Rethinking Ethical-Political Education [1st ed.] 9783030495237, 9783030495244

Citation preview

Contemporary Philosophies and Theories in Education 16

Torill Strand  Editor

Rethinking Ethical-Political Education

Contemporary Philosophies and Theories in Education Volume 16

Series Editors Jan Masschelein, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium Lynda Stone, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA Editorial Board Gert Biesta, Arts & Social Sci, Halsbury Bldg, Brunel University, Uxbridge, UK David Hansen, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA Jorge Larrosa, Barcelona University, Barcelona, Spain Nel Noddings, Stanford University, Ocean Grove, NJ, USA Roland Reichenbach, Erziehungswissenschaft, University of Zurich,  Zurich, Switzerland Naoko Saito, Graduate School of Education, Kyoto University,  Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, Japan Paul Smeyers, Psychology and Educational Sciences, Ghent University and KU Leuven, Ghent, Belgium Paul Standish, UCL Institute of Education, London, UK Sharon Todd, Professor of Education, Maynooth University, Maynooth, Ireland

Contemporary Philosophies and Theories in Education signifies new directions and possibilities out of a traditional field of philosophy and education. Around the globe, exciting scholarship that breaks down and reformulates traditions in the humanities and social sciences is being created in the field of education scholarship. This series provides a venue for publication by education scholars whose work reflect the dynamic and experimental qualities that characterize today’s academy. The series associates philosophy and theory not exclusively with a cognitive interest (to know, to define, to order) or an evaluative interest (to judge, to impose criteria of validity) but also with an experimental and attentive attitude which is characteristic for exercises in thought that try to find out how to move in the present and how to deal with the actual spaces and times, the different languages and practices of education and its transformations around the globe. It addresses the need to draw on thought across all sorts of borders and counts amongst its elements the following: the valuing of diverse processes of inquiry; an openness to various forms of communication, knowledge, and understanding; a willingness to always continue experimentation that incorporates debate and critique; and an application of this spirit, as implied above, to the institutions and issues of education. Authors for the series come not only from philosophy of education but also from curriculum studies and critical theory, social sciences theory, and humanities theory in education. The series incorporates volumes that are trans- and inner-disciplinary. The audience for the series includes academics, professionals and students in the fields of educational thought and theory, philosophy and social theory, and critical scholarship. Series Editors: Jan Masschelein, KU Leuven, BelgiumLynda Stone, University of North Carolina, USA Editorial Board: Gert Biesta, Brunel University London, UK David Hansen, Columbia University, USA Jorge Larossa, Barcelona University, Spain Nel Noddings, Stanford University, USA Roland Reichenbach, University of Zurich, Switzerland Naoko Saito, Kyoto University, Japan Paul Smeyers, Ghent University & KU Leuven, Belgium Paul Standish, UCL Institute of Education, London, UK Sharon Todd, Maynooth University, Ireland More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/8638

Torill Strand Editor

Rethinking Ethical-Political Education

Editor Torill Strand Department of Education University of Oslo Oslo, Norway

ISSN 2214-9759     ISSN 2214-9767 (electronic) Contemporary Philosophies and Theories in Education ISBN 978-3-030-49523-7    ISBN 978-3-030-49524-4 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49524-4 © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Acknowledgments

This volume is the result of a Nordic workshop series sponsored by NOS-HS, the joint committee for Nordic research councils in the humanities and social sciences. The overall aim of these workshops was to identify, conceptualize, and meet the most pressing issues regarding ethical-political education (Bildung) today. These workshops brought together social researchers and philosophers of education from Copenhagen, Helsinki, Oslo, and Stockholm. Here, we shared and discussed our research work with a joint ambition to identify, conceptualize, and meet the most pressing issues regarding ethical-political education in and for today’s world of change. I want to thank NOS-HS for sponsoring these workshops. Moreover, I want to express my deepest appreciation to all my Nordic colleagues who offered valuable contributions to the philosophical debates and helped to create a collegial conviviality that inspired the philosophical discussions in and between the workshop sessions. In addition, a big thank you to those who more than enthusiastically helped to organize these workshops. Many good memories will remain. I owe a special thank you to each single contributor of this volume for their responsiveness, attentiveness, and commitment to this book. Moreoever, I am grateful to the anonymous reviewers, who definitely encouraged our work and helped to strengthen the quality of the manuscript by providing insightful remarks and constructive critical comments. Finally, a special thank you to the Springer team for their lasting support, encouragement, and diligent work. This book makes an original contribution to the field. Overall, it provides fresh perspectives on the many faces of ethical-political education. The authors here address current dilemmas with diligence and insight; they contribute to philosophical clarification and the advancement of research with solid arguments for theoretical and practical redirections. Students, teachers, and researchers will find this book a valuable contribution to educational research and debate. Oslo, Norway April 2020

Torill Strand

v

Contents

1 Rethinking Ethical-Political Education – Beyond the Nordic Model��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    1 Torill Strand Part I  Youths in a World of Change 2 Young Citizenship: Civic Engagement and Participation in Four Nordic Countries������������������������������������������������������������������������   13 Kristinn Hegna 3 Philosophical and Youth-Studies Perspectives on the Participation Imperative��������������������������������������������������������������   29 Tomi Kiilakoski, Mervi Kaukko, Rauno Huttunen, and Hannu L. T. Heikkinen 4 Situating Moral Education in a Globalized World. Environmental Ethical Values and Student Experiences ��������������������   45 Ole Andreas Kvamme 5 While We Wait: Unaccompanied Minors in Norway – Or the Hospita(bi)lity for the Other ��������������������������������   67 Wills Kalisha Part II  Educational Philosophies, Old and New 6 Encouragement and Appeal – Free Auto-­activity (Selbstwirksamkeit) and Subjected Freedom����������������������������������������   87 Henrik Vase Frandsen 7 Towards Educational Justice : What Difference Can Recognitive Justice Make?��������������������������������������������������������������  101 Teemu Hanhela

