The Component of “National Cohesion” in Western-Political Education (Case Study: Conservative and Liberal-Democratic Approaches)

Document Type : Research Paper

Author

Associate Professor, Faculty of Theology and Religions, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

Extended Abstract
 
Introduction and Objectives: National cohesion is essential for the stability and protection of any country. While governments bear direct responsibility for safeguarding this cohesion, citizens must also develop the necessary attitudes and sensitivities to fulfill their civic duties. The most comprehensive and profound mechanism for preparing citizens to assume this role is the educational institution.
Exploring global models of political education enhances our understanding of their structures and outcomes. This study investigates how the concept of national cohesion is treated within two major Western political education paradigms: the conservative and liberal-democratic approaches.
The conservative model, one of the oldest traditions in political education, continues to attract significant support and warrants close examination. The liberal-democratic model, dominant in the Western world, claims to foster human flourishing through maximum freedom, civil rights, and inclusive political participation. Given their contrasting foundations, a comparative analysis of these two approaches offers more profound insights into the role of national cohesion in political education.
The research addresses the following questions:

What is the status of national cohesion in the political education agendas of conservative and liberal-democratic models?
How does each approach conceptualize and pursue this component?
What are the similarities and differences in their treatment of national cohesion?

Method: This study employs a descriptive–analytical–comparative method. First, it compares the role of national cohesion within the objectives of political education in both paradigms. Then, it examines how this goal is pursued through other educational components, including:

Curriculum content
Teaching methods
Assessment strategies

Findings: According to the findings, national cohesion is significant in both Western political education approaches and is reflected in their respective educational frameworks. However, in the conservative approach, national cohesion is considered the primary objective of political education. In contrast, the liberal-democratic approach prioritizes maximum individual freedom as its fundamental goal, viewing national cohesion as a necessity but also a “challenge” that requires thoughtful resolution.
The conservative political education system prioritizes fostering national identity and social cohesion, pursuing this goal more systematically through strategies such as disseminating shared knowledge, teaching a common language, erasing subcultures, promoting a national religion, instilling national pride and patriotism, and implementing standardized national assessments. This approach fundamentally aims at “nation-building,” institutionalizing “national identity” in citizens’ personalities through a unified ideological and value system. However, it ultimately imposes significant limitations on the holistic development of both individuals and society, leaves many societal potentials untapped, and, in the absence of fostering critical thinking, results in the cultivation of patriots lacking sufficient logic and rationality.
The liberal-democratic political education system also recognizes the importance of national cohesion, loyalty, and patriotism. To this end, its curriculum includes a shared syllabus within a student-centered framework, fostering critical thinking and rationality, embracing diversity of opinions, promoting tolerance, cultivating a sense of responsibility for the public good, encouraging loyalty and patriotism, providing practical education in democratic values, and implementing flexible assessment methods. The key difference between this approach and the conservative one lies in the fact that the liberal-democratic system realizes collective participation and responsibility within a pluralistic ideological and value-based framework through a social contract, rather than through identity formation. However, due to its foundational principles—rooted in individualism, autonomy, and personal freedom—this approach grapples with the challenge of reconciling these conflicting values. Consequently, student confusion emerges as a significant issue within this framework. The liberal-democratic political education system pursues progress, diversity, pluralism, autonomy, and individualism while simultaneously claiming to foster shared knowledge among students, despite its student-centered approach, to promote both individual personal growth and social responsibility and participation. In other words, liberalism seeks to fulfill individual aspirations while also maintaining societal unity and cohesion. Despite the practical proposals offered by proponents of this approach, it remains challenging for individuals, with their personal freedoms and autonomous choices, to align fully with societal values. Similarly, fostering national sentiments, collective interests, or patriotism often conflicts with individualism, autonomy, and the preservation of entirely distinct identities.
Pluralism and respect for cultural diversity also pose challenges to social unity. Individuals with conflicting values that set them apart coexist, each steadfastly adhering to their own beliefs. This value disparity, and even conflicts of interest, can lead individuals to feel estranged from one another or even harbor resentment toward each other’s values. At times, these differences escalate into divisive sentiments and political conflicts, with individuals competing to realize their cultural and political ambitions. Consequently, practicing tolerance in multicultural societies becomes challenging. Based on the issues discussed in this study, it appears that liberalism lacks sufficient theoretical coherence. These shortcomings and challenges extend to the liberal-democratic political education system as well.
Discussion and Conclusion: The study concludes that both Western political education paradigms—conservative and liberal-democratic—face serious limitations in addressing national cohesion. Further research is needed to explore viable solutions to the challenges identified here. This includes examining alternative models worldwide, particularly the Islamic approach to political education, which may offer more robust strategies for strengthening national cohesion. Developing culturally grounded and globally competitive educational frameworks could shed new light on this discourse and provide alternative pathways for other nations seeking to balance diversity with unity.
Keywords: national cohesion, national identity, political education, conservative approach, liberal-democratic approach

