
Against this thin democracy defined in terms of choice, individualism, and the
status quo, critical democrats defend a “thick” normative democracy in which all
humans have equal and real opportunities to be agents of social transformation
(Carr, 2008; Hantzopoulos, 2015; Lim, 2011). Social transformation is not
Democratic Education: A Theoretical Review
21
conceived as neutral, but rather it is committed to the value of equality that under-
pins critical democratic educators’ ethical demands.
Critical democrats take a universalist standpoint. Following Marxist theory,
critical democratic education is grounded on the assumption that universal mate-
rial relations structure the social fabric (Walsh, 2008). To change this structure
one first needs to gain knowledge about its functioning. However, this knowledge
is not easily accessible as it is hidden by dominant (hegemonic, in Gramsci’s
term) ideologies (i.e., capitalism, neoliberalism) that enslave human bodies and
communities (Freedman, 2007; Stevenson, 2010). Only if humans are emanci-
pated from these dominant ideologies (Hantzopoulos, 2015) can they become
empowered to challenge hegemonic ideologies and the material conditions under-
neath (De Lissovoy, 2018; Perry, 2009; Veugelers, 2007). It is worth noting here
that, in contrast with orthodox Marxists, critical democratic educators do not limit
their analysis to the category of social class. Their analysis expands to all poten-
tially marginalized social groups and emancipation and solidarity among these
groups is conceived as a requirement to materialize social transformation (Sibbett,
2016; Stevenson, 2010).
Educational Implications
Influential scholars of critical democratic education include Apple (2011),
Carr (2008), Darder (2016), McCowan (2010), and Stevenson (2010). Within
this discourse, education can be understood as both contributing toward demo-
cratic and antidemocratic principles. Following Freire, critical educators make
a distinction between two different forms of education: “humanizing” and
“dehumanizing” (Stevenson, 2010, p. 71; Walsh, 2008, p. 67). Deriving from
Louis Althusser’s work, “dehumanizing education” functions as an antidemo-
cratic ideological state apparatus, socializing students into dominant ideolo-
gies and perpetuating existing inequality and power relations (Menashy, 2007;
Mncube & Harber, 2010; Walsh, 2008). Democratic education, in contrast, is a
humanizing project. In line with positive (Kantian) conceptions of liberty, criti-
cal democratic educators argue for a humanizing education that fosters self-
empowerment and social transformation by creating opportunities for
emancipation from hegemonic ideologies (Carr, 2008; Howard & Turner-Nash,
2011; Stevenson, 2010; Veugelers, 2007). “To exist, humanly,” Freire writes,
“is to name the world, to change it” (Freire, 2000, p. 88; see also Freedman,
2007). Humanizing education is therefore understood to be essential in pro-
moting democratic tendencies in society (Payne, 2017).
There are few examples of enacted policies that are informed by the critical
discourse. Among them, Duffy (2015) examines the Venezuela Education
Missions, local and flexible educational settings run by and for the community
that aimed to educate “with socialist values” (p. 184), including excluded sectors
and redistributing resources. Critical democratic educators favor discussions
about the democratic deficits of neoliberal policies. Darder (2016), for instance,
explains how social mobility is limited for Latino students in United States as the
liberal education system undermines the cultural strength these students bring to
schools. Similar arguments have been made in relation to working-class students
in English universities (Bacon & Sloam, 2010).
Sant
22
Pedagogies of critical democratic education aim to achieve personal and col-
lective emancipation of students and the transformation of their social reality
(Brant Edwards, 2010). For those following Ivan Illich, emancipation can only
take place if education happens outside educational institutions. Institutions are
compromised by their role as ideological state apparatuses and, therefore,
deschooling (Rodney, 2013) or homeschooling (Morrison, 2008) would be
encouraged. For others, following Freire, emancipation is possible within edu-
cational institutions if there is a constant dialogue between teachers and stu-
dents over particular problems (McCowan, 2010; Stevenson, 2010). In contrast
with deliberative perspectives, this dialogue does not aim for consensus and
reconciliation but rather for the intersubjective understanding of students’ and
teachers’ experiences (Brent Edwards, 2010; De Lissovoy, 2018; Hantzopoulos,
2015). As described by Hantzopoulos (2015), “This dialogue occurs through
problem posing and inquiry that involve a constant ‘unveiling of reality’, one
that ultimately leads to a conscientiousness that challenges and obligates all par-
ties to respond to that reality” (p. 347). In this dialogue, teachers are not expected
to be neutral (as would be associated with child-centered pedagogies) but facili-
tators—in line with Freire—or organic intellectuals—in line with Gramsci
(Freedman, 2007; Snir, 2017; Stevenson, 2010; Walsh, 2008). They are required
to help students “uncover” existing structures of domination (Apple, 2011;
Hantzopoulos, 2015; Lim, 2011; De Lissovoy, 2018; O’Donnell, 2018;
Veugelers, 2007). Educators are also expected to challenge what it is socially
valued as “legitimized” (in contrast with “popular”) knowledge (Apple, 2011;
Brent Edwards, 2010; Duffy, 2015). Simultaneously, following Gramsci, Pierre
Bourdieu, and Basil Bernstein, some critical educators also emphasize the need
for educators to become “bridge builders” (Schutz, 2008, p. 435) and help stu-
dents gain technical–scientific and social–humanistic knowledge, so they can
overcome existing cultural inequalities (Schutz, 2008).
Together with emancipation, critical educators argue for a dialogical relation-
ship of reflection and action leading to social transformation (Bickmore & Parker,
2014; Howard & Turner-Nash, 2010). Schools are considered sites of struggle
with students ideally becoming activists in the struggle for the public good (Apple,
2011) and, more generally, for the betterment of their society and the common
good (Carr, Pluim, & Howard, 2015; Perry, 2009). For instance, Carr et al. (2015)
recommend that student teachers should develop their own media to critically
intervene in their communities. Links between schools and communities are
encouraged (Veugelers, 2007). Stevenson (2010) explains that “there is no radical
politics that is confined to the classroom” (p. 78). Critical educators defend the
need for communities and schools to work together in solidarity to reduce inequal-
ity within and outside educational institutions (Aubert et al., 2016; Duffy, 2015;
Feu et al., 2017; Schutz, 2011).
Debates and Critiques
Critical educators see an intrinsic link between critical pedagogy and demo-
cratic education (Payne, 2017). Yet, concerns have been raised about the demo-
cratic perils underlying the assumptions and pedagogies of critical pedagogy.
Liberals have questioned the democratic legitimacy of democratic educators who
Democratic Education: A Theoretical Review
23
“enter the classroom with preformulated political objectives” whose goal “is not
to bring out students’ independent thoughts ( . . . ) but to alter students’ ways of
thinking to conform with a preconceived notion of what constitutes critical
thought” (Freedman, 2007, p. 444). Drawing on poststructuralist analysis, agonis-
tic and participatory scholars have challenged the universalist and rationalist
assumptions underneath the critical democratic education discourse (Hantzopoulos,
2015; Pearl & Knight, 2010). Pearl and Knight (2010) write, “[c]ritical peda-
gogues claim a truth; after having defined it, they then impose it on others. In a
democracy, truth is determined through open and thorough debate of opposing
views” (p. 246). Critiques have also been formulated within the critical pedagogy
school itself. The usual primacy of social class at the expense of other forms of
oppression have been brought into question (Hantzopoulos, 2015). In addition,
critical educators have identified different pedagogical challenges of a critical
democratic education. The difficulties of working through a Freirean equalizing
dialogue between students and teachers have been highlighted (Hantzopoulos,
2015). This includes the risk that White middle-class academics and educators,
who aim to empower their students, might fail in a decontextualizing of students’
cultures and values (Seher, 2013), and/or in taking patronizing attitudes toward
them (Schutz, 2008).