vii

viii

Contents

8 Citizenship Education and the Role of Immigrant Students in the Nordic Countries ��������������������������������������������������������������������������  121 Anniina Leiviskä 9 Bildung as Democratic Opinion and Will Formation. Habermas Beyond Habermas ����������������������������������������������������������������  137 Asger Sørensen 10 Towards a Plastic Starting Point: Rethinking Ethical-Political Education with Catherine Malabou ������������������������������������������������������  153 Kjetil Horn Hogstad 11 What Is Called Thinking in Education?������������������������������������������������  167 Claudia Schumann Part III  Rethinking Ethical-Political Education 12 Educational Cosmopolitanism: Education Beyond Nationalist and Globalist Imaginations ������������������������������������������������  181 Niclas Rönnström 13 Pragmatism, Education and the Problem of Pluralism������������������������  197 Henrik Rydenfelt 14 Reconceptualising the Subject-Citizen of Bildung in a Posthuman World: Rethinking the Promise of Higher Education��������������������������������������������������������������������������������  209 Carol A. Taylor 15 Challenges and Possibilities of Media-­Based Public Dialogue: Misunderstanding, Stereotyping and Reflective Attitude��������������������  223 Minna-Kerttu Kekki 16 The Educative Process and Its Relation to Truth, Knowledge, Culture and Critique: Epistemological and Metaphysical Premises for Formation ��������������������������������������������������������������������������  237 Jørgen Huggler 17 What Causes Education?������������������������������������������������������������������������  251 Kirsten Hyldgaard 18 Here and Now: Rethinking Philosophy of Education��������������������������  263 Torill Strand Name Index������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  279 Subject Index����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  283

Chapter 1

Rethinking Ethical-Political Education – Beyond the Nordic Model Torill Strand

Abstract  Ethical-political education is an area of continuous disputes and conflicting beliefs, values and world-views related to its embedded complexity embracing social, cultural and not least political community and identity. In short, “education” is a name for those phenomena through which a community or society preserves and renews itself. The term “ethical-political education”, however, more explicitly relates to those aspects of education through which the communal and formative values and norms of a community, culture or society seem to be at stake. Discourses on ethical-political education do not only mirror conflictual values and beliefs. They also carry the potential to shape, justify, uphold and direct shared images, values, norms and practices. So, taking the fact that communal beliefs, values and worldviews are at stake in an ever-changing globalized and multi-faceted world, a systematic re-thinking of the many faces of ethical political education seems today more urgent than ever. This chapter gives and overview of this book by introducing an overall perspective on ethical-political education; some of the hot topics of today; and the ways in which the authors of this book explore and discuss these topics. Keywords  Ethical-political education · Citizenship education · Democracy · The Nordic model

Young Europeans, including Nordic youths, now grow up in a globalized world marked by visible economic and social inequalities, new patterns of migration, digitized imaginaries, epidemic threats and an uncertain future. Youth revolts, emerging fascism and a “democratic recession” (Fukuyama 2015) may indicate that the societies’ social contract is put to test. In this situation, national and transnational

T. Strand (*) Department of Education, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 T. Strand (ed.), Rethinking Ethical-Political Education, Contemporary Philosophies and Theories in Education 16, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49524-4_1

1

2

T. Strand

policy-­makers tend to portray ethical-political education as a remedy. But is it necessarily so? This volume offers a variety of outlooks and perspectives on this question. Educational researchers and philosophers of education from Copenhagen, Helsinki, Oslo and Stockholm are here mixing conceptual and critical philosophical works with empirical studies as they systematically address current dilemmas with diligence and insight. In doing so, they challenge ethical, ontological and epistemic assumptions beyond contemporary models: What may be the potential prospects and pitfalls of traditional and novel approaches to ethical-political education today?

Today’s Imperative Ethical-political education is an area of continuous disputes and conflicting beliefs, values and world-views related to its embedded complexity embracing social, cultural and not least political community and identity (Koselleck 2004; Straume 2013). In short, “education” is a name for those phenomena through which a community or society preserves and renew itself. The term “ethical-political education” more explicitly relates to those aspects of education through which the communal and formative values and norms of a society seem to be at stake. The term may signify a sociopolitical mission; an instituted practice; or some discourses mirroring, embracing and reinforcing images of social and political rights, “the good society” or “the virtuous citizen”. Such discourses are configured into educational policies and practices that are both products and productive of institutionalized values and world-views (Bottici 2014; Castoriadis 1987; Moutsios 2018; Straume 2013). Consequently, discourses on ethical-political education do not only mirror conflictual values and beliefs. They also carry the potential to shape, justify, uphold and direct shared images, values, norms and practices. So, taking the fact that communal beliefs, values and worldviews are at stake, a systematic re-thinking of the many faces of ethical political education seems today more urgent than ever. Issues of ethical-political education have long since been an integrated part of political theory and philosophy. A classic example is Plato’s Republic, which equates educational questions with political and moral questions. To the ancient Greeks, paideia (rearing well-conducted citizens of the polis) was not an abstract idea, but rather the sum of the tangible historical experiences that cultivate the ideal citizen (Jaeger 1973). At the beginning of the nineteenth century political philosophers – i.e. Humboldt (1793) and Kant (1979) – conceived enlightenment and education as two sides of the same coin: Bildung (character formation) did not only designate inner cultivation, but also a reflective and critical self-refinement linked to “broader hopes for a better society” (Taylor 2016). A century later, Dewey (1985) placed education at the heart of his political philosophy, as he paralleled his notion of democracy with progressive education. Today, however, political theorists and philosophers have a tendency to leave out the question of ethical-political education (Honneth 2015). This void may signify, on the one hand, novel ways of thinking

1  Rethinking Ethical-Political Education – Beyond the Nordic Model

3

political theory and philosophy. On the other hand, it may be a sign of new divisions of academic labor, in which the thinking of ethical-political education is delegated to policy-makers, NGOs and practitioners (Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff 2005). This book is a response to this void, including the potential pitfalls of assigning the thinking of ethical-political education to non-academic stakeholders only.

