Reading time: approx. 4 minutes – read, like, comment!

The original article appeared in issue 01/2023 of the Journal für politische Bildung [Journal of Citizenship Education].

The concept of education for democracy is based on an insight from social pedagogy which maintains that democracy must be realised as a unity of both living and learning about democracy. Drawing on a deliberative understanding of democracy and a radical interpretation of maturity, education for democracy accordingly aims to foster the democratic structuring of social institutions, thereby opening up sustainable prospects for education in and about democracy.

Education for democracy is a concept arising from social pedagogy and in essence means political education in and about democracy. Drawing on Jürgen Habermas’s theory of universal pragmatics, the approach aims to introduce a communicative practice for conflict management that gives each person affected by a decision equal right to raise their communicative claims to validity as regards truth, rightness and truthfulness, to introduce them into discursive negotiation, and to translate them into mutual decisions based on a democratic foundation (Habermas 1981). Restricting participation in democracy on the basis of age, maturity or qualification (as in concepts of pedagogy for democracy, citizenship education or human rights education) or limiting it to specific target groups (as in the democracy promotion approach) is ruled out on principle. On the contrary, education for democracy is aimed at all people from birth because, from the perspective of linguistic pragmatics, universal communication structures give rise to understanding, and these structures take effect even for those who are not (yet) capable of verbalisation. Processes involved in education for democracy therefore take place in principle between mature individuals, with being affected by decisions as the sole prerequisite for participation.

At the heart of education for democracy is the notion introduced roughly 100 years ago by John Dewey and Jane Addams that democracy should not be perceived solely as a form of government, i.e. as representative democracy, for example, but also and in particular as a way of life. On this basis, education for democracy aims to contribute to the democratisation of all social institutions, to make democracy tangible in daily life through the democratic structuring of interactions and to thereby realise a unity of both living and learning about democracy for children, young people and adults. In the context of education for democracy, the concept of participation means democratic participation initiated and practised by all those affected. It entitles those involved to take part in decisions relating to all issues that affect them in their daily lives, thus enabling them to participate in the establishment of rules and standards – not just as addressees but as their authors.

THE IDEAL OF POLITICAL PARTICIPATION

Jürgen Habermas used this ideal of political participation, set against the backdrop of his theory of society as an entity comprising system and lifeworld, as the basis of his model of deliberative democracy. According to Habermas – and in contrast to Dewey’s position – deliberative processes cannot be realised in all spheres of society, because the prerequisites for democracy – which is to say, rule (kratia) by the people (demos) – are not uniformly met. He is therefore of the view that, in modern societies, democratic participation can primarily be realised in spheres of civil society in the lifeworld since, unlike in the system areas of market and government, in the lifeworld the process of socialisation consists in pursuing “value-rational” aims of action rooted in solidarity through actions aimed at understanding and thus based in deliberative democracy.

With his theory of social pedagogy, Helmut Richter (2019) follows on from Habermas’s considerations and formulates conditions for civil-society institutions in the lifeworld that are ideal candidates for deliberative democracy and education for democracy. Institutions having the following characteristics in accordance with the Vereinsprinzip [principle of associations] are particularly suitable: local forms of organisation, voluntary membership, autonomy through mutually exercised honorary engagement, and openness. They facilitate forms of interaction based on egalitarian discourse (informal consensus democracy) and codified forms of democratic co-determination (formal and informal majority democracy) in conjunction with the fostering of openness in opinion formation and decision making (Richter et al. 2016).

The theoretical foundations of education for democracy have emerged since the 1980s, in particular in connection with the democratic practice of community work and youth association work as communal and association pedagogy (Richter 2001). Following on from this, a whole series of conceptual distinctions and empirical examinations of education for democracy in social-pedagogy organisations has been developed. This includes, for example, research into youth association work (Riekmann 2011, Ahlrichs 2019, Ahlrichs/Fritz 2019), into all-day schooling (Coelen 2002, Maykus 2021) and into the practice of democracy in children’s day-care centres (Richter/Lehmann/Sturzenhecker 2017), open child and youth work (Sturzenhecker 2010, Schwerthelm 2022) and youth social work (Sturzenhecker 2022).

A UNITY OF LIVING AND LEARNING ABOUT DEMOCRACY

At the heart of this approach to education for democracy is the aspiration to capture the current opportunities and limits facing real lifeworld-institutional conditions of deliberative (education for) democracy and to develop them by means of participative interaction processes and mutual education processes, together with all those affected, with a view to promoting greater democracy in the lifeworld.