Agonistic Democratic Education
Key Principles
Agonistic democracy is constructed in relation to the principles of openness,
dissent, and agonism. In contrast with critical democratic education and influ-
enced by Jacques Derrida’s post-structuralism and Dewey’s pragmatism, ago-
nistic educators argue that democracy cannot be defined in relation to any
predetermined account (Friedrich, Jaastad, & Popkewitz, 2010; Leonard, 2014;
Mårdh & Tryggvason, 2017; Snir, 2017). Democracy and its meaning here is
contingent, always in construction, and changes with time and space (Ching-
Sze Wang, 2009; Feu et al., 2017). Agonistic democracy is constructed as the
only political logic open to critiques of itself (Bastrup-Birk & Wildemeersch,
2013; Friedrich et al., 2010). In contrast with deliberative democrats, agonistic
democrats welcome dissent. Dissent is considered constitutive of any demo-
cratic enactment, rather than provisional (Wildemeersch & Vandenabeele,
2013). To an extreme, Jacques Rancière and his followers endorse the principle
of “democratic exceptionality” (Barbour, 2010, p. 260), where democracy is
only possible in moments of disruption of existing social forces (Bastrup-Birk
& Wildemeersch, 2013; McDonnell, 2017). Agonistic educators, nevertheless,
appear to be mostly committed to the “less” radical framework developed by
Chantal Mouffe. Democracy is here named “agonistic” to illustrate a double
commitment to provisional agreements in a context of unavoidable dissent10
(Biesta, 2011; Todd, 2011).
Agonistic educators ally with poststructuralist assumptions. Like multicultur-
alists, agonistic educators argue for an ontology of plurality (Mårdh & Tryggvason,
2017; Snir, 2017). As described by Narey (2012), “Divergence and conflict are
seen as manifestations of human uniqueness, not simply as failures of communi-
cation or understanding” (p. 152). But in contrast with multiculturalists, agonistic
Sant
24
educators privilege conflict over diversity. Following Mouffe and Laclau, they
argue that antagonism cannot be eliminated from the social fabric (Mårdh &
Tryggvason, 2017; Todd, 2011; Tryggvason, 2017). For agonistic democrats, all
forms of knowledge and their related value criteria are considered socially con-
structed. Following Rancière, and on some occasions Alain Badiou, equality is
understood as a presupposition rather than a goal or an empirical claim (Barbour,
2010; Biesta, 2011; Friedrich et al., 2011). Agonistic educators assume the “equal-
ity of intelligences”: “An equal ability to think—a universal power to be struck by
a truth” (Barbour, 2010, p. 254). What might often be accepted as social knowl-
edge, structures, and groups are just social constructions sedimented through
hegemonization processes (Snir, 2017). This has two main consequences. The
“we” and the “them” are considered to be continuously subject to renegotiation
(Jónsson, 2012; O’Donnell, 2018; Snir, 2017). Exclusions are expected (Biesta,
2011; Jónsson, 2012; O’Donnell, 2018), but humans are also expected to be able
to articulate in solidarity with others to create new social groups and meanings
(Snir, 2017; Wildemeersch & Vandenabeele, 2010). Agonistic democrats also
challenge the liberal and deliberative primacy of reason (over emotion) (Backer,
2017; Ruitenberg, 2009; Zembylas, 2015). Emotions are a legitimate and neces-
sary political response (Zembylas, 2015).
Educational Implications
Agonistic educators such as Ruitenberg (2015), Snir (2017), Tryggvason
(2017), and Zembylas (2015) have mainly published in philosophy of education
journals. This explains why, within this framework, proposals for policy making
are unusual. The Council of Youth Research in Los Angeles—where high school
students explicitly question different political authorities—is one of the few pol-
icy recommendations explicitly discussed (Ruitenberg, 2015). It also explains
the abstraction of some of their pedagogical proposals. Agonistic scholars have
made five distinctive recommendations for democratic educational practice.
First, they propose the creation of spaces where it is safe to dissent and to dis-
agree with others (Jónsson, 2012). Drawing on Rancière, McDonnell (2017)
argues for supporting students to reflect on and to learn from moments of disrup-
tion. Second, an agonistic democratic education provides students with opportu-
nities to “enact and practice their equal capacity as speaking beings” (Ruitenberg,
2015, p. 8) inside and outside educational institutions (see also, De Groot, 2017).
As explained by Wildemeersch and Vandenabeele (2010), “This is not a question
of ‘identity’, but of ‘singularisation’ in the sense of becoming a singular person
searching for an individual, unique response” (p. 499). Leonard (2014), for
instance, argues that through dance, students can realize their own individuality
and can discover and perform deep personal meanings. Third, education for ago-
nism is also fostered through “educating political adversaries” (Ruitenberg,
2009, p. 269). That is, educators should help students understand that others
might be political adversaries over a determinate political conflict, but that this
does not mean they are moral “enemies” that need to be questioned for their
conceptions of reason, truth, or morality (Lo, 2017; Narey, 2012; Ruitenberg,
2009). Fourth, in line with Laclau and Mouffe, educational institutions, as with
any other social spaces, are considered spaces where the meaning of democracy
Democratic Education: A Theoretical Review
25
and politics are constantly constructed and reconstructed (Mårdh & Tryggvason,
2017). Students and teachers can “articulate” themselves with others—inside and
outside educational institutions (Ruitenberg, 2015; see also, De Groot, 2017)—to
create new hegemonies (Snir, 2017; Tryggvason, 2017). “[T]he radical teacher,”
Snir (2017) explains, “is first and foremost another element—albeit a rather domi-
nant one—in the field of differences undergoing articulation” (p. 360).
The education of political emotions (Ruitenberg, 2009) is the fifth recommen-
dation. In contrast with deliberative pedagogies, agonistic educators would like to
see environments where students can articulate their emotions (Backer, 2017;
Ruitenberg, 2009). In the field of dance education, for example, some have sug-
gested that emotions can be expressed through affective mapping of body move-
ments (Catalano & Leonard, 2016). Others, within social studies or civics, argue
that educators might encourage agonism by helping students bring their emotional
stories. Thus, rather than asking students to engage with rational or evidence-
based arguments to support a particular view on a debate, educators could request
students to consider the wide emotions they feel as a member of a community
(Zembylas, 2015) or the feelings they experienced in particular situations of injus-
tice (Backer, 2017; Lo, 2017).
Debates and Critiques
Although the proposals of agonistic educators are relatively new when com-
pared with more consolidated frameworks, critiques have already been devel-
oped. Some have criticized the antagonistic assumptions underneath agonistic
democracy. According to Wildemeersch and Vandenabeele (2010), Mouffe and
her followers overvalue conflict and underestimate solidarity. There is also a
question of whether the assumption of a universal antagonism is essentially
framed by Western binary logics (Bastrup-Birk & Wildemeersch, 2013; Stevenson,
2010). The movement from a “moral enemy” to a “political adversary” has also
been challenged. Within the agonistic framework itself, Tryggvason (2017)
defends agonistic democratic educational projects that incorporate and explore
the notion of the enemy. Finally, others, perhaps anticipating a new emerging ver-
sion of democratic education—one that could be named “posthumanist” or “post-
democratic”—have challenged the anthropocentric nature of the agonistic—and
all other—discourses, and have argued for a democratic education that considers
potential associations with nonhuman partners (Bastrup-Birk & Wildemeersch,
2013; Shephard & Brown, 2017).
Discussion
Political and Philosophical Tensions
The analysis above outlines eight major versions of democratic education. As
suspected, democratic education operates as a floating signifier in education
scholarship. With very limited exceptions, democratic education is claimed to be
a normative aspiration guiding the proposals for educational policy and practice
of numerous educators. This is particularly significant—democratic education
functions as an entry point for conversations. But as a floating signifier, demo-
cratic education is contested. This review suggests that educators imagine this
Sant
26
critical horizon in (at least) eight different ways. Academics often present their
educational project as a universal form of democratic education constructed
against competing discourses. As they aim toward different horizons, proposals
for educational policy and practice diverge. Democratic education is a disputed
terrain that elicits plurality of educational alternatives.
Each version of democratic education is associated with a rival political dis-
course. Among them, liberalism appears to be the prevalent discourse, function-
ing as a point of reference for broader discussions. In new democracies, liberal
democracy is conceptualized as an aspiration toward which democratic educa-
tion should contribute (e.g., Msila, 2013). In more consolidated democracies,
liberal democratic education might be in crisis. Numerous articles written in
Western countries challenge liberal assumptions and propose educational alter-
natives based on deliberative, participatory, multicultural, critical, and agonistic
discourses.
