Wandering between two worlds, one dead,
The other powerless to be born,
With nowhere yet to lay my head,
Like these I rest forlorn.
Matthew Arnold. Stanzas from the Grand Chartreuse. (p. 335).
Abstract
Education is oftentimes understood as a deeply ethical practice for the development of the person. Alternatively, education is construed as a state-enforced apparatus for inculcation of specific codes, conventions, beliefs, and norms about social and political practices. Though holding both of these beliefs about education is not necessarily mutually contradictory, a definite tension emerges when one attempts to articulate a cogent theory involving both. I will argue in this paper that Habermas’s theory of discourse ethics, when combined with his statements on constitutional democracy and law, manifests this tension for formal education. Through a contrast with Dewey’s social-liberal view of education on the one hand, and the procedural liberalism and its associated view of education, common to Rawls and others writing in the contemporary Anglo-American tradition on the other, the questions of what this means for education and why it matters are raised and addressed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Notes
Jürgen Habermas. The Theory of Communicative Action Vol. 2. Habermas’s use of Mead is not consistent, however. Habermas does not draw the conclusion that a social-behaviourist program of recognition and ideal role taking is enough to base a discourse ethics on. Instead, Habermas (famously) turns to a Universal Condition for discourse ethics.
Of course, the genesis of this thinking traces to Kant’s Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals.
Here we may think of Kant’s Formula of Humanity, in which we are to treat one another as ends, never merely as means. Immanuel Kant. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals esp. 4: 429.
Habermas has been criticized for assuming this dichotomy (Michelman 2002, p. 131).
Here, we may think of John Dewey’s ‘social behaviourism’, particularly manifest in his Human Nature and Conduct, 1982.
References
Arnold, M. (1851). Stanzas from the Grande Chartreuse. In Poems. New York: MacMillan and Co.
Dewey, J. (1980). Democracy and education. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), The middle works of John Dewey (Vol. 9). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Dewey, J. (1982). Human nature and conduct. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), John Dewey: The Middle Works, 1899–1924. Vol. 12, 1922. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Dewey, J. (1984). The public and its problems. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), John Dewey: The later works, 1925–1952. Vol. 2, 1925–1927, 235–372. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Gereluk, D. (2006). Education and community. London: Continuum.
Habermas, J. (1979). “What is universal pragmatics?” In communication and the evolution of society (pp. 1–42). Boston: Beacon Press.
Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action Vol. 1: Reason and the rationalization of society. Boston: Beacon Press.
Habermas, J. (1987). The theory of communicative action Vol. 2: Lifeworld and systemworld. Boston: Beacon Press.
Habermas, J. (1990). Discourse ethics. In C. Lenhardt & S. W. Nicholsen (Eds.), Moral consciousness and communicative action (pp. 43–115). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Habermas, J. (1993). Remarks on discourse ethics. In C. P. Cronin (Ed.), Justification and application: Remarks on discourse ethics (pp 19–112). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Habermas, J. (2001a). The postnational constellation and the future of democracy. In M. Pensky (Ed.), The postnational constellation: Political essays (pp. 58–112). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Habermas, J. (2001b). Remarks on legitimation through human rights. In M. Pensky (Ed.), The postnational constellation: Political essays (pp. 113–129). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Habermas, J. (2003). Truth and justification (trans: Fultner, B.). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Habermas, J. (2006a). Constitutional democracy: A parodoxical union of contradictory principles? In C. Cronin & M. Pensky (Eds.), Time of transitions (pp. 114–128). Cambridge: Polity Press.
Habermas, J. (2006b). John Dewey: The quest for certainty. In C. Cronin & M. Pensky (Eds.), Time of transitions (pp. 131–135). Cambridge: Polity Press.
Langsdorf, L. (2002). Reconstructing the fourth dimension: A Deweyan critique of Habermas’s conception of communicative action. In M. Aboulafia, M. Bookman, & C. Kemp (Eds.), Habermas and pragmatism (pp. 141–163). New York: Routledge.
Levinson, M. (1999). The demands of liberal education. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Michelman, F. (2002). The problem of constitutional interpretive disagreement: Can “discourses of application” help? In M. Aboulafia, M. Bookman, & C. Kemp (Eds.), Habermas and pragmatism (pp. 113–138). New York: Routledge.
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Rawls, John. (1999a). The priority of right and ideas of the Good. In S. Freeman (Ed.), John Rawls: Collected papers (pp. 449–472). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Rawls, John. (1999b). The law of peoples. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Johnston, J.S. Schools as Ethical or Schools as Political? Habermas Between Dewey and Rawls. Stud Philos Educ 31, 109–122 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-011-9270-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-011-9270-7