نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسنده
دانشیار دانشکده الهیات و ادیان دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسنده [English]
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
کلیدواژهها [English]
)