These alternatives respond to distinctive normative frameworks. Within lib-
eralism, democracy is instrumentally and morally valuable. Representative
democracy functions as a desirable social contract, securing individual liberty
and guaranteeing equal civil and political rights. However, the ability of liberal
democracies to contribute toward this normative aim is challenged by delibera-
tive, multiculturalist, and participatory scholars. For some deliberative and
multiculturalist educators, the liberal framework does not bring political equal-
ity because it does not guarantee inclusive processes of decision making
(Lefrançois & Ethier, 2010). Participatory educators criticize the lack of citi-
zen’s engagement within liberal democracies and argue that wider and deeper
participation is needed to legitimize the system (Feu et al., 2011; Lan, 2013).
Critical educators and critical multiculturalist educators pursue different dem-
ocratic ideals. The tacit social contract between individuals and the state, they
argue, might well foster (liberal) individual freedom but it does not contribute
toward equality. Endorsing Marxist and identity politics’ critiques, critical edu-
cators question the possibility of political equality in a context in which eco-
nomic redistribution and cultural recognition are not guaranteed (Apple, 2011;
Sung, 2010). Power, they argue, is not equally distributed within liberal demo-
cratic society and thus equal opportunities is a liberal myth (Darder, 2016).
More radically, for transfigurationist multiculturalist and agonistic scholars, if
democracy is valuable, it is precisely because the normative aim is not fixed,
but rather is open to multiple interpretations (Friedrich et al., 2010).
These distinctive normative aims are grounded in different ontological assump-
tions. The eight versions can be placed on a first spectrum from individualism to
communitarism. In the liberal and neoliberal discourses, the individual has onto-
logical primacy. It is through tacit social contracts that individuals are constituted
in organized communities. Multiculturalist, deliberative, and agonistic scholars,
in contrast, challenge the primacy of the individual over the community and argue
that individuals are, from the beginning, shaped by their communities (Covaleskie,
2006; Gibson & Grant, 2012). The different versions can also be placed in a sec-
ond spectrum from universalism to particularism. At the universalist end, liberal,
elitist, and critical democratic educators assume that there is a universal structure
organizing the social sphere, and there is a universal way for society to be better
Democratic Education: A Theoretical Review
27
organized (Biesta, 2007). The difference here is in defining the universal. For
deliberative democratic educators, the universal is pragmatically conceived.
There might not be (or it might not be possible to discover) a universal way of
better organizing society, and thus deliberative communication itself can provide
a universal procedure to decide the particular ways in which societies may be
organized (Carleheden, 2006). In contrast, multiculturalist and agonistic educa-
tors assume an ontology of plurality (Todd, 2011). The distinction here is that,
whereas multiculturalists mainly defend the need to maintain and respect the sta-
tus of plurality, agonistic democrats attempt, to a certain extent, to construct pro-
visional alliances (Barbour, 2010). Neoliberals appear to play a double game in
this respect. While appealing to individualism and individuals’ choices, neoliber-
als argue for the universal principles of competition and individualism.
These versions also appear to be different insofar as they respond to alternative
epistemological claims. Following the principle of plurality, agonistic and multi-
culturalist democratic educators also appeal to a plurality of epistemologies
(Sibbett, 2016). Knowledge and its access are also particular. In contrast, liberal,
neoliberal, and elitist conceptions of democratic education are primarily grounded
in idealistic and/or rationalistic principles deriving respectively from Kant and
Plato. Access to knowledge is here expected through rational consideration “with-
out direction from another” (Biesta, 2007, p. 746). Deliberative democratic edu-
cators take a constructivist standpoint and understand knowledge to be
intersubjective (Johnston, 2012), with meaning created through the interactions of
individuals with each other. For participatory democratic educators, knowledge is
experiential (Heilbron, 2017). Through participation, we gain access to the out-
side world. The position critical democratic educators take on this debate is up for
discussion. They are simultaneously committed to individual rationality
(Veugelers, 2007), intersubjective dialogue (Brent Edwards, 2010), and praxis
(Howard & Turner-Nash, 2010) as ways of accessing and modifying reality.
Educational Policy
The educational policies discussed in the reviewed articles fall into three dis-
tinctive groups with different conceptions of the relationship between education
and politics. The first approach is education for democracy (Biesta & Lawy, 2006;
M. Levinson, 2011). Liberal, and on some occasions critical, deliberative, and
participatory, scholars recommend policies that follow this approach. This per-
spective interprets democracy as a universal normative imperative and education
as an “instrument” for achieving this goal. The logic is that education can contrib-
ute to the betterment of future societies, but this betterment is conceived from the
present (Buck & Geissel, 2009). Thus, it is not surprising that this approach has
for long time dominated state-led educational policies and is implicit in most cur-
rent education systems (Biesta & Lawy, 2006). The education of the citizenry is a
curricular aim (and sometimes a curricular subject) embedded in the education
system of most liberal democracies (Buck & Geissel, 2009). Liberal educational
policies set up the conditions and requirements for students to master elements of
democratic character (i.e., knowledgeable and rational citizens; Meens & Howe,
2016). In new democracies, education for (liberal) citizenship is expected to fos-
ter “democratization” (MnCube & Harber, 2010). In existing liberal democracies,
Sant
28
deliberatory and/or participatory–orientated curriculum policies emphasize the
need for a more deliberative and active citizenship, respectively. An example of
this convergence is the curriculum for civic studies in the British Columbia where
students “deliberate individually and with others on civic matters—local to
global—for the purpose of becoming informed decision makers empowered in
civic action” (Ruitenberg, 2015, p. 6). Education is also expected to be an essen-
tial “tool” for social mobility. Arguably, the most powerful education for democ-
racy policies are mass schooling policies that are at the roots of most liberal
democracies and have had a strong influence in how education is conceptualized
worldwide (see, e.g., UNESCO’s Education For All in Okoth & Anyango, 2014).
The second approach is education within democracy (Bradshaw, 2014; M.
Levinson, 2011). This approach, essentially connected with neoliberal and elit-
ist discourses, is defined by Levinson as the situation in which “‘adults’ demo-
cratically legitimate control over education within a democracy” (M. Levinson,
2011, p. 125). Both democracy and education are instrumental rather than nor-
mative. The logic here is that democracy is not a normative imperative but
rather a political system that effectively secures the rule of the elites (elitism) or
(negative) individual freedom (neoliberalism). Within the latter, education
should be denuded of moral aspirations and needs to respond to the demands of
individual citizens (Ichilov, 2012). With minor exceptions (Duffy, 2015), neo-
liberal policies appear to be currently dominant worldwide (Camicia & Franklin,
2010). Policies of choice, standardization, and accountability, such as the
Swedish “Choice in School,” the U.S. “Common Core State Standards,” or the
international Programme of International Student Assessment, can be found in
numerous countries and educational levels. However, democratic educators are
particularly critical of this approach. The individualist and rationalist epistemol-
ogy underpinning these policies is challenged by intersubjective constructions
of knowledge such as the one encountered in Dewey’s account (Biesta, 2011;
Meens & Howe, 2016). It is also argued that, under the appearance of normative
neutrality, neoliberal policies do indeed create an alternative normative frame-
work based on individualism and competition (Sung, 2010). Furthermore,
although these policies can function within an aggregative or elitist democratic
system, there is an apparent academic consensus that, overall, neoliberal poli-
cies do not respond (or do not attempt to respond) to democratic principles or
aims (M. Levinson, 2011; Pennington, 2014).
