Modern Educational Thoughts - Liberalism and Communitarianism - Literature review Example

Liberalism vs. Communitarianism Name) (Institution) (Module) (Course) (Instructor) Date Introduction Friedman provides a conscious debate on the arguments presented by communitarianists and liberalists in discussing the role of community. The author notes the various complexities provided by the ambiguity of what really comprises a community or society and its role in defining morals and understanding its impact on feminism and other social policy issues. This ambiguity of the theory is supported by Arthure (1998, p. 353). However, the term is used by both radical and conservative thinkers to oppose liberalism. As a philosophical stance, communitarianism was popularised by scholars such as Michael Sandel, Alasdair McIntyre, Charles Taylor and Michael Walzer. Though they may have taken different approaches, these scholars found unity in opposition to liberalism. Feminists have also been among the most forceful critics of liberalism. Liberalism holds individualistic assumptions that betray an inherent gender bias. This paper presents a discussion of how communitarianism can apply in the education sector in Saudi Arabia by first understanding theoretical basis of communitarianism and its application in real life through a critique of Marilyn Friedman’s paper, ‘Feminism and Modern Friendship: Dislocating the Community’. Friedman views on liberalism Friedman starts off by citing the shortfalls of liberalism by terming the approach being too individualistic to suit the modern interconnected world in various ways. She indicates that liberal minds assume that the only relationships and interconnectedness between individuals is solely based on conflict and competition for scarce resources. I agree with Friedman’s view of liberalism in that its support for individualism and utility maximization denies the role of social bonds that make individuals stick together. Social relationships play an important role in forming the identity of an individual. To liberals, individuals are not required to identify with families, nations or even neighbourhoods. They view human beings as social atoms far removed from the community. This view is also supported by feminists who feel that liberalism that the formation of an individual’s identity is a function of one’s community. Friedman on communitarianism Friedman (p. 276) reasons that communitarianism is best suited to address social issues such as feminism. In discussing the concept of social self as presented by feminists, she recognizes the importance of social relationships and community in creating self-identity and giving meaning to life. I agree with this view in the sense that basic social matters such as feminism, culture, education among others cannot be decided on liberal views. Communitarianism views individuals as being highly connected and influenced by the community in which they live in. This conception of the self refutes the idea of liberalism that relationships are characterised by conflict and competition for resources. The social self, according to communitarianists is “not a social atom but is instead a being constituted and defined by its attachments, including the particularities of its social relationships, community ties, and historical context” (ibid, p.276). Therefore, education and feminism cannot be addressed in the atomic social environment of the self suggested by liberalism. These, among others are social matters that are governed by social connections in a given community. I am in agreement with Freidman (280) in observing that communitarianism has a better grasp of morals. Freidman recognizes that communities are the major sources of an individual’s moral fabric which is bestowed on them through interactions with the community starting from family to the larger community. MacIntyre refers to morals as the "debts, inheritances, rightful expectations and obligations” from family nation and community that individuals must live with and fulfil (cited in Friedman 281). However, are these moral claims morally binding? The reason why Friedman brings up this issue is because the modern society as earlier aforementioned about gender inequality is also responsible for condemning certain "debts, inheritances, rightful expectations and obligations” such as homosexuality. In recognition of the communitarianism ideology, such traits have not developed individualistically but rather have developed as a result of connection with society. In short, communities tend to be hostile to perceived outsiders some of whom might be their members. Freidman notes this to be a weakness of communitarianism in that it sometimes condemns which has sired. But does this mean that the communities have no chance to evolve and change the "debts, inheritances, rightful expectations and obligations.” Friedman assumes that communities have no chances of evolving and changing their expectations to suit current needs. The evolution of communities is supported by recent developments in the developed world where gay marriages are legally recognised and such relations readily accepted by the community. This means that what comprises “rightful expectations and obligations” from members of society will keep on changing to meet current needs. Freidman indicates that some communitarianists’ principles do not support the efforts of feminists. The author candidly supports this by saying that the same communities that largely comprise of families, governments and