A Will to Democracy Assuming that the task of ethical political education is to promote active citizenship, the authors of this book hold that ideas on ethical-political education should not be separated from images of a vigorous democracy (Dewey 1985; Holma and Kontinen 2015; Kymlicka and Norman 1994; Strand 2015). Consequently, democracy is here taken as an axiom, which means that the worth of democracy is seen as self-­evidently valuable and true. The notion of “democracy”, however, can be given multiple interpretations (Held 2006). The term is composed by the Greek demos (people) and kratos (government), and translates “governed by the people” or “rule of the people”. Social and political studies may explore democracy as a form of government or political system. But educational researchers, including authors of this volume, do not narrow the notion of democracy down to designate a form of government only, neither as a model of a state, or as an abstract idea that every now and then materializes into everyday experience. Democracy is rather studied as tangible forms of everyday and inclusive practices that mirror and shape loyalties and identification with a polis (body of citizens). So, “instead of limiting the participatory activity of citizens to the function of periodically legitimating the state’s exercise of power, their activity […] should be understood as the source of all political decision-­ making processes” (Honneth 1998, p. 763). Consequently, focus is not so much on citizenship-as-legal-status, but rather on citizenship-as-desirable-activity (Marshall 1949; Kymlicka and Norman 1994). Subsequently, the identities and loyalties of citizens are here drawn to our attention: The health of a democracy does not only depend on the legitimacy of its political system or the citizens’ capability to participate. A healthy democracy also depends on the citizens’ sense of belonging; their “abilities to tolerate and work with others that are different from themselves”; and their “desire to participate in the political processes in order to promote the public good and hold political authorities accountable” (Kymlicka and Norman 1994, p.  353). Thus, in the intersection between “democracy” and “ethical-political education”, democratic will formation seems crucial. Such democratic will formation is at the heart of discourses on ethical-­political education in the Nordic countries (Hilson 2015; Strand 2006; Telhaug et al. 2006).

4

T. Strand

The Nordic Model As this book is a collection of chapters written by Nordic authors, it is not far-­ fetched to assume that the so-called “Nordic model” serves as a hidden assumption beyond their ways of exploring ethical-political issues relevant to education. The “model” here refers to some symbolic representations, communal beliefs and imaginaries on the aims and missions of ethical-political education characteristic for the Nordic countries (Bottici 2014; Horlacher 2016; Strand 2009; Taylor 2004). So, what are the main features of the Nordic model, and how does it differ from the rest of the world? First, this model connect to the Nordic welfare state system, in which education is a vital pillar. Despite important differences between the Nordic countries, there still exist an idea of a common Nordic political model, characterized as “a specific egalitarian social democratic community of destiny” (Sørensen and Stråth 1997) or a social democratic welfare state regime that “promotes equality of the highest standards” (Esping-Andersen 1990). Basic principles are freedom, equality, and solidarity. Freedom encompasses freedom from poverty and oppression, as well as opportunities for personal development and creative self-expressions. Equality refers to equal rights and obligations for everyone, independent of social background, sex, religion or ethnicity. Solidarity refers to the ties that bind the citizens together, as well as solidarity with marginalized groups and the next generation. The incentive of the Nordic welfare state model is that “all benefit; all are dependent; and all will presumably feel obliged to contribute” (Esping-Andersen 1990, p. 169). It must be pointed out, however, that the notion of a “Nordic welfare state” is not unambiguous, uncontroversial, or static. The Nordic welfare states and their symbolic representations are continuously in the making; contingent and unstable, fluctuating in time and space (Antikainen 2006; Hilson 2015; Frimansson 2006; Telhaug et al. 2006). Nevertheless, one of the key premises of a Nordic welfare state is that the state or the government has particular responsibility for the material or social welfare of its population, whether it is about protecting against poverty, or ensuring the health, education, and social participation of its citizens. Here, education is a vital pillar as the comprehensive school system an important tool for nation-­ building, constructing identity, and equalizing social differences. Consequently, public education is both the goal and the means for realizing the full potential of a Nordic social democratic utopia. As an implemented idea, public education aims at cultivating the next generation, while at the same time serving as a means for building, strengthening, justifying and developing the welfare state. In contrast to other European countries - such as Germany, UK, France and the Netherlands - the Nordic comprehensive school system includes everybody, from early years up to the university level (Telhaug et al. 2006). The rationale is, first, that there is a clear connection between economic growth and the population’s general level of education; second, that a comprehensive school system helps to equalize social differences; and third, that a comprehensive school system promotes communal identities and loyalties. In short, the Nordic model of ethical-political

1  Rethinking Ethical-Political Education – Beyond the Nordic Model

5

education mirrors a social democratic ideology of inclusion, equality, progressivism and pragmatism (Antikainen 2006). Nevertheless, the Nordic model should be conceived as an ideal type only. First, because current discourses on ethical-political education obviously mirror conflictual values and beliefs. Second, because there are manifest differences between the Nordic countries. Third, because the Nordic model - as “an attempt to construct a national education system on the foundation of specific local values and practices” - definitely is subject to transnational policies and influences (Antikainen 2006, p. 230). Despite the fact that the Nordic model of education is a shifting, more or less inconsistent ideology, the Nordic discourse on education mirrors a conviction that ethical-political education is a vital tool for building a nation. Moreover, that such education is a remedy against societal challenges. But to what degree do present-­ day philosophies, theories and programs on ethical-political education promote desirable values, worldviews and activities? What may be their potential prospects and pitfalls? Authors of this book explore these questions.

Youths in a World of Change The chapters included in the first part of this book set the stage by deliberating empirical studies on Nordic youth’s tangible experience and reflections on ethical-­ political issues. What does it mean to grow up in this world of change? How do Nordic youths describe and reflect upon their situation? What are to them the most pressing issues? What seems to be at stake? The authors here move close to Nordic youth’s daily life, opening up for dialogues that may help to reveal and reflect upon vital issues and ambiguous loyalties negotiated among these youths and between them and the larger society. In her chapter on Young Citizenship, Kristinn Hegna explores Nordic youths’ civic engagement and participation. To what extent do they participate in everyday civic activities? Are there signs of civic engagement? In other words, to what degree are young people passive or active citizens in school, leisure and family life? Hegna’s analysis is based on the 2016 ICCS study for Norway, Denmark, Finland and Sweden and concludes that today, Nordic youths seem to endorse conventional citizenship ideals. The next chapter – Philosophical and youth-studies perspectives on the participation imperative – examines the idea of political participation. Here, Tomi Kiillakoski, Mervi Kaukko, Rauno Huttunen and Hannu Heikkinen reinterpret some Finnish youth studies that reveal how young people’s interest in political participation now seems to be diminishing. However, to what degree can we trust these findings? After a diligent rereading, the authors conclude that the results are not unambiguous. First, it seems essential to distinguish between different arenas of participation. Next, to re-think the ways in which national or supranational political systems actually promote and justify youth participation. Third, to consider the close link between participation and recognition. Consequently, it seems pertinent to ask to what degree current education may help youth to navigate local and global challenges. Chapter 4  – Situating moral

6

T. Strand

education – explores this question. Here, Ole Andreas Kvamme reports a classroom study on how Norwegian 15 year’s olds consider the values and norms embedded in education for sustainable development. Through an attentive analysis, Kvamme finds that teachers tend to adopt a rule-based approach that overlooks the students’ diverse backgrounds and many-faceted experiences. In contrast to such a practice, Kvamme contends that we should bring the classroom diversity and the students’ local/global experiences into play in a well-informed and up-to-date pedagogy that helps to mediate the moral and the political, the local and the global. Following this line of thought, it is pertinent to consider the experiences of the numerous young asylum seekers arriving at the Nordic borders. In his chapter  – While we wait – Kalisha Wills does so. He reports a phenomenological study that addresses the lived experience of waiting as described by unaccompanied asylum-­ seeking minors. First, Wills depicts these young people’s tangible experiences of waiting as they deal with other aspects of life. Next, he explores their way of describing waiting as first, a lingering and worrying; second, as a delayed welcome to a new nation; and third, as a detached way of living. In short, this first part of the book portray Nordic youths many faceted lived experiences and reflections. The authors here draw attention to their various identities and loyalties. But to what degree do current models of ethical-political education respond to and encourage a democratic will formation?