Keywords

References

الیاس، جان. (۱۳۸۵). فلسفه تعلیم‌وتربیت. ترجمه عبدالرضا ضرابی. قم: موسسه آموزشی و پژوهشی امام خمینیe.
برلین، آیزیا (۱۳۶۸). چهار مقاله دربارهٔ آزادی. ترجمه محمدعلی موحد. تهران: خوارزمی.
برلین، آیزیا (۱۳۷۱). در جست‌وجوی آزادی؛ در گفت‌وگو با رامین جهانبگلو. ترجمه خجسته کیا؛ تهران: گفتار.
بشیریه، حسین (۱۳۸۴). آموزش دانش سیاسی مبانی علم سیاست نظری و تأسیسی. تهران: نگاه معاصر.
بشیریه، حسین (۱۳۸۸). تاریخ اندیشه‌های سیاسی قرن بیستم؛ لیبرالیسم و محافظه‌کاری. تهران: نی.
حیدری نیا، قاسم (۱۳۸۸). لیبرالیسم: بررسی سیر تحولات. تبریز: ستوده.
رالز، جان (۱۳۸۵). عدالت به‌مثابه انصاف: یک بازگویی. ترجمه عرفان ثابتی. تهران: ققنوس.
عالم، عبدالرحمن (۱۳۷۳). بنیادهای علم سیاست. تهران: نی.
قادری حاتم (۱۳۷۹)، اندیشه‌های سیاسی در قرن بیستم. تهران: سمت.
لاک، جان (۱۳۷۷). نامه‌ای در باب تساهل. ترجمه شیرزاد گلشاهی کریم. تهران: نی.
لاک، جان (۱۳۸۷). رساله‌ای در باب حکومت. ترجمه حمید عضدانلو. تهران: نی.
لبیبی، محمدمهدی (۱۳۸۷). لیبرال‌دموکراسی؛ آرزویی ناتمام. تهران: نقد افکار.
میلر، جی. پی. (۱۳۸۶). نظریه‌های برنامهٔ درسی. ترجمه محمود مهرمحمدی، تهران: سمت.
هیوود، اندرو (۱۳۹۴). سیاست. ترجمه عبدالرحمن عالم. تهران: نی.
Albulescua, M.; Albulescua, I. (2015). Over tones in Contemporary Educational Theory and Practice: Education for Democratic Citizenship. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 209, pp. 96 – 101.
Bocock, R. et al. (Eds.). (1995). Social and Cultural Forms of Modernity. Polity Press.
Callan, E. (1983). Interests and the Curriculum. British Journal of Educational Studies, XXXI (1), February 1983. Edmonton.
Callan, E. (1988). Autonomy and Schooling. McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Callan, E. (1991). Education Building. 5-10 9, North, Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 2G5, Canada Studies in Philosophy and Education 11, pp. 65-87, Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.
Callan, E. (2003). The Politics of Difference and Common Education. In: Education, Knowledge and Truth Beyond the postmodern impasse. David Carr (Ed.). pp. 145-158. London: Routledge.
Callan, E. (2015). Debate: Liberal Virtues and Civic Education. Journal of Political Philosophy, 23(4), pp. 491–500.
Callan, E.; White, J. (2002). A Companion to the Victorian Novel. In: Liberalism and Communitarianism. Patrick Brantlinger, William B. (Eds.). pp 95-109. Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Cameron, D. (2009). Proud to Be British (Blogpost). https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/ 2009/07/david-cameron-proud-to-be-british.html.
Camicia, S. P. (2020). Understanding Conflict in Education for Democracy. A Response to “The Value of Conflict and Disagreement in Democratic Teacher Education”. Democracy and Education, 28 (2), Article 8.
Chau, R. (2009). Liberalism: A Political Philosophy. 26 November 2009. https://www.mannkal.org/downloads/scholars/liberalism.pdf.
Diamond, L. (2013) Why wait for democracy? The Wilson Quarterly (Winter). Available at: http://wilsonquar terly.com/stories/why-wait-for-democracy/.
Edenberg, E. (2016). Civic Education: Political or Comprehensive? Chapter 12. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 2004. 7:, pp. 71–90. Copyright_c 2004 by Annual Reviews. First published online as a Review in Advance on Dec. 16, 2003.
Eurydice (2005). Citizenship Education at School in Europe. Brussels: Eurydice European Unit.
Gibb, N. (2015). How E.D. Hirsch Came to Shape UK Government Policy. In Knowledge and the Curriculum: A Collection of Essays to Accompany E. D. Hirsch’s Lecture at Policy Exchange. Jonathan Simons and Natasha Porter (Eds.), pp. 12–20. London: Policy Exchange.
Green, D. (1987). The New Right: The Counterrevolution in Political. Economical and Social Thought. London.
Harell, K. F. (2020). The value of conflict and disagreement in democratic teacher education. Democracy & Education, 29(1), pp. 1–8.
Harrison, K.; Boyd, T. (2018). Liberalism. In: Understanding political ideas and movements, pp. 195-213. K. Harrison & T. Boyd (Eds.). USA: Manchester University Press.