The third approach is what Biesta and Lawy (2006) define as education through
democracy. This approach appears to be the preferred framework for most demo-
cratic educators writing from consolidated liberal democracies. Participatory,
deliberative, multicultural, agonistic, and critical scholars coincide in their views
on its democratic benefits. This approach is different in its conceptualization of
the relation between education and democracy. As mentioned, the education for
democracy approach conceptualize education as a tool for future democracy, and
the education within democracy approach understands education and democracy
to be independent of each other. In contrast, under the education through democ-
racy approach, education and democracy are imagined together (Stevenson,
2015). Here, policy making itself is conceptualized through a democratic ethos
involving the members of the community in the process of decision making. In
Democratic Education: A Theoretical Review
29
contrast with the two previous approaches, education through democracy policies
are grounded in particularist and communitarian ontologies and intersubjective
and experiential epistemologies. Gutmann’s principle of nonrepression and the
commitment to involve parents, citizens, and professional educators in educa-
tional decision making appears to be commonly accepted as democratically fos-
tering equality, inclusion, and participation by different discourses (Ichilov, 2012;
Kessel, 2009). Academics discuss why liberal and neoliberal policies challenge
these democratic principles when not allowing spaces for participatory and inclu-
sive practices. The alternative is illustrated using historical accounts such as the
system of locally controlled school boards in England (Hinchliffe, 2013), exam-
ples from socialist orientated localities or countries such as the participatory bud-
gets on Porto Alegre (Apple, 2011), or particular schools such as Summerhill
(Osler & Starkey, 2006).
The convention appears to be that the education for democracy approach is
(more or less successfully) sedimented in most education systems, for instance,
through mass schooling policies. Democratic educators worldwide rarely challenge
these structural policies. However, whether most scholars (particularly in consoli-
dated democracies) would prefer the education through democracy approach to
shape other policies, presently the education within democracy approach prevails.
Educational Practice
Recommendations for democratic education practice also fall into two of the
approaches mentioned above. It is worth noting here that, since the education
within democracy approach (associated with elitism and neoliberalism) conceives
education and democracy independently, there are little or no recommendations
for practice associated with this approach. In contrast, the education for democ-
racy approach can be found across the six pro democratic education discourses
and has been very successful influencing educational practices worldwide. From
this perspective, practical proposals define the qualities of a democratic citizenry
and examine the pedagogies that might better contribute to the learning of these
qualities. Students here are citizens in process, getting “prepared” with the knowl-
edge and skills they need to perform as democratic citizens (Biseth, 2009).
Pedagogies and particular curricula areas are here recommended insofar as they
appear to be effective in fostering these democratic learning. In this respect,
results from empirical research are often used to identify relevant pedagogies.
Humanities and social sciences curricula are particularly suited to the imple-
mentation of this approach (Carleheden, 2006). Across these subjects, liberal edu-
cators have conceived a curriculum aiming to promote political knowledge and
critical thinking (Gibson & Grant, 2012). Deliberative democratic educators rec-
ommend teaching and learning of deliberation (Parker, 2010), problem solving
(Haav, 2008), and communication skills (Boone, 2007) via controversial issues
(Carleheden, 2006). Participatory democrats recommend that students need to
learn participatory skills (Schoeman, 2006). Opportunities to participate in class
and school governance structures, in service-learning activities, and simulations
and games are proved to contribute toward this aim (Kahne et al., 2016; Stoddard,
2014). Multicultural democratic educators argue for students having opportunities
to engage with their own and other cultures (Alexander, 2007). Critical democratic
Sant
30
educators aim to examine social problems so that students can gain knowledge to
uncover structures of domination (Darder, 2016), and cooperate with communities
to reduce inequality (Schutz, 2011). Agonistic democratic educators recommend to
educate political emotions (Backer, 2017), and to help students understand the dif-
ferences between political and moral claims (Ruitenberg, 2009).
In the education through democracy approach, “Students have the opportunity
to learn as part of a community in which they have a voice and can participate in
making decisions with one another” (Allen, 2011, p. 3). Students are de facto act-
ing as citizens, and democratic learning is enacted through democratic participa-
tion with both education and politics being understood as interlinked (Biesta,
2007). In this perspective, democratic participation is unavoidably educative and
education is expected to generate new possibilities for democracy. What matters
is not the curricular aim, which is left open, but the pedagogical experience, which
is also considered a political one.
Only three of the identified discourses make explicit proposals for education
through democracy. Child-centered or student-centered pedagogies, while once
consensually recognized as clear examples of democratic education (Engel,
2008), presently take a contested role in defining the meaning of democratic edu-
cation (Biesta, 2007; Michaud, 2012). Besides this, other proposals for education
through democracy have been made. Postcolonialist multiculturalists defend the
need to create opportunities so students can engage with non-Cartesian episte-
mologies in a process of reconstructing the relations between knowing and being
(Cooks, 2007). Participatory democratic educators argue for action-centered ped-
agogies that offer real opportunities to democratically participate. Examples of
this can be curriculum codevelopment (Biesta, 2007) and community learning
(Helfenbein & Shudak, 2009) activities. Agonistic democratic educators recom-
mend the creation of channels for expression of political dissent (McDonnell,
2017), for the singularization of subjectivities (Wildemeersch & Vandenabeele,
2010), and for the political articulation of students and teachers (Snir, 2017). The
logic here is that educational institutions are also political spaces and therefore
places where political discourses and alliances might emerge.
Conclusions
This theoretical review has identified eight distinctive versions of democratic
education, namely, elitist, liberal, neoliberal, deliberative, multiculturalist, par-
ticipatory, critic, and agonistic. Democratic education appears to function as a
floating signifier, a critical aspirational horizon within education scholarship that
is interpreted differently by distinctive political discourses. It has been argued that
the conjunction of the normative value given to democracy, the position along two
ontological spectrums (universalism/particularism and individualism/communi-
tarism), and the epistemological claims about access to knowledge (individual
rationality, intersubjectivity, or experiential), influence the meaning attributed to
democratic education. The review has also pointed out the relevance of the liberal
discourse in the wider democratic education debate. Whereas in new democracies
liberal democracy is conceptualized as an educational aspiration, in more consoli-
dated democracies, liberal democratic education is in crisis but it does serve as
starting point for theoretical and practical alternatives.
Democratic Education: A Theoretical Review
31
These alternatives have been classified into three distinctive approaches to
democratic educational policy and practice, with different conceptions of the
relation between politics and education. The education for democracy
approach understands democratic education as social reproduction. Liberal,
deliberative, and some participatory, multiculturalist, and critical educators
have fostered policy and research on educational pedagogies aiming to con-
tribute toward their normative conceptions of democracy. Deliberative and
participatory discourses appear to be well positioned in this struggle to define
a new dominant democratic education to replace liberal democratic education.
The education through democracy approach, in contrast, conceives demo-
cratic education as social reconstruction. The struggle here is not to fix the
meaning attributed to democratic education but rather to open the possibilities
for new meanings. Mainly associated with antagonistic, and certain concep-
tions of critical, multicultural, and participatory, discourses, this approach
offers various practices in which politics and education can be interlinked.
The review has also pointed out a third approach, which is highly criticized by
the academic community. The education within democracy approach chal-
lenges the relevance of democratic education and conceives of democracy and
education independently. Neoliberal policies that dominate education policy
globally challenge the view that education should contribute toward or should
function through democratic principles. Rather, neoliberals conceive both
democracy and education as tools within the market society.
This research has certain limitations that need to be acknowledged and which
suggest the need for further research on democratic education. First, this theoreti-
cal review aimed to map out versions of democratic education within educational
scholarship. To what extent these versions have also affected educational policy
and practice outside academic discussions has not yet been examined. Other
researchers might want to consider the existence or influence of these academic
discourses on practice, for instance, through an examination of gray documenta-
tion, policies, and so on. Second, this review is limited to scholarship written in
English language, and its scope does not allow for more depth of examination in
particular contexts. Researchers might want to consider the influence of these ver-
sions in different contexts. Third, the review has explored some ideas that require
further development. The potential associations between cosmopolitanism (or
other globally related educational discourses) and democratic education could be
examined. In addition, this study has identified some post-humanist and neo-
materialist critiques of existing versions of democratic education. Future theory
and research could explore what a post-humanist democratic education frame-
work could look like.