Educational Philosophies, Old and New The second part of this book includes six chapters that explore some potential powers and pitfalls of educational philosophies, old and new. One dilemma may be the embeddedness of educational philosophies and theories, and thus their lack of ontological awareness. Honneth (2015), for example, emphasizes that philosophers, such as Plato, Herder, Rousseau, Kant and Dewey all developed their models of ethical-political education as responses to historical situations quite different from the complex situations of today’s world of change. Moreover, Toulmin (1990) exposes the hidden, but yet persistent agenda of political philosophies of the West: A vision of society as rationally ordered as the Newtonian view of nature. Conventional Western images may thus not only fail to recognize the non-western representations carried by Nordic citizens, but they may also overlook the potential values of the creative hubbub of today’s world of change. The authors of the chapters included in this part of the book aim to move beyond such conventional theories and orthodox beliefs. In his chapter on Encouragement and appeal, Henrik Vase Frandsen throws a critical eye on Dietrich Benner’s (2015) well-known theory of education. Focus is Benner’s way of solving the famous Kantian paradox: How can we – through external influence – raise children that do not let themselves be determined by external influences? Benner aims to solve this paradox through an educational practice named “encouragement”. However, Frandsen questions Benner’s solipsism, which

1  Rethinking Ethical-Political Education – Beyond the Nordic Model

7

to him mirrors a distorted idea of freedom. The self, Frandsen holds, is not isolated, but rather a being concurrently oriented towards freedom and subjection. In the next chapter – Towards educational justice – Teemu Hanhela elegantly demonstrates the ways in which Axel Honneth’s political theory of recognition captures the perspectives of the worst offs. In doing so, he places the experiences of the excluded at the forefront in his search for a theory of justice relevant to education. However, Hanhela identifies some weaknesses in Honneth, which illustrate the difficulties in theorizing the tacit experiences of the excluded. This goes well with Kalisha Wills’ deliberations in Chap. 5. However, Hanhela concludes his chapter by outlining how an emphasis on pedagogical aspects may further Honneth’s theory. In her chapter on Citizenship education and the role of immigrant students in the Nordic countries, Anniina Leiviskä holds that the previous Nordic vision of schools as arenas of social equality is now eroding. The Nordic model increasingly marginalizes students with immigrant backgrounds. One problem, among others, seems to be the “patriotic” idea of citizenship education. However, Leiviskä claims that no liberal democratic society can justifiably demand that immigrants endorse a given Danish, Swedish, Norwegian or Finnish identity. However, what we justifiably can demand  - of both immigrants and the majority population  - is reasonableness. Leiviskä maintains that a Rawlsian “political” model of citizenship education promotes such reasonableness. The link between citizenship education and deliberative politics is also at the heart of Asger Sørensen’s chapter on Bildung as democratic opinion and will formation. However, Sørensen holds a different outlook than Leiviskä, as he here performs a close reading of Habermas’ theory of deliberative democracy. Sørensen claims that democratic citizenship education would benefit from a substantial notion of Bildung. However, he finds that Habermas cannot support such an argument. In contrast to Sørensen’s somewhat dystopic outlook, Kjetil Horn Hogstad argues– in his chapter Towards a plastic starting point – that Catherine Malabou’s concept of change may open up for a rethinking of ethical-political education. In doing so, Hogstad identifies and revisits three main moments in Malabou’s philosophy: First, her re-elaboration of Hegelian dialectics as the process through which change happens. Next, the open potentiality of the event, as explored in Heidegger. Third, change as driven by, and dependent on, concepts and schematization, as implied by Derrida. These three moments, Hogstad holds, may open up for a rethinking of the onto-epistemic imaginaries beyond ethical-political education. The last chapter of this part of the book also discusses the potential powers and pitfalls of educational theories and philosophies. Claudia Schumann – in her chapter What is called thinking in education?  – draws attention to a lack of ontological awareness. Taking Martin Heidegger’s famously controversial lecture series What is called thinking (1951–1952) as a starting point, she discusses which forms of thinking, which methods and bodies of knowledge are promoted, and which are marginalized and devalued within the academic discipline of education. A narrow understanding of objectivity and rationality can hinder a serious consideration of ethical-political issues. In line with Alice Crary (2016), Schumann argues that the education of our sensitivities is vital for getting a rational grasp of our (educational)

8

T. Strand

realities. Schumann thus questions the forms of thinking encouraged by contemporary educational sciences. In short, the chapters included in the second part of this book move beyond conventional models of ethical-political education, while questioning their potentials to shape, justify, uphold and direct shared and desirable images, values, norms and practices. But how do these models respond to the most pressing issues within today’s world of change?

