22
And how will the country be defended, some may ask? Can’t the discussion
offered here be regarded as merely an intellectual exercise, which would at best be
ridiculed by the mobilized public sphere, and at worst put the country’s safety at risk by
encouraging youth to question the policies rather than contributing to the war effort?
The possibility of ridicule and rejection always exists when one aims at opposing
the social tide. Proponents of ridiculed oppositional educational policies, such as
desegregation, were being mocked and shouted at on their way to school. But the justice
of the radical policy managed to overpower the mainstream belief that racial segregation
was the only possible way (at least at the proclaimed level).
As to the concern that the teaching of critical thought could lead to a decline in
volunteerism, consequently endangering the survival of the country, I suspect that the
power of education – although I dearly believe in it – is not significant enough when
other social institutions do not join in. when the political debate is focused on
manifestations of patriotic unity, and the public sphere is swarmed with expressions of
belligerent citizenship, there should be little concern about the inclination of youngsters
to enlist. Schools can preserve a thicker sense of patriotism, a stronger commitment to
democracy, and hopefully encourage some citizens and future citizens to think again
about the policies that affect their lives. Some students may choose to defend their
country when their government calls them; other may choose to defend their country
against their government. Schools alone can support the persistence of social values, but
they cannot change policies and attitudes by themselves. If other social institutions or
groups join in the effort to expand the public agenda, to accept various forms of
patriotism, and possibly to envision a different future – then maybe the joined forces can
promote the cause of peace.
Convention