The results of this review point toward opportunities for further academic dis-
cussion on educational policy. With few exceptions, there is an apparent consen-
sus on the democratic deficits of education within democracy (neoliberal and
elitist) policies, and on the democratic value of education through democracy
processes. Researchers interested in educational policy could aim to generate
opportunities for participatory decision-making processes and explore the poten-
tial impact of these on existing educational (elitist or neoliberal) policies. At the
time of completing this review, there were few studies available examining the
Sant
32
functioning of current alternative democratic educational policies. More research
along the lines of Duffy (2015) and McCowan (2010), examining the democratic
possibilities of policies emerging from nondominant discourses, could be helpful
in this regard. In addition, not all frameworks presented here have yet made
explicit proposals for democratic educational policy. This is particularly the case
for the emerging agonistic perspective on democratic education. It is possible that
the minimal policy discussion in this area is caused by the commitment of agonis-
tic democratic educators to dissent, and to view democracy as escaping institu-
tionalization (McDonnell, 2017). But, if this is not the case, scholars working
within this discourse could consider how educational policies mirror their demo-
cratic principles.
The theoretical map presented here might be also be helpful to academics
concerned with pedagogy and curriculum studies. This review points out that
there are a number of pedagogies grounded in transfigurative multicultural
and antagonist discourses that have not yet been empirically investigated.
Researchers might want to examine the possibilities and challenges of these
proposals. In addition, and without any intention of suggesting “best prac-
tices,” this study has identified several pedagogies that appear to be recom-
mended across the scholarship on democratic education. The discussion of
controversies, conflicts, or problems, the participation of students in deci-
sion-making processes, and the strengthening of the links between educa-
tional institutions and communities, appear to be key features for democratic
education practice across the six pro democratic education versions and the
two practical approaches (education for/through democracy). However, this
review also shows how different pedagogies predominantly recognized as
democratic education (e.g., critical thinking fostering activities, deliberation
pedagogies, participatory simulations) are grounded in controversial onto-
logical, epistemological, and ethical claims and, therefore, are susceptible to
critique (see, e.g., Lim, 2011). It also suggests how different democratic ped-
agogies might position students as in process or de facto democratic citizens,
depending on whether the democratic education is respectively conceived as
education for or education through democracy (Biesta & Lawy, 2006).
Democratic educators should consider and acknowledge their knowledge
assumptions, and their democratic and educational aspirations, when making
recommendations for educational practice. Good examples of this include the
recent works of Lo (2017) and Backer (2017).
One hundred years after Dewey wrote “Democracy and Education,” the
debate on democratic education is still alive. Arguably, there are multiple chal-
lenges. Politically, the democratic nature of our societies is constantly chal-
lenged by threats such as the ones identified in the introduction of this review.
Educationally, the dominance of neoliberal and elitist policies appear to hinder
democratic policies and practices. Nevertheless, these challenges should not
lead to academic despair. Rather, within educational scholarship, there are rea-
sons for cautious optimism. Democratic education, as conceived within the lib-
eral discourse, might be in crisis in some contexts but, as in the political field,
this is a crisis of liberal democratic education rather than of democratic educa-
tion all together. Democratic education is still a commonly held aspiration
Democratic Education: A Theoretical Review
33
within the education field. Most academics working in different disciplines,
considering different philosophical grounds, supporting different educational
and political projects, all debate and make recommendations for democratic
education. Democratic education functions as a floating signifier, a privileged
nodal point in educational scholarship, with different discourses struggling to
give meaning in their own way (Jorgensen & Phillips, 2002). The same work of
Dewey (MW.9), as a key point of reference within democratic education, is
cited and utilized in different ways. Whereas others would see here a potential
theoretical contradiction or misunderstanding, this author wonders whether the
plurality of meanings and aspirations responds to the “opening” of the demo-
cratic education project that Dewey, among others, would likely welcome.
ORCID iD
Edda Sant https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7907-5907
Notes
1.
Within the specialized field, Dewey is often cited according to the convention that
draws on the compendium of his work by stages and volumes. MW.9 represents Middle
Works, 9th Volume, or Dewey (1916/1985).
2. Abowitz and Harnish (2006) and North (2006) were published in Review of
Educational Research. Since then, others articles in in this journal have partially and/or
indirectly tackled the question of democratic education (Fallace, 2009; Sandlin, O’Malley,
& Burdick, 2011).
3. A full list of the reviewed articles is provided in the supplemental information.
4. Table 4 within the supplemental information folder specifies the journals where more
than four reviewed papers were published.
5. Dewey (1929/1988, p. 365).
6. Scholars aligned with critical democratic education are particularly committed to
make visible the equality deficits of neoliberal policies.
7. This case was reported in Hess and McAvoy (2015).
8. Dewey (1916/1985, p. 94).
9. Giroux and other critical pedagogues have described their proposals for democracy
as “radical democracy.” The term radical democracy within democratic education, how-
ever, has been claimed by those aligned with critical, participatory (in line with Dewey),
and agonistic discourses (Brent Edwards, 2010; Snir, 2017). To avoid this overlap, in this
review, radical democracy is not used as such.
10. While Mouffe, Laclau, and Rancière are often understood as scholars of the radi-
cal democratic school, within this context, “agonistic democracy” is exclusively related
to Mouffe’s work. However, as mentioned, to avoid overlaps with competing under-
standings of “radical democratic education,” the term “agonistic democratic education”
is used here.
References
References marked with asterisk are all works included in the synthesis of the literature
review.
*Abowitz, K. K., & Harnish, J. (2006). Contemporary discourses of citizenship.
Review of Educational Research, 76, 653–690.
Sant
34
*Aguilar, M. S., & Molina Zavaleta, J. G. (2012). On the links between mathematics
education and democracy: A literature review. Pythagoras, 33(2), a164. doi:10.4102/
pythagoras.v33i2.164
Ahmad, S. (2017). Family or future in the academy? Review of Educational Research,
87, 204–239.
*Alexander, H. (2007). What is common about common schooling? Rational auton-
omy and moral agency in liberal democratic education. Journal of Philosophy of
Education, 41, 609–624.
*Allen, K. C. (2011). Mathematics as thinking: A response to “democracy and school
math.” Democracy & Education, 19(2), 10.
*Álvarez, L. Á. (2011). Education and pluralism: Towards a democratic theory of
education in Europe. Intercultural Human Rights Law Review, 6, 349.
*Apple, M. W. (2011). Democratic education in neoliberal and neoconservative times.
International Studies in Sociology of Education, 21(1), 21–31.
*Arreman, I. E., & Holm, A.-S. (2011). Privatisation of public education? The emer-
gence of independent upper secondary schools in Sweden. Journal of Education
Policy, 26, 225–243. doi:10.1080/02680939.2010.502701
Asmonti, L. (2013). “From Athens to Athens.” Europe, crisis, and democracy:
Suggestions for a debate. In K. N. Demetriou (Ed.), Democracy in transition: Political
participation in the European Union (pp. 135–160). New York, NY: Springer.
*Aubert, A., Villarejo, B., Cabré, J., & Santos, T. (2016). La Verneda-Sant Martí adult
school: A reference for neighborhood popular education. Teachers College Record,
118 (4), 1–32. ID Number: 19362.
*Backer, D. I. (2017). The critique of deliberative discussion. A response to “Education
for Deliberative Democracy: A Typology of Classroom Discussions.” Democracy &
Education, 25(1), 9.
*Bacon, M., & Sloam, J. (2010). John Dewey and the democratic role of higher educa-
tion in England. Journal of Political Science Education, 6, 336–352.
*Bai, T. (2011). Against democratic education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 43,
615–622.
Barber, B. R. (1994). An aristocracy of everyone. Oxford, England: Oxford University
Press.
*Barbour, C. A. (2010). Militants of truth, communities of equality: Badiou and the
ignorant schoolmaster. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 42, 251–263.
*Bastrup-Birk, H., & Wildemeersch, D. (2013). A fresh take on democratic education:
Revisiting Rancière through the notions of emergence and enaction. Complicity, 10,
111–129.
*Belcastro, A. T. (2015). Rebalancing quality education in a democratic society.
Creative Education, 6, 428–439.
*Bickmore, K., & Parker, C. (2014). Constructive conflict talk in classrooms: Divergent
approaches to addressing divergent perspectives. Theory & Research in Social
Education, 42, 291–335.
