education and research for democracy need not be democratic

Moving in the circles that I do, I often hear claims that education for democracy must be democratic–and that research that serves citizens must be conducted in collaboration with citizens. These views reflect some wisdom and experience, but they are not logical truths.

Many leaders have been deliberately prepared in disciplined, authoritarian educational settings to serve democracies. Consider, for example, how Martin Luther King Jr. portrayed his father:

Martin Luther King, Sr., is as strong in his will as he is in his body. He has a dynamic personality, and his very physical presence (weighing about 220 pounds) commands attention. He has always been a very strong and self-confident person … He never hesitates to tell the truth and speak his mind, however cutting it may be. This quality of frankness has often caused people to actually fear him. I have had young and old alike say to me, “I’m scared to death of your dad.” Indeed, he is stern at many points.

I assume this portrait was a bit euphemistic, because the elder King was very much alive to read it. “Daddy King” was not one for engaging children as equals in democratic discussions, yet he set MLK Jr. on a path to genuine democratic leadership.

I am inclined to think that the Venn diagram for democratic education looks like this (below). “Education for democracy” is any practice that increases the odds that children will turn into active, ethical, and effective members of communities. “Education that is democratic” is any pedagogy that emphasizes students’ voice in choosing topics, debating issues, and making things together. The two circles overlap in practices like “Action Civics,” which have been frequently found effective. But there can be good education for democracy that isn’t democratic (see “Daddy King,” above), and some democratic education doesn’t produce good citizens. That can be because it isn’t sufficiently political or because it simply isn’t good–kids waste their time.

Likewise, I think the Venn diagram for research looks like this (below). “Knowledge of value to citizens” means knowledge that we can use to improve the world. For example, a cure for cancer would be excellent, but it would not be useful for citizens unless it gave us something to do. Meanwhile, “knowledge produced collaboratively by citizens” includes the fruits of practices such as Participatory Action Research, Community Based Participatory Research, Popular Education, etc. Professors may be central players in this work, but they act as peers of fellow citizens.

Again, knowledge of value to citizens need not be produced collaboratively by citizens. Game theory, for example, has yielded many insights about how small groups work most effectively. Citizens should learn from game theory even though they did not co-produce it. Meanwhile, some knowledge produced collaboratively by citizens is not useful to citizens, because the results are incorrect, or partial, or too narrow and instrumental.

I happen to love the overlapping parts of these two Venn diagrams. At CIRCLE, we are completing a year-long and very ambitious evaluation of YouthBuild USA that we conducted with YouthBuild alumni as our co-investigators. My favorite educational programs use democratic pedagogies. But I do not assume that the circles above coincide, so that democratic education and research are always and exclusively valuable for citizens.

Rather, the core reason for my preference is ethical and pertains to means, not ends. I would rather treat children democratically (unless that actively harms their life prospects) because I think they deserve such treatment in the present. Likewise, I would rather treat a community partner as a co-investigator than a research subject because we are moral equals in the Kingdom of Ends. But I think the empirical questions–whether and when democratic processes yield good democratic outcomes–deserve more critical attention.