neighbourhoods, are the same entities that create inequality in the society with women being at a disadvantage. This contradicts with feminist calls for equality across genders. In respect to this, feminists are not entirely supportive communitarianists. In fact, feminists are in support of the recognition of individual liberties where individual rights irrespective of gender are respected to individual without reference to societal and communal values. I thus agree with Friedman that each approach has its strengths and weaknesses. The feminist’s approach given to both approaches could provide a solution in addressing the case of education which has been at the centre of contention between communitarianists and liberalists. While governments have the greatest role to play in formulation of education policies, a liberalist ideology politically calls for non interference from external entities such as the government. This is one major pitfall of a liberal education. This paper thus attempts to show that a communitarianist approach is best suited in addressing the education needs of Saudi Arabia as opposed to liberalist approach. Liberalism and autonomy Liberalism in education and social context is largely borrowed from economics. Under economics alone, liberalists maintain that their wealth is obtained by purely individual and independent means. Their wealth is their alone and thus government efforts to tax them are highly discouraged. This notion of the individual is also supported by the law in protecting individual human rights which are perceived as naturally begotten. The autonomous individual under a liberal conception is free from constraints of government, free from culture and tradition, church, interest groups and others. From an education perspective, an autonomous individual is a learner who possesses a specific learning style, a quantifiable capacity and a diagnosable need and behaves obediently and is naturally industrious. Rawls (1985) indicates that there are two forms of liberalism, the ‘comprehensive’ and ‘political’ liberalism (cited in Wringe, 2006, p. 146). He described Comprehensive liberalism as ‘a system of values or conception of the good life that celebrates equality, freedom, enquiry, participation in public affairs, dissent, difference and other related values that may permeate the whole of an individual’s life, or that of a community’, while the Political liberalism, is by contrast, the manner in which a state’s public affairs are conducted. Therefore, by political liberalism, all must be given the opportunity to participate, all must agree to the procedural principles of civic justice by which differences are resolved. This is the form of liberalism that has driven feminists as they call for universal equal rights and equality in pay, political offices and laws among other things. Friedman (279-280) points to an interesting issue whereby she shows how the different genders tend to lean towards each of the two opposing prescriptive. She writes that as a result f psycho-development where women are involved in giving maternal care to infants, women get to value relationships and connections more as opposed to men. Men on the other hand tend to value competition and aggression towards another owing to their testosterone driven nature is which is more aggressive and dominant. Essentially, men tend to prefer liberalism more while women tend to lean more towards communitarianism which values connections and relationships more. This indicates that the situation in Saudi Arabia, where the place of place of women in the society is suppressed, the current education system leans more towards liberalism as opposed to communitarianism. It would there be true to speculate that increased participation of women in the system will give education and politics of the country a more communitarianists perspective. Mill (1859) indicates that there are two main themes which define liberal tradition and as a result, liberal education; these are liberty of thought, freedom, discussion and the idea of individualism (cited in Enslin, 1984, p. 5). Freedom of opinion and thought is seen as the basic element of liberal education in which every individual is able to express their thoughts without cultural state or community limits. As an autonomous person, an individual can exercise his/her freedom without infringing on the rights of others. Therefore, the concept of competition among atomic individuals in liberalism must be healthy though it is possible to assume that there are no even grounds for healthy competition among individuals as each of them has own unique capabilities that allow one to dominate over others. The theme of freedom is best captured through the conceptions of self ad discussed in the next subheading. Conceptions of self- liberalism Liberalists claim that their views involve no particular theory of human motivation though they are based on a given view of human nature. This view of human nature presupposes certain truths about human beings and their place in the world. Communitarianists posit that as human beings, individuals understand themselves as creatures if a certain kind related to human circumstance in a way. Liberalism denies the role of the circumstances in forming human identity. The idea of individualism appreciates the existence of a liberal individual who is unique, energetic, and spontaneous and develops his potential whenever he/she can. For liberalists therefore, individual persons should seek to free themselves from the unpredictable