*Biesta, G. (2007). Education and the democratic person: Towards a political concep-
tion of democratic education. Teachers College Record, 109, 740–769.
*Biesta, G. (2011). The ignorant citizen: Mouffe, Rancière, and the subject of demo-
cratic education. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 30, 141–153.
*Biesta, G., & Lawy, R. (2006). From teaching citizenship to learning democracy:
Overcoming individualism in research, policy and practice. Cambridge Journal of
Education, 36, 63–79.
Democratic Education: A Theoretical Review
35
*Bindewald, B. J., Tannebaum, R. P., & Womac, P. (2016). The common core and
democratic education: Examining potential costs and benefits to public and private
autonomy. Democracy & Education, 24(2), 4.
*Biseth, H. (2009). Democracy and education in a multicultural Scandinavia: What
mandate is designated to educators? Intercultural Education, 20, 243–254.
*Boone, M. (2007). Democratic authority and education: Reflections on Gutmann’s
democratic education. Journal of Philosophy and History of Education, 57, 12–17.
*Bradshaw, R. (2014). Democratic teaching: An incomplete job description. Democracy
& Education, 22(2), 3.
*Brent Edwards, D., Jr. (2010). Critical pedagogy and democratic education:
Possibilities for cross-pollination. Urban Review: Issues and Ideas in Public
Education, 42, 221–242.
*Brough, C. J. (2012). Implementing the democratic principles and practices of stu-
dent-centred curriculum integration in primary schools. Curriculum Journal, 23,
345–369.
*Buck, A., & Geissel, B. (2009). The education ideal of the democratic citizen in
Germany: Challenges and changing trends. Education, Citizenship and Social
Justice, 4, 225–243.
*Burgh, G., & Yorshansky, M. (2011). Communities of inquiry: Politics, power and
group dynamics. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43, 436–452.
*Camicia, S. P. (2009). Identifying soft democratic education: Uncovering the range
of civic and cultural choices in instructional materials. Social Studies, 100, 136–142.
*Camicia, S. P., & Dobson, D. (2010). Learning how to respond to current events:
Partner journals between U.S. preservice teachers and children. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 26, 576–582.
*Camicia, S. P., & Franklin, B. M. (2010). Curriculum reform in a globalised world:
The discourses of cosmopolitanism and community. London Review of Education,
8(2), 93–104.
*Carleheden, M. (2006). Towards democratic foundations: A Habermasian perspective
on the politics of education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38, 521–543.
*Carr, P. (2008). Educating for democracy: With or without social justice. Teacher
Education Quarterly, 35(4), 117–136.
*Carr, P. R., Pluim, G. W. J., & Howard, L. (2015). Engagement with the mainstream
media and the relationship to political literacy: The influence of hegemonic educa-
tion on democracy. Critical Education, 6(15). Retrieved from https://ices.library.
ubc.ca/index.php/criticaled/article/view/184942
*Catalano, T., & Leonard, A. E. (2016). Moving people and minds: Dance as a vehicle
of democratic education. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 11, 63–84.
*Ching-Sze Wang, J. (2009). Reconstructing Deweyan democratic education for a glo-
balizing world. Educational Theory, 59, 409–425.
*Cooks, L. (2007). Accounting for my teacher’s body. Feminist Media Studies, 7,
299–312.
*Corngold, J. (2011). Misplaced priorities: Gutmann’s democratic theory, children’s
autonomy, and sex education policy. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 30,
67–84.
*Covaleskie, J. F. (2006). Virtue, liberty, and discipline: Fostering the democratic char-
acter. Philosophical Studies in Education, 37, 55–64.
*Darder, A. (2016). Latinos, education, and the church: Toward a culturally democratic
future. Journal of Catholic Education, 19(2), 3.
Sant
36
*De Groot, I. (2017). Mock elections in civic education: A space for critical democratic
citizenship development. Journal of Social Science Education, 16(3), 83–95.
*De Lissovoy, N. (2018). Against reconciliation: Constituent power, ethics, and the
meaning of democratic education. Power and Education, 10, 125–138.
*DeCesare, T. (2012). On the potential contributions of high school philosophy to
ethical and democratic education. Teaching Ethics, 13(1), 1–16.
Dewey, J. (1916/1985). Democracy and education. In The middle works, 1899–1924
(Vol. 9) (J. A. Boydston, Ed.). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Dewey, J. (1929/1988). The quest for certainty. In The later works, 1925–1953 (Vol. 4)
(J. A. Boydston, Ed.). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
*DiCamillo, L., & Pace, J. L. (2010). Preparing citizens for multicultural democracy
in a U.S. history class. High School Journal, 93(2), 69–82.
Doddington, C. (2018). Democracy and Education: Is it relevant now? Education
3–13, 46, 381–384.
*Dotts, B. W. (2016). Dewey anticipates Habermas’s paradigm of communication: The
critique of individualism and the basis for moral authority in democratic education.
Education and Culture, 32(1), 9.
*Duarte, M. (2016). Educating citizens for humanism: Nussbaum and the education
crisis. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 35, 463–476.
*Duffy, M. (2015). State-led education for democratic socialism: Venezuela’s educa-
tion missions. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 13(3), 178–194.
*Engel, L. H. (2008). Experiments in democratic education: Dewey’s lab school and
Korczak’s children’s republic. Social Studies, 99, 117–121.
Erman, E. (2009). What is wrong with agonistic pluralism? Reflections on conflict in
democratic theory. Philosophy & Social Criticism, 35, 1039–1062.
*Evans, M. (2010). Education and the ethics of democratic character. Synthesis
Philosophica, 25(1), 77–91.
Fallace, T. (2009). John Dewey’s influence on the origins of the social studies: An
analysis of the historiography and new interpretation. Review of Educational
Research, 79, 601–624.
*Fallace, T. D. (2016). The origins of classroom deliberation: Democratic education in
the shadow of totalitarianism, 1938–1960. Harvard Educational Review, 86, 506–
526.
*Ferkany, M., & Whyte, K. P. (2013). The compatibility of liberalism and mandatory
environmental education. Theory and Research in Education, 11, 5–21.
*Feu, J., Serra, C., Canimas, J., Làzaro, L., & Simó-Gil, N. (2017). Democracy and
education: A theoretical proposal for the analysis of democratic practices in schools.
Studies in Philosophy and Education, 36, 647–661.
*Fraser-Burgess, S. (2009). Problems with a weakly pluralist approach to democratic
education. Pluralist, 4(2), 1–16.
*Fraser-Burgess, S. (2012). Group identity, deliberative democracy and diversity in
education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 44, 480–499.
*Freedman, E. B. (2007). Is teaching for social justice undemocratic? Harvard
Educational Review, 77, 442–473.
Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed (30th anniversary ed.). London, England:
Bloomsbury.
*Friedrich, D., Jaastad, B., & Popkewitz, T. S. (2010). Democratic education: An
(im)possibility that yet remains to come. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 42,
571–587.
Democratic Education: A Theoretical Review
37
Fukuyama, F. (1992). The end of history and the last man. Harmondsworth, England:
Penguin.
*Gibson, M. L., & Grant, C. A. (2012). Toward a paideia “of the soul”: Education to
enrich America’s multicultural democracy. Intercultural Education, 23, 313–324.
*Goldstein, J. D. (2013). Hegel and the paradox of democratic education. European
Legacy: Toward New Paradigms, 18, 308–326.
Grimes, P., Sayarath, K., & Outhaithany, S. (2011). The Lao PDR Inclusive Education
Project 1993–2009: Reflections on the impact of a national project aiming to sup-
port the inclusion of disabled students. International Journal of Inclusive Education,
15, 1135–1152.
Gutmann, A. (1996). Democratic education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
*Haav, K. (2008). Civic education in Estonia: Democratic or authoritarian. Journal of
Social Science Education, 7(1), 121–130.
*Hanson, J. S., & Howe, K. (2011). The potential for deliberative democratic civic
education. Democracy & Education, 19(2), 3.
*Hantzopoulos, M. (2015). Sites of liberation or sites of despair? The challenges and
possibilities of democratic education in an urban public school in New York City.
Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 46, 345–362.
*Hawley, T. S., Hostetler, A. L., & Mooney, E. (2016). Reconstruction of the fables the
myth of education for democracy, social reconstruction and education for demo-
cratic citizenship. Critical Education, 7(4), 2–12.
Hayek, F. (1952). The counter-revolution of science. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
*Heilbronn, R. (2017). Dewey and culture: Responding to ‘extreme views’. Journal of
Philosophy of Education, 51(1), 89–101.
*Helfenbein, R. J., & Shudak, N. J. (2009). Reconstructing/reimagining democratic
education: From context to theory to practice. Educational Studies, 45(1), 5–23.
*Hess, D. (2008). Democratic education to reduce the divide. Social Education, 72(7),
373–376.
Hess, D. A., & McAvoy, P. (2015). The political classroom: Evidence and ethics in
democratic education. New York, NY: Routledge.
*Hinchliffe, G. (2013). On the need for well-founded educational authority in England.
Oxford Review of Education, 39, 811–827.
*Ho, L.-C. (2012). Sorting citizens: Differentiated citizenship education in Singapore.
Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44, 403–428.
*Ho, L.-C., Sim, J. B.-Y., & Alviar-Martin, T. (2011). Interrogating differentiated
citizenship education: Students’ perceptions of democracy, rights and gover-
nance in two Singapore schools. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 6,
265–276.
*Howard, K. J., & Turner-Nash, K. (2011). Alimentar: Theorizing pedagogy, curricu-
lum, and mentorship for democratic doctoral education. Equity & Excellence in
Education, 44(1), 22–39.
*Ichilov, O. (2012). Privatization and commercialization of public education:
Consequences for citizenship and citizenship education. Urban Review: Issues and
Ideas in Public Education, 44, 281–301.
Isakhan, B., & Stockwell, S. (2012). The Edinburgh companion to the history of
democracy. Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh University Press.
*Johnston, J. S. (2012). Schools as ethical or schools as political? Habermas between
Dewey and Rawls. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 31, 109–122.
Sant
38
*Jónsson, Ó. P. (2012). Desert, liberalism and justice in democratic education.
Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 7, 103–115.
Jorgensen, M., & Phillips, L. J. (2002). Discourse analysis as theory and method.
London. England: Sage.
*Kahne, J., Hodgin, E., & Eidman-Aadahl, E. (2016). Redesigning civic education for
the digital age: Participatory politics and the pursuit of democratic engagement.
Theory & Research in Social Education, 44(1), 1–35.
*Kessel, A. (2009). Un-contented characters: An education in the shared practices of
democratic engagement. Critical Review of International Social and Political
Philosophy, 12, 425–442.
*Kessel, A. (2015). Moving beyond “Mozert”: Toward a democratic theory of educa-
tion. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 47, 1419–1434.
*Kumi-Yeboah, A., & Smith, P. (2016). Critical multicultural citizenship education
among Black immigrant youth: Factors and challenges. International Journal of
Multicultural Education, 18(1), 158–182.
Laclau, E. (1990). New reflections on the revolution of our time. London, England: Verso.
Laclau, E. (2007). On populist reason. London, England: Verso.
Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. (2001). Hegemony and socialist strategy: Towards a radical
democratic politics (2nd ed.). London, England: Verso.
*Lan, C.-F. (2013). Democratic education in the new media era: Toward a framework
of democratic media literacy. Ohio Social Studies Review, 50(1), 51–62.
Lather, P. (2016). Top ten+ list: (Re)thinking ontology in (post)qualitative research.
Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies, 16, 125–131.
*Lefrançois, D., & Ethier, M. (2010). Translating the ideal of deliberative democracy
into democratic education: Pure Utopia? Educational Philosophy and Theory, 42,
271–292.
*Leonard, A. E. (2014). Democratic bodies: Exemplary practice and democratic
education in a K-5 dance residency. Journal of Dance Education, 14(1), 1–7.
*Levinson, B., & Brantmeier, E. (2006). Secondary schools and communities of prac-
tice for democratic civic education: Challenges of authority and authenticity. Theory
& Research in Social Education, 34, 324–346.
*Levinson, M. (2011). Democracy, accountability, and education. Theory and Research
in Education, 9, 125–144.
*Lim, L. (2011). Beyond logic and argument analysis: Critical thinking, everyday
problems and democratic deliberation in Cambridge International Examinations’
Thinking Skills curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 43, 783–807.
Lincoln, Y. S. (1995). Emerging criteria for quality in qualitative and interpretive
research. Qualitative Inquiry, 1, 275–289.
*Lo, J. C. (2017). Empowering young people through conflict and conciliation:
Attending to the political and agonism in democratic education. Democracy &
Education, 25(1), 2.
Macpherson, C. B. (1977). The life and times of liberal democracy. Oxford, England:
Oxford University Press.
Mannion, G., Biesta, G., Priestley, M., & Ross, H. (2011). The global dimension in
education and education for global citizenship: Genealogy and critique.
Globalisation, Societies and Education, 9, 443–456.
*Mårdh, A., & Tryggvason, Á. (2017). Democratic education in the mode of populism.
Studies in Philosophy and Education, 36, 601–613.
Democratic Education: A Theoretical Review
39
Martinelli, A. (2016). Populism and the crisis of representative democracy. In A.
Martinelli (Ed.), Populism on rise (pp. 13–32). Milan, Italy: ISPI.
*McCowan, T. (2010). School democratization in prefigurative form: Two Brazilian
experiences. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 5(1), 21–41.
*McDonnell, J. (2017). Political and aesthetic equality in the work of Jacques Rancière:
Applying his writing to debates in education and the arts. Journal of Philosophy of
Education, 51, 387–400.
*McDonough, K. (2011). “Voluntary and secret choices of the mind” 1: The ERC and
liberal-democratic aims of education. Religion & Education, 38, 224–240.
*McDonough, T. (2008). The course of “culture” in multiculturalism. Educational
Theory, 58, 321–342.
*Meens, D. E., & Howe, K. R. (2016). NCLB and its wake: Bad news for democracy.
Teachers College Record, 117(6), 1–55.
*Menashy, F. (2007). The end of efficiency: Implications for democratic education.
Journal of Educational Thought, 41, 165–177.
*Michaud, O. (2012). Thinking about the nature and role of authority in democratic
education with Rousseau’s “Emile.” Educational Theory, 62, 287–304.
*Mncube, V., & Harber, C. (2010). Chronicling educator practices and experiences in
the context of democratic schooling and quality education in South Africa.
International Journal of Educational Development, 30, 614–624.
*Morrison, K. A. (2008). Democratic classrooms: Promises and challenges of student
voice and choice, Part One. Educational Horizons, 87(1), 50–60.
*Msila, V. (2013). Democratic education through the eyes of the poor: Appraising the
post-apartheid experience. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 1(3),
191–199.
*Mutekwe, E., & Sedibe, M. (2015). South Africa’s quest for democratic education
through a language in education policy perspective. Creative Education, 6, 1076–
1085.
*Narey, D. C. (2012). Democratic visions/pluralist critiques: One essential conversa-
tion for 21st-century philosophy of education. Philosophical Studies in Education,
43, 152–161.
*Nesbitt, D. R., & Trott, E. (2006). Democratic paradoxes: Thomas Hill Green on
democracy and education. Philosophical Inquiry in Education, 15(2), 61–78.
North, C. (2006). More than words? Delving into the substantive meaning(s) of “social
justice” in education. Review of Educational Research, 76, 507–535.
*O’Donnell, J. L. (2018). The promise of recognition and the repercussions of govern-
ment intervention: The transpedagogical vision of popular educators in Buenos
Aires, Argentina. Gender and Education, 8, 951–965.
*Okoth, G. O., & Anyango, C. (2014). The crisis of democratic education: Building on
African Indigenous principles and social science studies in developing sustainable
democratic education in Kenya. International Journal of Education and Research,
2(3), 1–10.
*Osler, A., & Starkey, H. (2006). Education for democratic citizenship: A review of
research, policy and practice 1995–2005. Research Papers in Education, 21, 433–466.