Hirsch, E. D. (1987). Cultural Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Hirsch, E. D. (1996). The Schools We Need and Why We Don’t Have Them. Anchor Books.
Hirsch, E. D. (2007). How to Educate a Citizen; The Power of Shared Knowledge to Unify a Nation. USA: Harper.
Hirsch, E. D. (2009). The Making of Americans: Democracy and Our Schools. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Klingemann, H. D. (2014). Dissatisfied democrats: Democratic maturation in old and new democracies. In: Dalton R. and Welzel C. (Eds.) The Civic Culture Transformed. pp. 116–157. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Melin, J.; Farnen, R. (1996) Authoritarianism and educational content/style: a cross national survey of students from 30 countries. paper presented to 19th Annual Scientic Meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology, Vancouver, July.
Merriam, C. E. (1939). The New Democracy and the New Desperation. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Norman, R. (1994) ‘”I Did it My Way” Some Thoughts on Autonomy’, Journal of Philosophy of Education, 28(1), pp. 25–34.
Oakeshott, M. (1962). Reationalism in Politics and Other. Essays, London: Melhven.
Parker, S. (1987). Teacher mediation in school studies. Journal of Theory and Research in Social Education, 52(3).
Puka, E. (2013). Political Education. The Global Education of Citizen throu‎gh Active Citizenship. Studi sulla formazione, 2-2013, pp. 229-236.Ranson, S. (2018). Education and democratic participation: The making of learning communities. Routledge.
Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Rawls, J. (1985). Justice as Fairness: Political Not Metaphysical. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 14, pp. 223-245.
Rawls, J. (1987). The Idea of an Overlapping Consensus. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 7, pp.1-25.
Roberts, W. (2017). Liberalism, Tolerance, and the Limits of Inclusion. Democracy and Diversity Series, March 22, 2017.
Rodee, C. C. T.; Anderson, T. J., Christol, K. (1957). Introduction to Political Science. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Sant, E. (2019). Democratic education: A theoretical review. Review of Educational Research, Online, 1–42.
Shin, D. CH.; Kim, H. J. (2016). Liberal democracy as the end of history: Western theories versus Eastern Asian realities. Asian Journal of Comparative Politics, October 2016, pp 1–21.
Shohamy, E. (2001). Democratic assessment as an alternative. Language Testing, 18(4), pp. 373-391.
Taylor, R. (1989). Cross-Purposes: The Liberal-Communitarian Debate. In: N.L. Rosenblum (ed.), Liberalism and the Moral Life. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Thomas, T.K.C. (2005). Civic and Political Education. In: Bray, M., Koo, R. (Eds.) Education and Society in Hong Kong and Macao; Comparative Perspectives on Continuity and Change. CERC Studies in Comparative Education, vol 7, pp 175-200. Springer, Dordrecht.
Torney-Purta, J.; Schwille, J.; Amadeo, J.A. (1999). Civic education in 24 countries of the world: Humbult university.
Tormey, R. (2006). Social and Political Education in Senior Cycle. University of Limerick: NCCA.
Welzel, C. (2013). Freedom Rising: Human Empowerment and the Quest for Emancipation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
White, J. P. (1990). Education and the Good Life, London, Kogan Page.
Winch, C.; Gingell, J. (1999). Key Concepts in the Philosophy of Education. London: Routledge.
Yandell, J. (2017). Culture, Knowledge and Power: What the Conservatives have Learnt from E.D. Hirsch. Changing English, 24(3), pp. 246-252.
Yayla, A. (2024). Liberalism: Foundations and Implications. Liberal Düşünce, 29 (113), Winter 2024, pp. 1-27.
Yelmaki, R. M. (2013). Curriculum leadershio in a conservative era. educational administration quarterly, 48(2), pp. 344-366.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics