Ulrike Sievers | I had frequently heard from colleagues that young people often feel like they are not really involved in their own learning processes and find it difficult to take responsibility for them. This came back to me when I listened to a podcast with Claudine Nierth from the Initiative for Direct Democracy, in which she talks about how people are given the opportunity to help shape things and actively take responsibility themselves through the opportunity to have a say and participate, for example in the form of referendums or citizens' consultation rounds – and thus identify more with the community. We also encounter these phenomena when it comes to the issue of self-administration. Those who are not involved in shaping the process are often skeptical and demanding – yes, demanding – and do not feel part of a process in which schools are shaped together. On the other hand, the people who are involved often experience this participation and the opportunity to help shape things as an enrichment as well as a burden. At the last delegates' conference, I spoke to a student from the Federal Association who expressed the wish to involve students more, for example in the development of the protection concept, which is about protecting everyone in the school, but the protection of students plays a central role. We Waldorf schools still seem to have a hard time involving parents and students in pedagogical issues and in school design.
The concern that their involvement could weaken important principles often seems to be greater than the confidence that everyone can contribute to making schools fit for the future.
Martyn Rawson | Our attitude towards certain ideas is often shaped by the understanding we have of their origins. The interesting thing about democracy is that it can be traced back to different origins.
It is usually traced to Athens between 508 and 322 BC, and indeed it was an important experiment that involved a system in which male citizens – the demos – had equal political rights, freedom of speech and the opportunity to participate in politics, and that this process was supported by institutions that enacted the laws. This system, which was also found in other cities, excluded women, resident foreigners and, of course, slaves, even though the entire economy of Athens depended on them.
This classic depiction of history overlooks the fact that many other cultures practiced sustainable forms of participatory democracy. It is well known that most hunter-gatherer communities lived egalitarian lives for many millennia. The most famous of these alternative systems was the Great Law of Peace of the Five Nations Confederacy of the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois), instituted in the 16th century by a man named Deganawideh Peacemaker and Jigonsaseh, a woman known as the Mother of Nations, or was also a revival of a much earlier process. This fundamentally inclusive, participatory and democratic process of governance was intended to maintain peace between the formerly hostile nations and regulate social relations. Many core ideas, such as the balance of power within the nation, were adopted by some of the founding fathers of the American Constitution, such as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. The Houdenosaunee Great Law of Peace was heavily influenced by the idea of social freedoms: Freedom of movement; the freedom to ignore the commands of others; and the freedom to shape society as seems personally expedient.
Another model of democracy was that of the Nonconformists and Dissenters in 17th and 18th century Britain. These radical Protestants believed that no institution could intervene or mediate between a person and their spirituality, so they did not tolerate priests or institutionalized religions. They believed that the spirit was in every person. This is why groups such as Calvinists, Quakers, Shakers, Baptists, Presbyterians and others advocated religious freedom and equality and justice for all, and thus against any form of discrimination and coercion by higher authorities.
US | Attitudes therefore play a central role regarding the question of democracy. In general social terms, our task at present is to recognize the existing diversity of people on the one hand and to regard them as equal on the other. As a result, we will probably always be faced with the question of whether there can or should be differences in terms of equality – whether, for example, certain groups should be allowed to make their own decisions on issues that only concern them. For example, I can think of discussions about women's right to self-determination in relation to issues concerning their bodies.
So do we need to define «the same in relation to»? Who should advise and decide on what? What qualifications are needed? When dealing with children and young people, there is also the question of how much participation I trust children and young people to have at what age – or, conversely, from what age I expect children and young people to make contributions and insights that I consider valuable. This is a controversial topic. While some people tend to involve very young children in all decisions, others say that this would overwhelm young children, that they need the certainty that adults will make the decisions, which they can then rely on and use as a guide.
What was Rudolf Steiner's position on the question of democracy? Does he say anything about how and when these issues become relevant for children and young people and what role they should play in education?
MR | Rudolf Steiner never lived in a democratic state and never voted, and it seems that he used the terms democratic and republican interchangeably. The Swedish professor Bo Dahlin has argued that Steiner's idea of democracy was based on the idea of education or the self-education of human's, because every human being can and will develop his innate potential if given the opportunity. This shows human beings' true relationship to society, for when each individual is free to develop their potential, they are able to put it at the service of the community and thus enable social renewal. This is the core idea of Waldorf education. In line with Steiner's social theory, social well-being is not promoted by society reproducing itself in its own image, but by enabling the free development of individuals. The Dutch educationalist Gert Biesta calls this «the beautiful risk of education».
US | Unfortunately, very few governments or education systems are willing to take this risk. Even Waldorf education often seems more than willing to put itself at the service of national standards, and colleagues spend a lot of energy fulfilling the requirements of state examinations in a way that is sometimes unnecessary and limits rather than enhances the actual potential of young people.
Comments
There are no comments yet
Add comment
Thank you for your comment. It will be published after review by the administrators.