Rethinking Ethical-Political Education Again, are there prospects of a fruitful rethinking of ethical-political education in response to today’s most pressing issues? Chapters included in the third part of this book aims to respond by deliberating topics relevant to contemporary education, such as cosmopolitanism, post-humanism, social media and the post-truth society. In his chapter on a growing need for cosmopolitan imagination in education  – Educational Cosmopolitanism: Education beyond Nationalist and Globalist Imaginations  – Niclas Rönnström discusses dilemmas of traditionally nation-­ centered and recently developed globalist ways of imagining society and education. To avoid the constraints and pitfalls of both, he proposes a rooted imaginary cosmopolitanism, which to him is a third road yet to be taken and a pertinent response to both inward nationalist views and globalist economic views of education. In the next chapter  – Pragmatism, Education and the Problem of Pluralism  – Henrik Rydenfelt explores the concept of pluralism, which is vital to contemporary ethical-political education. However, the concept of pluralism is somewhat vague. In addition, pluralist views seem hard to defend without submitting to relativism. Drawing on philosophical pragmatism, Rydenfelt here aims to meet these criticisms. In Chap. 14 – Re-conceptualizing the subject-citizen of Bildung in a post-human world  – Carol Taylor identifies post-humanism as a shift in terms of a re-­ conceptualizing of the subject-citizen of Bildung. She thereby portrays post-­ humanism as an ethical-political project aiming at more inclusive, socially just pedagogies in higher education. In her chapter on Challenges and Possibilities of Media-based Public Dialogue Minna-Kerttu Kekki claims that radical dialogue is vital to democracy. In contemporary pluralist societies, however, stereotyping and misunderstandings are major and common obstructions of radical dialogues. Nevertheless, Kekki carefully portrays a self-reflective attitude as the key to overcoming these obstacles. All since antiquity, philosophers have explored education as a process initiated by the experience of truth (aletheia) (Badiou 2012, Heidegger 1940, Plato 1993). Consequently, Jørgen Huggler – in his chapter on The Educative Process and its Relation to Truth  – claims that education without a commitment to truth seems senseless. Theories of truth are thus vital to theories and philosophies of education, not least within today’s “post-truth society”. Exploring two present-day examples – first, the algorithms and data targeting of internet search technology and, second,

1  Rethinking Ethical-Political Education – Beyond the Nordic Model

9

propaganda and disinformation  – Huggler demonstrates ways in which truth and critique are significant to ethical and political formation. However, we should not overlook the fact that education implies a social relation, a relation between a child and a pedagogue. In the next chapter – What causes education? – Kirsten Hyldgaard explores this relation through a diligent reading of Lacan. Etymologically, education derives from Latin educere (to lead out) or educare (to nourish). Education means to lead. Hyldgaard carefully demonstrates how the image from ancient Greece, of the pedagogue as the slave accompanying the child to school, goes well with the Lacanian way of thinking the pedagogical relation as a social relation in which the pedagogue cannot be considered the master. In the last chapter – Here and Now – Torill Strand sets out to explore to what degree Alain Badiou’s anti-philosophy may represent a way of re-thinking philosophy of education in face of the current situation. In the first part of this chapter, she maps out the many faces of current philosophies of education. Next, she performs a close reading of Alain Badiou’s philosophical position. In the third part of the chapter, she compares and contrasts Badiou’s position with some contemporary philosophies of education.

References Antikainen, A. (2006). In search of the Nordic model in education. Scandinavian Journal of Education, 50(3), 229–243. Badiou, A. (2012). Plato’s republic. Cambridge: Polity press. Benner, D. (2015). Allgemeine Pädagogik. Eine systematisch-problemgeschichtliche Einführung in die Grundstruktur pädagogischen Denkens und Handelns. Weinheim: Juventa. Bottici, C. (2014). Imaginal politics. Images beyond imagination and the imaginary. New York: Columbia University Press. Castoriadis, C. (1987). The imaginary institution of society. Cambridge: Polity Press. Crary, A. (2016). Inside ethics. On the demands of moral thought. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Dewey, J. (1985 [1916]). Democracy and education. Carbondale: Southern Illinois press. Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The tree worlds of welfare capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2005). Universities and the global knowledge economy: A triple Helix of industry-university-government relations. London: Continuum. Frimansson, G.  H. (2006). Is there a Nordic model in education? Scandinavian Journal of Education, 50(3), 223–228. Fukuyama, F. (2015). Why is democracy performing so poorly? Journal of Democracy, 26(1), 11–20. Heidegger, M. (1940). Plato’s doctrine of truth. In: McNeill (ed.) (1998). Martin Heidegger, Pathmarks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Held, D. (2006). Models of democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press. Hilson, M. (2015). The Nordic model. Scandinavia since 1945. London: Reaktion books. Holma, K., & Kontinen, T. (2015). The rocky road of growth into contemporary citizenship: Dewey, Gramsci and the method of democracy. Studier i Pædagogisk Filosofi, 4(2), 24–37. Honneth, A. (1998). Democracy as reflexive cooperation. Political Theory, 26(6), 763–783.

10

T. Strand

Honneth, A. (2015). Education and the democratic public sphere. A neglected chapter of political philosophy. In O.  Lysaker & J.  Jakobsen (Eds.), Recognition and freedom: Axel Honneth’s political thought. Brill: Leiden. Horlacher, R. (2016). The educated subject and the German concept of Bildung. A comparative cultural history. New York: Routledge. Jaeger, W. (1973). Paideia: The ideals of Greek culture. New York: Oxford University Press. Kant, I. (1979 [1798]). Conflict of the faculties. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Koselleck, R. (2004). Futures past. On the semantics of historical time. New York: Columbia. Kymlicka, W., & Norman, W. (1994). Return of the citizen: A survey of recent work on citizenship theory. Ethics, 104(January), 352–381. Marshall, T. H. (1949). Citizenship and social class. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. Moutsios, S. (2018). Society and education. An outline of comparison. London: Routledge. Plato. (1993). Republic. A new translation by Robin Waterfield. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sørensen, Ø., & Stråth, B. (Eds.). (1997). The cultural construction of Norden. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press. Strand, T. (2006). The social game of early childhood education. The case of Norway. In Einardsdottir & Wagner (Eds.), Nordic childhoods and early education. Philosophy, research, policy, and practice in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden (pp.  71–99). Greenwich: Information Age Publishing. Strand, T. (2009). The epistemology of early childhood education. The Case of Norway. VDM Verlag Dr. Müller Aktiengesellschaft & Co. Strand, T. (2015). Thinking Democracy and Education for the Present: The Case of Norway after July 22, 2011. In: Jezierska, K. & Koczanowicz, L. (eds.) (2015). Democracy in dialogue. Dialogue in democracy (pp. 177–192). London: Ashgate. Straume, I. (Ed.). (2013). Danningens filosofihistorie [History of educational ideas]. Oslo: Gyldendal akademisk. Taylor, C. (2004). Modern social imaginaries. Durham: Duke University Press. Taylor, C. A. (2016). Is a posthumanist Bildung possible? Reclaiming the promise of Bildung for contemporary higher education. Higher Education, 23(March 2016), 1–17. Telhaug, A. O., Mediås, O. A., & Aasen, P. (2006). The Nordic model in education: Education as part of the political system in the last 50 years. Scandinavian Journal of Education, 50(3), 245–283. Toulmin, S. (1990). Cosmopolis. The hidden agenda of modernity. Chicago: University of Chicago press. von Humboldt, W. (2000 [1793]). Theory of Bildung. In: Westbury, Hopman and Riquarts (eds.). Teaching as a reflective practice. The German Didaktik tradition. London: Lawrence Erlbaum. Torill Strand  (b. 1957) is Professor at the University of Oslo, Department of Education. Her competencies range from meta-theory to social epistemologies, educational philosophy and theory, cosmopolitanism, and semiotics. Strand has written and edited numerous books and special issues and published widely in international journals. Recent publications are Alain Badiou and Education (2020), Reification as a forgetting (2019), “I create silence”: Revisiting the ancient dispute between poetry and philosophy (2017), and Cinema, Philosophy and Education (forthcoming).

