Summary: 4.1 Ruitenberg; Educating Polical Adversaries: ...

Read the summary and the most important questions on 4.1 Ruitenberg; Educating polical adversaries: Chantal Mouffe and Radical Democratic Citizenship Education

• 1 Abstract

  This is a preview. There are 1 more flashcards available for chapter 1
  Show more cards here

• Why do many scholars take deliberative approaches to democracy, especially as put forward by Rawls, as their point of departure?

  From there they explore how students' capacity for political and/or moral reasoning can be fostered.

• What does the work by political theorist Mouffe do?

  It questions some of the central tenets of deliberative conceptions of democracy.

• How does Ruitenberg explain central differences between Mouffe's and Rawls's conceptions of democracy and politics?

  By taking Eamonn Callan's Creating Citizens as an example of Rawlsian political education and focus on the role of conflict and disagreement in his account. 
  
  Then Ruitenberg addresses three areas in which political education would need to change of it were to accept Mouffe's critiques of deliberative approaches to democracy and her proposal for an agonistic public sphere.

• What does Ruitenberg propose?

  That a radical democratic citizenship education would be an education of political adversaries (tegenstanders).

• 2 Creating Citizens after Rawls

  This is a preview. There are 1 more flashcards available for chapter 2
  Show more cards here

• What is the difference between the reasonable and rational for Rawls?

  The rational expresses a conception of aech participant's rational advantage, what, as individuals they are trying to advance. 
  
  The reasonable is incorporated into the background setup of the original position which frames the discussions of the parties and situaties them symmetrically. (?!)
  In other words: the rational pusruit of individual ends must be subordinate to the reasonable, as the principlas of the reasonable set limits to the final ends that can be pursued.

• What are "burdens of judgment"?

  According to Callan: Burdens of jugdment may arise as the contingent (toevallig) but inescapable imperfections of our capacity to reason together towards agreement. 
  
  For example; reasonable persons have access to conflicting and complex evidence that, moreover, they must interpret using their best judgment, and reasonable persons may disagree about the relative weight of shared considerations. (Rawls)

• According to Callan disagreements are not sterile differences of opnion, they involve emotions; how come?

  They involve commitments and attachments that demonstrate not a mere "choosing" of views but a more categorical "willing" of these views. 
  Because these views are willed categorically, they blyr the boundaries that Rawls sought to maintain between the political and the compehensive, between the public and private.

• Callan is concerned with the "centrifugal tendencies inherent in pluralism", and that these forces should be counteracted, how?

  Particularistic political attachments are critically important in counteracting these dispersive forces. 
  The virtue of justice as reasonableness must focus on the realm of the political for counteracting the centrifugal forces of particularistic private or comprehensive attachments that continue to pose the threat of tribilazation and disintegration of the polity.

• In order to prevent individuals from being drawn away from civic engagement, what does Callan propose?

  Callan proposes a "patritic solidarity" as a particularistic political attachment.

• What according to Callan can "patriotic solidarity" do?

  It can act as a unifying political convictin and loyalty that counteracts the dispersive effects of private and comprehensive convictions and loyalties.