Abstract
This paper offers a critique of the “democratic state of education” proposed by Amy Gutmann in her influential book Democratic Education. In the democratic state of education, educational authority is shared among the state, parents and educational professionals; and educational objectives are geared toward equipping future citizens to participate in what Gutmann calls “conscious social reproduction”—the collective shaping of the future of society through democratic deliberation. Although I agree with some of Gutmann’s broad recommendations for civic education, I have misgivings about the centrality that she gives to conscious social reproduction in her theory of education. I argue that in focusing so intently on the facilitation of conscious social reproduction, Gutmann’s theory makes insufficient room for the basic interests of individual children, and in particular, their prospective interest in autonomy. Gutmann’s considered position on sex education policy—specifically, her willingness to allow local communities to deny their children access to sex education—exemplifies the shortcomings of her theory. Ultimately, her democratic state of education fails to acknowledge the fundamental moral importance of individual flourishing, and the contribution that education can and should make to it.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Though the most detailed description of her political theory of education appears in Democratic Education, Gutmann also offers an abridged description in an essay published in this journal entitled “Democracy & Democratic Education” (1993).
In “Civic Education and Liberal Legitimacy,” Brighouse (1998) critiques Gutmann’s conception of civic education on grounds of political legitimacy. He argues that while her conception of civic education equips citizens to reflect critically on the values and civic virtues that are promoted in school, it does not actually encourage them to do so. According to Brighouse, liberal legitimacy does not just require that the values and virtues inculcated in school be open to critical reflection by citizens; it requires that they actually undergo such critical reflection. Thus, citizens must be encouraged to use their reflective capacity to question the civic education they have received, “for only then have we any reason to believe that the commitments [they take on] are not merely conditioned by the state” (p. 726).
This case arose after a group of Amish parents were fined for violating the compulsory school attendance law in Wisconsin, which required all children in the state to remain in school until the age of 16. The parents believed that sending their children to secondary school would threaten their good standing in the Amish community as well as “their own salvation and that of their children.” As a result, they withdrew their children from school after the eighth grade. Representatives for the state of Wisconsin argued that exempting the Amish from the compulsory school attendance law would undermine the civic interests of the state as well as the educational rights of Amish children. In May 1972, in a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court found that the claims made by the state of Wisconsin were neither powerful nor convincing enough to override the free exercise of religion claims made by the Amish parents. See Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972).
According to Nehamas (1998), Socrates, Montaigne, Nietzsche, and Foucault are champions of this view of autonomy.
William Galston is a prominent spokesperson for this point of view. In an influential paper, “Two Concepts of Liberalism” (1995), Galston argues that when liberals throw their support behind autonomy-promoting measures—such as a civic education that enables and encourages children to reflect critically on different visions of the good life and the good society—they effectively undermine “deep diversity” by stacking the deck against ways of life structured around faith and adherence to tradition. This, Galston insists, is the wrong position for liberals to take since “properly understood, liberalism is about the protection of diversity, not the valorization of choice” (p. 523).
For a similar conception of autonomy, see Levinson’s The Demands of Liberal Education (1999).
In this particular passage from her book, Gutmann likens autonomy to other contestable standards like “happiness…intellectual excellence, salvation, or social welfare.” The problem, she argues, is that “none of these standards is sufficiently inclusive to solve the problem of justification in the face of dissent by citizens” who have differing conceptions of the good life.
In making this point, Gutmann (1980) asserts that all schools have “‘hidden’—and not so hidden—curricula,” which privilege certain conceptions of the good life and dismiss others. Therefore, she argues, “Every educational system now in existence closes children’s minds to some potentially desirable conceptions of the good life and the good society” (p. 352).
A total of thirty-five states require that schools discuss sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) (Guttmacher Institute 2010).
Nineteen states require that contraception be covered if STI/HIV education is taught in schools (Guttmacher Institute 2010).
Gutmann does not distinguish between different versions of sex education in Democratic Education. However, based on context, the reader can safely assume that “sex education” denotes comprehensive sex education in her book (1987/1999, pp. 107–111).
References
Arneson, R. J., & Shapiro, I. (1996). Democratic authority and religious freedom: A critique of Wisconsin v. Yoder. In I. Shapiro & R. Hardin (Eds.), Political order: NOMOS XXXVIII (pp. 365–411). New York: New York University Press.
Brighouse, H. (1998). Civic education and liberal legitimacy. Ethics, 108(4), 719–745.
Brighouse, H. (2000). School choice and social justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Callan, E. (2006). Galston’s dilemmas and Wisconsin v. Yoder. Theory and Research in Education, 4(3), 141–155.
Dworkin, G. (1988). The theory and practice of autonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dwyer, J. G. (2002). Vouchers within reason: A child-centered approach to education reform. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Galston, W. A. (1991). Liberal purposes: Goods, virtues, and diversity in the liberal state. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Galston, W. A. (1995). Two conceptions of liberalism. Ethics, 105(3), 516–534.
Galston, W. A. (2002). Liberal pluralism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gutmann, A. (1980). Children, paternalism, and education: A liberal argument. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 9(4), 338–358.
Gutmann, A. (1987/1999). Democratic education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Gutmann, A. (1993). Democracy & democratic education. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 12(1), 1–9.
Gutmann, A. (1995). Civic education and social diversity. Ethics, 105(3), 557–579.
Guttmacher Institute. (2010). State policies in brief as of November 1, 2010: Sex and STI/HIV education. Retrieved November 5, 2010, from http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_SE.pdf.
Kant, I. (1797/1996). The metaphysics of morals. (M. J. Gregor, Trans.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kirby, D. (2007). Emerging answers 2007: Research findings on programs to reduce teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. Retrieved April 9, 2009, from http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/EA2007/EA2007_full.pdf.
Levinson, M. (1999). The demands of liberal education. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
MacMullen, I. (2007). Faith in schools? Autonomy, citizenship, and religious education in the liberal state. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Mill, J. S. (2002). The basic writings of John Stuart Mill: On liberty, the subjection of women & utilitarianism. New York: The Modern Library.
Miller, D. J., & Miller, K. S. (2000). Parent-adolescent discussions about sex and condoms: Impact on peer influences of sexual risk behavior. Journal of Adolescent Research, 15(2), 251–273.
National Public Radio, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Kennedy School of Government. (2004). Sex education in America: General public/parents survey. Retrieved May 17, 2008, from http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/features/2004/jan/kaiserpoll/publicfinal.pdf.
Nehamas, A. (1998). The art of living: Socratic reflections from Plato to Foucault. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Rawls, J. (1971/1999). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Raz, J. (1988). The morality of freedom. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Reich, R. (2002). Bridging liberalism and multiculturalism in American education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Romer, Daniel., et al. (1994). Social influences on the sexual behavior of youth at risk for HIV exposure. American Journal of Public Health, 84(6), 977–985.
Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972).
Acknowledgments
I thank Eamonn Callan for his encouragement and guidance as well as Gert Biesta and three anonymous reviewers for their careful reading and astute criticism of the text.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Corngold, J. Misplaced Priorities: Gutmann’s Democratic Theory, Children’s Autonomy, and Sex Education Policy. Stud Philos Educ 30, 67–84 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-010-9212-9
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-010-9212-9