Part I

Youths in a World of Change

Chapter 2

Young Citizenship: Civic Engagement and Participation in Four Nordic Countries Kristinn Hegna

Abstract  Since the beginning of the 2000s several studies have expressed a strong concern about young people’s lack of interest in political issues and their low degree of political participation through traditional channels. This chapter aims to describe the civic engagement and participation of young Nordic people today by investigating the extent to which they participate in everyday civic activities and show signs of civic engagement. Participation in school democracy, local youth organisations and organisations with socio-political aims such as environmental issues, or engaging in discussions with family or friends on social and political issues shows how young people are active as citizens in their own right. At the same time, these activities and networks are important for the socialisation of youth for democracy. Young people’s engagement as young citizens and seeing themselves as voters and active political participants in adulthood is important for the reproduction and renewal of democracy. In this chapter, we address the question of to what degree young people are passive or active citizens in school, leisure and family contexts. The analyses are based on the ICCS study in 2016 for Norway, Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Keywords  Youth · Citizenship · Civic participation · Civic engagement · ICCS 2016

Introduction Young people’s participation in democratic processes and their socialisation into competent future voters and citizens is essential for the future of democracy. Two of the basic functions of the civic and citizenship education of youth is thus to qualify

K. Hegna (*) Department of Education, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 T. Strand (ed.), Rethinking Ethical-Political Education, Contemporary Philosophies and Theories in Education 16, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49524-4_2

13

14

K. Hegna

and socialise them into citizenship (Biesta 2009) in an effort to contribute to the reproduction of the democratic system that they will be part of as adults. To achieve this, the existing knowledge and truths about what it takes to sustain a living democracy need to be integrated with a sense of citizenship in the younger generations. This establishes a society’s ethical-political education at the heart of discussions not only about which values and beliefs should be conveyed in education, but also about whether the classroom actually reflects modern societies’ complexities in such a way that is the best place to anchor this education. With its potential to ‘shape, justify, uphold and direct shared images, values, norms and practices’ (Strand, this volume), ethical-political education must be related to young people’s everyday life experiences in such a way that societal change and re-thinking of citizenship is possible. One critique of the civic education of youth for instance in the United Kingdom, is that it is arranged in such a way that its focus is mainly on imparting facts and knowledge about the established democratic institutions, standards and practices (Gholami 2017)  – thus preserving and strengthening the existing democracy, but also in a way teaching democratic obedience to younger generations. Paradoxically, the period of youth is often described as a time of life in which the individual is particularly sensitive to social change and may even act as a driver of social change. Generational change has often been described in terms of opposition to the previous generation or to the establishment (Mannheim 1952, see also Ødegård 2016 for a discussion). However, the current generation seems rather to be described as apolitical and disinterested in politics. In this chapter, I will discuss young people’s civic engagement and participation today based on analyses of The International Civic and Citizenship Study (ICCS) 2016. Are youth in the Nordic countries active, engaged and participating as citizens in the ways that are available to them, or are they passive and disengaged?

 ociological Perspectives on Young People’s Civic and Political S Participation and Engagement Since the beginning of the 2000s, several studies have expressed a strong concern about young people’s seemingly increasing lack of interest in political issues and their low degree of participation through traditional political channels (see, for example Furlong and Cartmel 2007; Harris 2009; Keeter et al. 2002; Torney-Purta et al. 2001). These descriptions of youth as apolitical or apathetic on one hand, are contrasted by other studies that portray this youth generation as having marginal but spectacular and oppositional youth cultures on the other (Harris et al. 2010). Harris et al. (2010) argue that neither stories may be telling the ‘truth’ about a whole generation of youth – ‘normal’ youth is rather to be found somewhere in the middle. Perspectives that primarily relate young people’s lack of involvement in social issues and politics to characteristics of the youths themselves – such as their lack of knowledge about democracy and citizenship  – have been criticised for

2  Young Citizenship: Civic Engagement and Participation in Four Nordic Countries

15

individualising the lack of political engagement and rebellion in youth and making it the responsibility of young people to engage themselves (Bastedo 2015; Cammaerts et al. 2014; Edwards 2007; Kimberlee 2002). In contrast to individualising perspectives, other contributions thus point to society’s responsibility for enabling this process, and describe a wide range of social and structural barriers to their engagement and participation. Wyn and White (1996) describe the youth phase as a gradual movement from the child’s social position as vulnerable and dependent, to an increasingly socially meaningful position in social structures and institutions, where their participation in political processes is seen as desirable and expected (see also Øia 1995). A qualitative study of adolescents in Australia has shown important barriers to political engagement among youth. For instance young people perceived politicians as unresponsive, and felt that youth were excluded by the political language or their lack of practical knowledge required to be included in the political sphere (Harris et al. 2010). The gap between young people’s everyday lives and their civic and political concerns on the one hand, and the ‘adult’ world of politics on the other, contributed to this feeling of marginalisation. A claim to the same effect is presented by Gholami (2017) who contends that civic education in British schools tends to emphasise the types of civic knowledge mostly related to conventional citizenship and its institutions. This is also true for Norway and Denmark, according to the ICCS 2016 study, but not for Finland and Sweden (Schulz et al. 2018a). Gholami (2017) claims that reducing civic education to information about for instance the national assembly and electoral arrangements, further contributes to demarcating young people’s everyday citizenship and social policy activities from what counts as ‘citizenship’, and thus to define youth as ‘non-­ participating’. Teachers of ethical-political education in the Nordic countries mark students’ independent and critical thinking as one of their top three priorities in their teaching, more often than teachers from other ICCS 2016 participating countries do (Schulz et  al. 2018a). Preparing the students for future political engagement and promoting participation locally, however, was hardly mentioned by Nordic teachers as a priority. Thus, the actual ethical-political education given in the Nordic countries, may be in danger of the same. The types of youth engagement described by Harris et al. (2010) and Gholami (2017) however, underlines the importance of understanding the involvement of young people in everyday citizenship activities, in a perspective of here and now. Rather than describing youth in line with the idea of youth’s marginal status as becoming citizens who have the potential for participation (‘human becomings’, see Farthing 2010), a youth-centred view acknowledges youth’s status as citizens in their own right. In this chapter, we will use a youth-centred, everyday perspective on youth’s citizenship, civic engagement and participation. This perspective is inspired by Thomson et al. (2004) who in their study took a ‘subjective approach to citizenship in which participation is not deferred to some distant future in which economic independence is achieved, but is understood as constantly constructed in the present’ (p. 218). Such an approach would interpret teens’ intentions to participate in elections and political processes in the future as an expression of their

