Citizenship Education – Between Social Inequality and the Promises of Modernity

For several reasons citizenship and democracy has moved into political and research focus. Socio-cultural tensions and inequalities created by globalisation processes boosted by neo-liberal modes of government seem to inspire a concern with “social cohesion”, and the European Community assigns a key role to education in engendering European democratic citizenship. It can be questioned whether it is within the scope of educational programmes to ensure social integration and democracy. However, to clarify the perspectives of the educational issue, the article discusses the conflicts and relationships between cultural identity and democracy within a framework of modernity before returning to the issue of education for democratic citizenship. It is shown on the basis of empirical studies that family background interacts with school factors in the reproduction of democratic inequalities. It is also indicated, however, that this must not be considered an unchangeable pedagogical fact, and the article briefly sketches a set of pedagogical and research challenges concerned with educating for democratic empowerment at different levels of school practice. Although this paper focuses on education and the educational system, the arguments and findings presented can also claim relevance for social pedagogy and social work, esp. in respect of recent developments that stress the educational dimensions of social work.

Marginalization of the Youth – a Current Societal Development?

The last two years a discussion on reforming the public sector has emerged. At its very heart we find important concepts like ‘quality reform’, ‘democracy’, and ‘development’. Recently I have presented an example of the ‘quality reform’ in SocMag, and this leads me to prolong that discussion on central themes on welfare state and democracy. Much energy is invested in arguing about management of the public sector: Do we need more competition from private companies? Do we need more control? Are more contracts concerning outcome needed? Can we be sure about the accountability needed from politicians? How much documentation, effectiveness measurement, bureaucracy, and evidence-based policy and practice are we looking for? A number of interesting questions – but strange enough we do not discuss the purpose of ‘keeping a welfare state’. What sort of understanding is lying behind the welfare state, and what kind of democracy are we drawing upon?

Democracy Concepts of the Fundamentalist Parties of Algeria and Tunisia – Claim and Reality

This article discusses democratic elements in early Islamic sources and in the programs of the Algerian FIS (Front Islamique du Salut) and ANNAHDA in Tunesia. According to historic writings, Islam includes the principles of democratic consensus, consultation, and freedom of opinion, and an understanding that the sources of Islamic jurisdiction are subject to interpretation, that the sharia can be changed, and that religious authorities’ power to issue instructions on worldly matters is limited. These are the type of expectations that fundamentalist parties arouse when they speak of an Islamic caliphate as a state system. Against this background, an examination of the political system proposed until 1992 by the Algerian FIS shows that this system would have resulted in a very restrictive form of Islam. An investigation of the political system of the Tunisian fundamentalist leader Rached al-Ghannouchi reveals that the system he proposes may be designated as an Islamic democracy, since it takes into account separation of powers and pluralism of political parties. The head of state would be subject to the law in the same manner as the people. However, it is no liberal democracy, as he categorically rejects secularism, intends to punish apostates, and is only willing to allow political parties that are based on the religion of Islam. His state would only be a state of those citizens who follow Islam, completely neglecting secularist groups. Social conflicts and unrest are thus predetermined.

Walter Friedländer (1891-1984) – Between Social Democracy and Social Darwinism

If the profession of social work is to have a future we must know where it came from, and the series of portraits of our pioneers is one of the paths into the origins of that profession. I feel grateful to the publishers for this online-journal and also honoured to be asked to continue the series on pioneers in social work. I gladly comply because, in connection with my research on Alice Salomon and other social workers who were expelled from Germany and other Nazi-occupied territories (Wieler1989 and 1995) I had the pleasure and privilege of meeting and interviewing Walter Friedländer shortly before he passed away. It is years ago that I visited him in his home among stacks of books and piles of papers. My memories are vivid. I still see his sparkling eyes and hear his soft voice with a very heavy German accent. I was most impressed by his memory of historical events and people which, it seemed, only a large hard-drive could retain these days. Now, I wish I had asked more questions but instead, we will have to rely largely on primary and secondary literature and box upon box of archival materials. I draw heavily on the comprehensive German and Jewish Intellectual Emigré Collection (http://library.albany.edu/speccoll/findaids/ger003.htm) which consists of nearly 50 cubic feet and another collection of the German Central Institute („Deutsches Zentralinstitut für Soziale Fragen-DZI“) in Berlin (www.dzi.de). Some of the more current archival materials were lost in a flood, and much of Friedländer’s early memorabilia up to 1933 was lost in Germany. There are also internet resources with widely differing information. I hope that I will not have overlooked too much in order to do justice to this remarkable pioneer and colleague. In order to appreciate and pay tribute to Walter Friedländer and his contributions we will have to reconsider the historical and international context of more than the 93 years of his life span: the German Monarchy, the Weimar Republic, Nazi-Fascism, Swiss, French and American exile and numerous visits to other countries.