Abstract
The fifth entry in the History and Philosophy of Education Series from the University of Chicago Press maintains the impressively high standard set by its predecessors. Randall Curren and Charles Dorn set out to decide ‘whether schools should attempt to cultivate patriotism, and if so why, how, and with what conception of patriotism in mind’ (p. ix). They certainly offer answers to these questions, but the scope of their inquiry is in truth much wider than this. In the first half of the book, they present an ambitious, multi-dimensional history of patriotic education in American schools. And in the second half, they attempt nothing less than a general theory of education and its normative foundations.
The three historical chapters explore the ways in which patriotism has been promoted in schools through the curriculum, through participation in rituals, and through extra-curricular forms of public and military service. Attention is given to the political significance of English language instruction; to the content of history, civics, and social studies curricula; to the place in schools of historical pageants, the veneration of the flag, and the Pledge of Allegiance; to militarizing initiatives like the Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps and the Cadet Corps; and to attempts to mobilize students behind national causes. These chapters are immensely engaging, rich in detail, and frequently eye-opening. No doubt US readers will be better acquainted than I was with the protagonists and plot twists in the story the authors tell, but I should be surprised if there are many for whom it holds no surprises.
Curren and Dorn then lay out their comprehensive educational theory. The theory rests on an ethic of respect for persons, which is justified with reference to some familiar ‘general facts’ about the human condition: we are rational agents with ends we wish to fulfill; we are finite, vulnerable, and limited in our capacity to fulfill our ends; and we are surrounded by others with whose assistance we can fulfill our ends more easily. These facts make it ‘rational for us all to accept norms of self-restraint, mutual respect, and cooperation in sharing information and aiding each other when it is not too costly to do so’ (p. 85). Supplementing their ethic of respect with a conception of universal psychological needs drawn from Self-Determination Theory, the authors contend that the basic function of educational institutions is ‘to promote forms of development conducive to living well’ (p. 90). The three types of attribute whose development educators should promote are virtues, capabilities, and understanding. Civic educators, for example, are responsible for the cultivation of civic virtue, civic capabilities, and civic understanding.
It is in unpacking the idea of cultivating civic virtue that Curren and Dorn find a role for patriotic education. Patriotism, they are at pains to insist, is not itself a virtue; rather, it is ‘the motivational core of civic virtue with respect to a country’ (p. 95). There is more to civic virtue than its motivational aspect; civic virtue is exercised at more levels than the national; and even at the national level, there are more motivators of civic virtue than love of country. Nevertheless, love of country is central to civic motivation at this level, so is properly seen as a component of the civic virtue educators should cultivate.
There is much to admire in all this. The authors write with elegance and authority: their history of patriotism in schools is masterful and their general theory of education largely compelling. Like its sister volumes, Patriotic Education in a Global Age stands as a powerful testament to the value of collaboration between historians and philosophers. Notwithstanding the book’s merits, however, I am, in the end, unpersuaded by the case it makes for patriotic education. My worries are twofold.
First, it seems to be assumed rather than argued that love of country is the motivational core of civic virtue with respect to a country. That assumption is highly questionable. To possess civic virtue with respect to a country, on Curren and Dorn’s account, is to be disposed to act responsibly in national affairs; but I venture to suggest that the responsible action of many citizens is motivated at least as much by their commitments to social stability and harmony, to democracy and the rule of law, to justice and the redistribution of wealth, as it is by their love of country. This is not to dispute that patriotic feeling sometimes motivates good civic conduct, but why should we accept that it is – or ought to be – the core or central motivator of civic virtue at the national level? Moreover, given the acknowledged propensity of patriotism to be ‘combative, unjust in its favoring of one’s own, racially exclusionary, tolerant of persecution and violations of civil liberties, [and] intolerant of dissent’ (p. 101), what confidence can we have that it represents a net motivational gain for responsible citizens?
Second, I’m not certain that what Curren and Dorn advocate really qualifies as patriotic education at all. They propose that while civic intelligence, civic friendship, and civic competence all belong ‘on a checklist of learning outcomes’ in civic education, ‘patriotism would not appear as a distinct item on such a list’ (p. 101; emphasis added). This is striking: whatever the authors’ defense of patriotic education amounts to, it apparently does not imply that patriotism is a learning outcome at which teachers should aim. They suggest instead that the legitimate role of education in inspiring such patriotic motivation is limited to providing an inclusive and enabling just school community that facilitates civic belonging and friendship, civic competence, and the informed appreciation of the country’s merits that is part of civic intelligence. (p. 101)
But if that is all schools may do under the banner of patriotic education, it is hard to see what is at stake, in practice, between its advocates and opponents. Those of us who oppose patriotic education typically have no objection to the facilitation of civic belonging and friendship, civic competence, and informed appreciation of a country’s merits. Perhaps our only disagreement with Curren and Dorn is that they anticipate, and we do not, that facilitation of these things will somehow inspire patriotic feeling in students – but that is a disagreement of prediction, not of principle.