16

K. Hegna

socio-­political self-esteem, interest and emotional commitment today, and their ‘commitment to civic participation’ (Kahne and Sporte 2008, p.  738). From this perspective, young people are understood as independent actors who are ‘already actively involved in claiming, resisting and negotiating a range of competing responsibilities and freedoms’ (Thomson et al. 2004, p. 221). A parallel to this perspective on everyday participation can be found in Putnam’s (1995) definition of civic engagement as ‘people’s connections to life in the community, not only to politics’ (Putnam 1995, p. 665). In this chapter, we will depart from a youth-centred understanding of civic participation, engagement and commitment. Civic participation is operationalised as participation in school democracy and in civic organisations in line with Keeter et al. (2002) typology. Civic engagement is operationalised as youth having discussions about politics and community issues with parents and friends, as well as perceiving themselves as active future citizens through future electoral participation and active political participation.

 revious Research on Social Policy Participation P and Involvement Among Young People The results of the ICCS 2016 test of civic knowledge indicated that the level of civic knowledge and understanding of democracy and citizenship among students in Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Norway is significantly higher than the international average, and also  that it increased markedly in Norway and Sweden from 2009 to 2016 (Huang et al. 2017; Schulz et al. 2018a). The four Nordic countries all had more than half of their students at the top level of the test, describing the students as demonstrating reasoning and ‘a holistic knowledge and understanding of civic and citizenship concepts’ as well as “some critical perspective’ (Schulz et al. 2018a, p xvi). This knowledge is, however, not equally distributed in the student population. Gender differences are larger in the Nordic countries than elsewhere, whereas the impact of parental education is low in Finland and Norway, but not in Sweden and Denmark (Huang et al. 2018). The ICCS 2016 survey results show that the Nordic youth reported higher levels of institutional and political trust, compared to youth from other countries (Huang et al. 2018). Based on this source of knowledge, the Nordic model of education to a large degree seem to build on discourses of ethical-political education which shape and justify the values, norms and practices that often are – perhaps stereotypically – described as the Nordic ‘fabric’ of society; trust, but fail to succeed in equalizing differences in all Nordic countries. Several studies have also shown that there is a connection between knowledge and understanding of democracy and citizenship and participation in school democracy (Fjeldstad et al. 2010; MCEETYA 2009). A longitudinal study of teen minority students from poor neighbourhoods in Chicago (USA), investigated what characterised those who reported an increasing commitment to political participation over a

2  Young Citizenship: Civic Engagement and Participation in Four Nordic Countries

17

two-year period. Students who received civic education in the classroom, who spoke with their parents about civic issues or participated in youth organisations, showed a trend of increasing commitment to future political participation (Kahne and Sporte 2008). These studies seem to indicate that civic knowledge could contribute to higher engagement and participation among todays’ youth. However, research from a Swedish context questions this finding by showing that citizenship skills and knowledge rather seem to be related to family background (Ekman and Zetterberg 2010). Students that already are provided with a beneficial home background scored higher on the political literacy test and future active political citizenship than students with parents with lower levels of education (Ekman and Zetterberg 2010). From a socialisation perspective, ‘recruitment networks’ (Verba et al. 1995) such as the family, schools and organisations play a central role in civic engagement and political participation. Moreover, Ekman and Zetterberg (2010) claim that political socialisation is increasingly taking place in the family and outside of school. A study in Australia also showed that participation in the local community and social policy activities increased students’ intentions for future political participation more than being taught civic issues at school (Reichert and Print 2018). In the present study, active and engaged citizenship is operationalised across the arenas available for students’ engagement; we include peer networks and activities, family activities, school participation as well as indicators of individual identity as a future citizen.

Research Questions The overall aim of this chapter is to investigate the extent and character of civic participation and engagement among youth in four Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden) based on analyses of the ICCS 2016 Study. By utilising a wide range of indicators of civic participation and engagement, we identify groups of youth showing particularly high degrees of engagement and participation. Absence of the same indicators shows a corresponding lack of involvement and participation. In this chapter, we address the question of whether there are differences between the four Nordic countries in the indicators and in the degree of active and passive civic engagement and participation? Lastly, we investigate the relationship between the educational aspirations of youth and their civic engagement and participation. Is active and passive citizenship more widespread in certain groups of youth?

Methods and Analyses The analyses for this chapter are based on survey data from the Danish (N = 6254), Swedish (N = 3264), Norwegian (N = 6271) and Finnish (N = 3173) youth included in the International Civic and Citizenship study (ICCS) 2016. The study is an

18

K. Hegna

ongoing, comparative research program investigating the ways in which young people are prepared to undertake their roles as citizens across the world (Schulz et al. 2018a, b). In 2016, 24 countries participated in the study. The respondents were students with a mean age of 14.3–14.7 years, and the response rates of these four countries were 91 to 93%. The rigorous sampling and data collection procedures used are described in the technical report from the IEA (Schulz et al. 2018b). The data set was analysed using the IDB Analyzer, an IEA-developed program based on SPSS, as well as weighting variables as calculated by the IEA. The results therefore represent the population of Danish, Swedish, Norwegian and Finnish students aged 14–15 years in 2016. The description of the data set and the data collection procedures are described in the international technical report (Schulz et al. 2018b), and the main international results from the knowledge test and the survey material have previously been described by Schulz et al. (2018a). The results of the test and the survey in the participating Nordic countries have been published nationally. Twenty-four items were used to calculate the five indicator variables shown in Table 2.1. The analysis was built around a logic where the different indicators are used to construct two typologies, rather than scales or aggregates. A typology is a collective measure that implies that respondents are classified into categories based on their answers to first-order indicator variables (Babbie 2007). The purpose of this is to capture various forms of engagement and participation by giving the indicators a theoretically equal value. Typologies for active civic participation and active civic engagement, respectively, were constructed on the basis of participation in civic organisations (6 items), participation in school democracy (5 items in addition to voting in school council elections), future electoral participation (3 items), future active political participation (5 items) and discussions about social/political issues with friends and family (4 items). Furthermore, students were categorised as very active, rather active, average, rather passive or very passive respectively, based on their scores on the two typologies. The procedure is described in further detail in Hegna 2018. Independent variables are gender (boy/girl), immigrant background (two parents born abroad), parents’ highest completed education (higher education vs not) and students’ educational aspirations (secondary school or lower/short tertiary education/higher ed. (BA, MA or PhD). In addition, students’ interest in social and political issues (not at all interested – very interested) is included to confirm the value of the composite measure of active and engaged citizenship (Fig. 2.2).