masses, exercise oneself freedom, and is able to exercise choice through autonomy. Individualism in liberal tradition does not recognize the role of community in creating the self. It does not appreciate the connections and relations an individual might have in society other than those relations defined by competition and conflict. To liberalists therefore, there is no unity of purpose that can enable a group of individuals to thrive. Individuals can only thrive by creating a unique identity that will enable them to be more aggressive and competitive against other individuals. In short individuals develop themselves when they work on their freedom, choice and autonomy. Education is thus meant to benefit individuals and not states, relations or communities from which one comes from. Conceptions of self -Communitarianism The major department between liberalism and communitarianism is the understanding to the self. Communitarianists view that an individual cannot stand alone without his social background. Friedman (p. 278) cites Alasdair MacIntyre who writes: We all approach our own circumstances as bearers of a particular social identity. I am someone's son or daughter, someone else's cousin or uncle; I am a citizen of this or that city, a member of this or that guild or profession; I belong to this clan, that tribe, this nation. Hence what is good for me has to be the good for one who inhabits these roles. As such, I inherit from the past of my family, my city, my tribe, my nation, a variety of debts, inheritances, rightful expectations and obligations. These constitute the given of my life, my moral starting point. This is in part what gives my life its own moral particularity. To communitarianists, an individual cannot stand without a community. A community influences and determines what comprises an individual in terms of morals, values and attributes. This conception has been employed in education to show that education must be relevant to the community and not just abstract as it cannot exists in space or useful to humans as social atoms. There are two discrete groups among 'communitarians'. The first group, is the 'communitarian theorists.' This group comprises of communitarianists who are vocal and engage in debate with liberalism, but do not provide alternative policies to liberalism. For them, the main idea is pointing out the weaknesses of liberalism in formulation of public policies without providing a remedy. The second group is known as the 'popular communitarians'. It comprises of people who are critical of liberalism and are keen to provide alternative communitarian policies and perspectives on legal, social and educational public fronts. While these two groups are basically in unison, one is keen on calling liberalism back to the drawing board while the other one is keen on providing a way forward past liberalism. Communitarianism came up as a criticism of liberalism. The unifying theme is communitarianism is ‘community’, an aspect that lacks entirely in liberalism which emphasises on individualism and autonomy. However, the community aspect is too general to provide a clear understanding to what it means to policy makers and the public in general and point out clearly the shortcomings of liberalism. There are a number of underlying themes that can be identified, namely: conceptions of the self; asocial individualism; universalism; subjectivism versus objectivism; liberal neutrality; and individual autonomy. Conception of morals Alasdair McIntyre indicates that liberalism is based on a mistaken ethical view of human nature. He argues that one can only understand one’s life by looking at his life’s narrative which happens to converge with the narrative of others. As such, other people get to part of his narrative through interactions. Therefore, to understand oneself well, the context o the community has to be included. Liberalism ignores this context of the community by assuming that individuals can exist independently as atoms without influence and control from the community. Communitarianists hold that one’s virtues and values are set down by the nature of specific social practices among the community in which they function. However, only one branch of communitarianism that follows Aristotle’s views where the state has no conception of good but rather the communities and neighbourhoods, fails to recognise state as a community. This view posits that a community comprises of a group that has a shared understanding of what is good for man and what is good for community. Under liberalism however, the community ceases to exist and the conception of morals and virtues is only ranked individually and by individual moral judgement. In short, morals re reduced to personal opinions. This means that the liberal view of 'I can do what I want as long as I do not hurt others', turns to 'I can do what I want because I have a right to do so or I think it is right.’ (Glendon, 1991) Learner autonomy in Saudi Arabia Learner autonomy in Saudi Arabia is common subject among scholars and policy makers. As a tenet of western liberalism, it is largely applied in the teaching of English as a second language in many schools. It is highly encouraged among learners and teachers alike. But what is learner autonomy? How is it connected to autonomy as understood by liberalists? One of the early contributors to the topic of learner autonomy defined it as “the ability to take charge of one’s learning … to have, and to hold, the responsibility for all the decision concerning all aspects of this learning” Holec (1981, p. 3). These decisions include determining the objectives, identifying the contents and development of the language, choosing technique s to be used in learning, examining the approach of acquisition and constantly evaluating what has been acquired. Other definitions cited include: The ability to take charge of one’s learning … to have, and to hold, the responsibility for all the decision concerning all aspects of this learning” Holec (1981, p. 3). A capacity and willingness to act independently and in cooperation with others, as a social, responsible person” (Dam, Eriksson, Little, Miliander, & Trebbi, 1990, p. 102 as cited in Al Asmari 2013). An attitude towards learning in which the learner is prepared to take, or does take, responsibility for his own learning” (Dickinson, 1994, p. 167 as cited in Al Asmari 2013). A capacity for detachment, critical reflection, decision making and independent action” (Little, 1991, p. 4 as cited in Al Asmari 2013). Other definitions of learner autonomy suggested by Benson (2001) place more emphasis on the willingness or capacity of students as opposed to their ability in gaining autonomy. Sinclair (2000) notes that autonomy is not a single easily identifiable behaviour, but an idealistic goal that is characterized by various degrees as determined by personal attributes of the learner, social, political, psychological, and cultural dimensions. The fact that this kind of autonomy acknowledges social and cultural dimensions indicates that it deviates from the liberal view of autonomy which prohibits any involvement or control of learning by outside forces such as cultural environment. This provides hope for reconciling liberalism and communitarianism. Communitarian education 'We hold that schools can provide essential moral education, without indoctrinating young people' (Etzioni, 1995, p. 8). This is the message that many communitarianist are spreading. They view schools are the second most potential source of moral education after families. The communitarianists believe that schools guided by liberal views are developing underdeveloped characters with little commitment on virtue and values. While liberalism is more connected to the western world, where individual rights have resulted into a loss of morals and virtues according to Etzioni, communitarianism is connected to the more culture conscious and conservative societies such as China and Saudi Arabia. This view is supported by increased cases of mass murders and attacks by individuals especially in schools where shootings are common. The argument is that these are the products of liberal education which has no place for virtues, morals and the common good. The community is thus important to provide a ranking for values and morals. The school and the education system can play its role in instilling civic education in curriculums. Friedman however, says that the choice of communities in the modern world is likely to eliminate the good aimed at by communitarianism. I therefore agree with communitarianists that schools provide a set of experiences that build better moral characters and individuals as whole. In a more communitarianist education system in Saudi Arabia, parents would become more involved and extracurricular activities are given more weight with more emphasis on cooperation and teamwork. Sex education should be taught from a moral background not a technical one. Furthermore, grades should be linked to achievement as opposed for self esteem purposes only. In Saudi Arabia, there is already a system in place that ensures there is a strong moral standing among students through religious classes. However, it is important to incorporate morality through cotemporary education as opposed to religious classes only. This will ensure that the education is both beneficial to the community and to individuals as well. References Al Asmari, AbdulRahman. Practices and Prospects of Learner Autonomy: Teachers’ Perceptions. English Language Teaching. 6(3), 1-11. 2013. Web. Arthure, J. Communitarianism: what are the implications for education? Educational Studies, Routledge. 24(3), 353-368. 1998. Web. Benson, P. Teaching and researching autonomy in language learning. London: Longman. 2001. Caney, S. Liberalism and communitarianism: a misconceived debate, Political Studies. 15(11), 273-289. 1992. Web. Etzioni, A. The Spirit of Community: fights, responsibilities and the communitarian agenda. Glasgow; Harper Collins. 1995. Print. Etzioni, A. The New Golden Rule: community and morality in a democratic society. New York; Basic Books. 1997. Print. Friedman, M. Feminism and Modern Friendship: Dislocating the Community. Ethics, 99(2), 275- 290. 1989. Web. Glendon, M.A. Rights Talk: the impoverishment of political discourse. New York; Free Press. 1991. Print. Holec, H. Autonomy and Foreign Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon. 1981. Print. Mcintyre, A. Whose Justice? Which Rationality? London: Duckworth. 1988. Print. Miller, D. The resurgence of political theory. Political Studies. 38, 421-437. 1990. Web. Rawls, J. Justice as fairness: political, not metaphysical. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 14(3), 223-236. 1995. Web. Sinclair, B. Learner autonomy: The next phase? In B. Sinclair, I. McGrath & T. Lamb (Eds.), Learner autonomy, teacher autonomy: Future directions (pp. 4-14). Harlow: Longman. 2000. Print. Wringe, C. Moral Education: Beyond the Teaching of Right and Wrong. Springer press. 2006. Print. Read More