About the author

Professor Elisabeth Richter teaches intercultural social work at MSH Medical School Hamburg. Her research areas include intercultural identity formation, education for democracy in children’s day-care centres and youth work, and group- and community-based methods of social work.

References

_{Ahlrichs, Rolf (2019): Demokratiebildung im Jugendverband. Grundlagen – empirische Befunde – Entwicklungsperspektiven [Education for Democracy in Youth Associations. Basic Principles – Empirical Findings – Prospects for Development]. Weinheim.}

_{Ahlrichs, Rolf/Fritz, Fabian (2019): “Demokratiebildung in antidemokratischen Zeiten. Der Beitrag der Vereine zur Sicherung der Demokratie – zwei empirische Einblicke aus Europa” [Education for Democracy in Anti-democratic Times. The Contribution of Associations to Safeguarding Democracy – Two Empirical Insights from Europe]. In: Der Pädagogische Blick [The Pedagogical View], issue 2/2019, pp. 39–48.}

_{Coelen, Thomas (2002): Kommunale Jugendbildung. Raumbezogene Identitätsbildung zwischen Schule und Jugendarbeit [Municipal Youth Education. Geospatial Identity Formation between School and Youth Work]. Frankfurt am Main and others.}

_{Habermas, Jürgen (1981): Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns [Theory of Communicative Action]. 2nd vol. Frankfurt am Main. Maykus, Stephan (2021): Sozialpädagogik als Kooperation. Schule, Bildung, Netzwerke. Partizipation – ein Weg zur pädagogischen Kommunalentwicklung [Social Pedagogy as Cooperation. School, Education, Networks, Participation – A Path to Pedagogical Municipal Development]. Weinheim and others.}

_{Richter, Helmut (2001): Kommunalpädagogik. Studien zur interkulturellen Bildung [Municipal Pedagogy: Studies on Intercultural Education]. Frankfurt am Main and others.}

_{Richter, Helmut (2019): Sozialpädagogik – Pädagogik des Sozialen. Grundlegungen, Institutionen und Perspektiven der Jugendbildung [Social Pedagogy – Pedagogy of Social Affairs. Fundamentals, Institutions and Perspectives in Youth Education]. 2nd edition, revised. Wiesbaden.}

_{Richter, Elisabeth/Richter, Helmut/Sturzenhecker, Benedikt/Lehmann, Teresa/Schwerthelm, Moritz (2016): “Bildung zur Demokratie. Operationalisierung des Demokratiebegriffs für pädagogische Institutionen” [Education for Democracy. Operationalising the Concept of Democracy for Educational Institutions]. In: Knauer, Raingard/Sturzenhecker, Benedikt (eds.): Demokratische Partizipation von Kindern [Children’s Democratic Participation]. Weinheim and others, pp. 106–129.}

_{Richter, Elisabeth/Lehmann, Teresa/Sturzenhecker, Benedikt (2017): So machen Kitas Demokratiebildung. Empirische Erkenntnisse zur Umsetzung des Konzepts „Die Kinderstube der Demokratie“ [How Children’s Day-care Centres Do Education for Democracy. Empirical Findings on Implementing the Concept “The Nursery of Democracy”]. Weinheim and others.}

_{Riekmann, Wibke (2011): Demokratie und Verein. Potenziale demokratischer Bildung in der Jugendarbeit [Democracy and Associations. Potential for Education for Democracy in Youth Work]. Wiesbaden.}

_{Schwerthelm, Moritz (2020): Partizipation in der Offenen Jugendarbeit in Luxemburg – Methoden und Qualitätsstandards [Participation in Open Youth Work in Luxembourg – Methods and Quality Standards]. Luxembourg.}

_{Sturzenhecker, Benedikt (2010): “Demokratiebildung – Auftrag und Realität in der Offenen Kinder- und Jugendarbeit” [Education for Democracy – Mission and Reality in Open Child and Youth Work]. In: Schmidt, Holger (ed.): Empirie der Offenen Kinder- und Jugendarbeit [Empirical Evidence in Open Child and Youth Work]. Wiesbaden, pp. 131–146.}

_{Sturzenhecker, Benedikt (2022): “Demokratiebildung in der Jugendsozialarbeit – Das Konzept der GEBe-Methode zur Förderung gesellschaftlich- demokratischen Engagements von benachteiligten Jugendlichen” [Education for Democracy in Youth Social Work – The Concept of the GEBe Method for Promoting Social/Democratic Engagement of Disadvantaged Youth]. In: Landesjugendamt Westfalen Lippe [Westphalia Lippe Youth Welfare Office] (pub.): “Demokratiebildung in der Jugendsozialarbeit” [Education for Democracy in Youth Social Work]. Münster, pp. 8–24.}