 ivic engagement and Participation Among Youth C in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden We set out by conducting an initial analysis of the various indicator variables for civic participation and engagement. Participating in civic organisations, participating in school democracy, discussing civic issues with friends or family, seeing

2  Young Citizenship: Civic Engagement and Participation in Four Nordic Countries

19

Table 2.1  Indicators of active and passive youth citizenship among youth in four Nordic countries. Percent. Students 14–15 years old. Highest figures in bold. (ICCS 2016, weighted) DENMARK FINLAND NORWAY SWEDEN Civic participation Participation in civic organisations Participation in school democracy Civic engagement Future electoral participation Future active political participation Discussions about civic/political issues Civic non-participation Participation in youth or civic org. Participation in school democracy Civic disengagement Future electoral participation Future active political participation Discussions about civic/political issues

17

9

22

15

23

20

45

33

‘Certainly’ will vote in 28 the future ‘Certainly’ politically 29 active in the future Frequent discussions 20

23

48

36

8

17

19

11

13

17

67

36

56

38

18

19

4

8

6

4

19

49

42

35

5

14

12

10

Member in at least one civ.org last year Voted and otherwise active

Never a member in an 41 org. Never voted nor been 20 otherwise active ‘Most certain will NOT’ vote ‘Most certain will NOT’ be pol. active Never/almost never discussions

oneself as a future voter or a future active participant in political processes were all seen as indicators of civic participation and engagement among youth. The opposite, not participating in any types of organisations, not participating in school democracy, not discussing civic issues or not imagining oneself as a future voter, were interpreted as indicators of civic non-participation and disengagement. Table 2.1 shows the percentage of students for each of the 10 indicators for each of the four Nordic countries. Table 2.1 also depicts a large variation between the four Nordic countries. The students from Norway indicated more often that they were members of civic organisations and that they voted and otherwise participated in school democracy. They also more often saw themselves as future voters compared to students from the other countries. The students from Denmark more often saw themselves as politically active participants in the future, and more often had discussions with friends or family about civic and political issues. The students from Finland indicated the least participation and engagement in all of these indicators, and also indicated most often to never have been a member of a

20

K. Hegna

civic youth organisation, never been involved in school democracy, to almost never discuss civic and political issues with parents or friends, and not to see themselves as voting or actively participating politically in the future. In the further analysis, these five indicators were used to categorise the respondents into four categories based on their level of civic participation and engagement. These four categories identify groups that are characterised by either very low civic participation and very low civic engagement, or, at the other end of the spectrum, very high civic participation and very high civic engagement. In doing this, we found that the majority of the youth population is characterised by neither of these, forming a middle group with average participation and engagement. The specific indicators used in the study can exemplify the level of participation or engagement among the youth that are categorised as very active or very passive: Among the very active-group, 85% have participated in school democracy in more ways than just voting in a school election, 74% have participated in an environmental or human rights organisation or a political party youth organisation, 75% discuss social or political issues with their parents at least weekly, 94% will certainly participate in future local and central elections and 86% see themselves as politically active in the future. The very passive-group show very low levels of civic participation and engagement: 57% will ‘probably not’ vote neither locally nor centrally and 97% will not be politically active as adults, 69% have never discussed social or political issues nor ‘what is happening in other countries’ with their parents nor with friends and none of them have ever been members of any local youth organisation or participated in school democracy other than the obligatory school election.1 Figure  2.1 shows the percentage of students in the  ICCS 2016 study  categorised within these five groups across the Nordic countries. First of all, Figure 2.1 shows that the majority of the youth population – from 57 to 73% – is neither passive nor active citizens. Rather they form the ‘average middle’ that may vote when they get the chance and are engaged or participate on a medium level. Figure 2.1 also clearly shows that the students in Finland were more often categorised as rather passive or very passive, compared to the Scandinavian countries. These two categories comprise 36% of the Finnish students, which is more than twice as many as in the other countries. While 22% of the Norwegian students are categorised as rather or very active, only 6% of the Finnish students are in the same two categories. In the ICCS 2016 study, the students were also asked a question about their interest in social and political issues, which can be used to understand the level of interest reflected in their level of participation and engagement. Figure 2.2 shows the percentage of students who responded ‘very interested’ and ‘quite interested’ respectively, in each of the five categories of participation and engagement, for each country. 1  In Denmark, Sweden and Finland, the students have a right to form a student council and to vote in elections for that council, in Norway however, students have a duty to participate in elections for the student council. Due to this, to be active, participating in school democracy above voting was set as a criterion

2  Young Citizenship: Civic Engagement and Participation in Four Nordic Countries

21

Fig. 2.1  Categories of civic participation and engagement among youth in Sweden, Norway, Finland and Denmark. Percent. Youth 14–15 years old. (ICCS 2016, weighted)

Fig. 2.2  Degree of interest in social and political issues in different categories of civic participation and engagement among youth in Sweden, Norway, Finland and Denmark. Percent. Youth 14–15 years old. (ICCS 2016, weighted)

22

K. Hegna

Figure 2.2 reveals how the level of interest is clearly higher in the most active groups. Although the groups of very active and quite active students are very small in Finland, the students in these categories are far more interested in social and political issues than the comparable category in Norway and Denmark. It is interesting to see whether male and female students, students from different class or immigrant backgrounds or those with different educational aspirations show different patterns – both in general and between the countries. In comparing the two gender groups, we found that male and female students are equally active in all four countries. However, across countries, more of the male than female students are in the two passive groups. For instance, in Sweden 15% of the girls and 21% of the boys are categorised as passive (chisq 42,8, p