*Parker, W. (2010). Listening to strangers: Classroom discussion in democratic educa-
tion. Teachers College Record, 112, 2815–2832.
*Payne, K. A. (2017). Democratic teacher education in elementary classrooms:
Learning about, through, and for thick democracy. Journal of Social Studies
Research, 41, 101–115.
Sant
40
*Pearl, A., & Knight, T. (2010). Rejoinder to D. Brent Edwards Jr. and his interpreta-
tion of our position on democratic education and social justice. Urban Review:
Issues and Ideas in Public Education, 42, 243–248.
*Pennington, M. (2014). Against democratic education. Social Philosophy & Policy,
31(1), 1–35.
*Perry, L. B. (2009). Conceptualizing education policy in democratic societies.
Educational Policy, 23, 423–450.
*Pike, M. A. (2009). Religious freedom and rendering to Caesar: Reading democratic
and faith-based values in curriculum, pedagogy and policy. Oxford Review of
Education, 35, 133–146.
*Rautiainen, M., & Räihä, P. (2012). Education for democracy: A paper promise? The
democratic deficit in Finnish educational culture. Journal of Social Science
Education, 11(2), 8–23.
*Rodney, B. D. (2013). The one-to-one moment: Digital-age tools and the challenge
of democratic education in a post-No Child Left Behind era. Journal of Philosophy
and History of Education, 63, 19–34.
*Ruitenberg, C. W. (2009). Educating political adversaries: Chantal Mouffe and radi-
cal democratic citizenship education. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 28,
269–281.
*Ruitenberg, C. W. (2015). The practice of equality: A critical understanding of demo-
cratic citizenship education. Democracy & Education, 23(1), 2.
Runciman, D. (2018). How democracy ends. London, England: Profile Books.
*Sabia, D. (2012). Democratic/Utopian education. Utopian Studies, 23, 374–405.
Sandlin, J. A., O’Malley, M. P., & Burdick, J. (2011). Mapping the complexity of
public pedagogy scholarship: 1894–2010. Review of Educational Research, 81,
338–375.
*Schoeman, S. (2006). A blueprint for democratic citizenship education in South
African public schools: African teachers’ perceptions of good citizenship. South
African Journal of Education, 26, 129–142.
*Schutz, A. (2008). Social class and social action: The middle-class bias of democratic
theory in education. Teachers College Record, 110, 405–442.
*Schutz, A. (2011). Power and trust in the public realm: John Dewey, Saul Alinsky, and
the limits of progressive democratic education. Educational Theory, 61, 491–512.
*Seher, R. (2013). Leading for democracy in urban schools: Toward a culturally rele-
vant progressivism. Schools: Studies in Education, 10, 242–273.
*Shephard, K., & Brown, K. (2017). How democratic is higher education for sustain-
able development? Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 38,
755–767.
*Sibbett, L. A. (2016). Toward a transformative criticality for democratic citizenship
education. Democracy & Education, 24(2), 1.
*Snir, I. (2017). Education and articulation: Laclau and Mouffe’s radical democracy in
school. Ethics and Education, 12, 351–363.
*Stevenson, N. (2010). Critical pedagogy, democracy, and capitalism: Education with-
out enemies or borders. Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies,
32(1), 66–92.
*Stevenson, N. (2015). Revolution from above in English schools: Neoliberalism, the
democratic commons and education. Cultural Sociology, 9, 534–549.
*Stitzlein, S. M. (2011). Democratic education in an era of town hall protests. Theory
and Research in Education, 9(1), 73–86.
Democratic Education: A Theoretical Review
41
*Stoddard, J. (2014). The need for media education in democratic education.
Democracy & Education, 22(1), 4.
*Stoddard, J., Banks, A. M., Nemacheck, C., & Wenska, E. (2016). The challenges of
gaming for democratic education. Democracy & Education, 24(2), 2.
*Sung, Y.-K. (2010). Markets, equality and democratic education: Confronting the
Neoliberal and Libertarian reconceptualisations of education. Perspectives in
Education, 28(4), 72–79.
*Sünker, H. (2007). Democratic education: Educating for democracy. Transnational
Curriculum Inquiry, 3(2), 16–30.
*Şanlı, Ö., & Altun, M. (2015). The significance of establishing democratic education
environment at schools. Journal of Educational and Instructional Studies in the
World, 5(2), 1–8.
*Tannebaum, R. P., Peterson, M., & Tierney, M. (2015). Assisting novice teachers with
promoting democratic education in the social studies classroom. The Councilor,
76(2), 4.
*Tannock, S. (2017). No grades in higher education now! Revisiting the place of
graded assessment in the reimagination of the public university. Studies in Higher
Education, 42, 1345–1357.
Tausch, A. (2019). Islamism, Arab Spring and the future of democracy (Perspectives
on Development in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) Region book series).
Springer, Cham: Switzerland.
*Todd, S. (2011). Educating beyond cultural diversity: Redrawing the boundaries of a
democratic plurality. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 30, 101–111.
*Tryggvason, Á. (2017). The political as presence: On agonism in citizenship educa-
tion. Philosophical Inquiry in Education, 24, 252–265.
United Nations. (2005). Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 16 September
2005: 60/1. 2005 World Summit Outcome. New York, NY: Author.
*Veugelers, W. (2007). Creating critical-democratic citizenship education: Empowering
humanity and democracy in Dutch education. Compare: A Journal of Comparative
and International Education, 37, 105–119.
*Waghid, Y. (2009). Education and Madrassahs in South Africa: On preventing the
possibility of extremism. British Journal of Religious Education, 31, 117–128.
*Walsh, J. (2008). The critical role of discourse in education for democracy. Journal
for Critical Education Policy Studies, 6(2), 54–76.
*Walzer, M. (2012). Moral education, democratic citizenship, and religious authority.
Journal of Law, Religion and State, 1(1), 5–15.
Wenner, J. A., & Campbell, T. (2017). The theoretical and empirical basis of teacher
leadership: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 87, 134–171.
*West, L. (2017). Resisting the enormous condescension of posterity: Richard Henry
Tawney, Raymond Williams and the long struggle for a democratic education.
International Journal of Lifelong Education, 36, 129–144.
*Wildemeersch, D., & Vandenabeele, J. (2010). Issues of citizenship: Coming-into-
presence and preserving the difference. International Journal of Lifelong Education,
29, 487–502.
Willig, C. (2013). Discourses and discourse analysis. In U. Flick (Ed.), The Sage hand-
book of qualitative data analysis (pp. 341–353). London, England: Sage.
*Wisler, A. K. (2009). “Of, by, and for are not merely prepositions”: Teaching and
learning conflict resolution for a democratic, global citizenry. Intercultural
Education, 20, 127–133.
Sant
42
*Zembylas, M. (2015). Exploring the implications of citizenship-as-equality in crit-
ical citizenship education. A response to “The Practice of Equality: A Critical
Understanding of Democratic Citizenship Education.” Democracy & Education,
23(1), 7.
*Zyngier, D., Traverso, M. D., & Murriello, A. (2015). “Democracy will not fall from
the sky.” A comparative study of teacher education students’ perceptions of democ-
racy in two neo-liberal societies: Argentina and Australia. Research in Comparative
and International Education, 10, 275–299.
Author
EDDA SANT, PhD, is a senior lecturer at Manchester Metropolitan University, Faculty
of Education, 53 Bonsall Street, Manchester M15 6GX, UK; email: e.sant@mmu
.ac.uk. Her research focuses primarily on issues related to political education and
more generally in the areas of citizenship and democratic education, history and
social studies education, global education, and teacher education. She has published
in numerous journals including the British Educational Research Journal, the
Cambridge Journal of Education, and the British Journal of Educational Studies.
Her most recent work includes the co-editorship of the The Palgrave Handbook of
Global Citizenship and Education (2018, Palgrave) and the co-authorship of the
book Global Citizenship Education: A Critical Introduction to Key Concepts and
Debates (2018, Bloomsbury). In 2016, she was awarded the Children’s Identity and
Citizenship European Association Best Publication Award (2015).
