Citizenship Reframed: Lessons from Theory and Practice

in the U.S. and Abroad

 

Cynthia L. Miller^[1]

Department of Sociology, University of Michigan

 

 

 

Although schools and educational institutions generally posit broad goals for citizenship education, such as having students emerge from school as thoughtful, critical thinkers and engaged problem-solvers, the strategies by which students are taught citizenship often do not fully reflect these goals. In the U.S., most of existing citizenship education curricula and civics classroom practices are still focused heavily on teaching students knowledge and facts about government.  In other words, despite the broad goals of citizenship education, in practice, it is largely separate from the rest of school life, segregated into instructional civic education units on the mechanistic workings of government.  Clearly, at some point, a disconnect emerges between the goals of citizenship education and the implementation of civics in schools.

 

How might this disconnect have developed? I suggest that many of the assumptions that underlie strategies for citizenship education have derived from the ways in which citizenship itself is understood in theoretical terms. Traditional citizenship frameworks, I will show, depict individuals' identities and roles as citizens as operating in opposition with their roles and identities in other aspects of their lives, such as in the workplace or as members of groups based on gender or ethnic and regional identity, among others. As an alternative to these oppositional frameworks, I suggest that we might use the theoretical concept of the public sphere to help derive a set of skills and qualities that students need to learn in order to engage effectively in public life as well as in other aspects of their lives.  Looking at theories of public engagement through the lens of the public sphere can help shed light on ways in which school, community, and classroom practice can connect more clearly with the standards and goals that educators, policymakers, and school leaders have set for civics and citizenship education.^[2] In closing, I draw on examples from practice in both the U.S. and abroad, that illustrate how practitioners and policymakers are trying to devise ways in which these skills might be taught in schools, communities, and experiential education settings.

 

Citizenship in Theory: Individual and Collective Oppositions

Citizenship education curriculum and assessment tools derive from broader theoretical notions about citizenship in general.  What does it mean to be a citizen?  What are appropriate ways to teach young people to be citizens? In the following sections, I refer to the theoretical constructs that help to answer these questions as "citizenship frameworks." Contemporary citizenship frameworks have tended to operate along oppositional axes, presenting citizenship as a singular identity that conflicts or competes with other group or individual identities.  As I describe in further detail below, this happens both on the individual level (e.g., where an identity as a citizen competes with an individual's roles and identities at work or in the family), and at the collective level, whereby citizenship is framed as a unitary national identity that conflicts with the demands of multicultural or diverse ethnic or regional identities.

 

Individual oppositions: roles and individual identities

Individuals' citizenship identities have typically been understood in opposition to other identities and roles.  The identity of the citizen, within current citizenship frameworks, operates in competition (for time, resources, and loyalty) with other individual identities. This competitive framework has very clear historical origins. Citizenship was historically denied, for example, to women and slaves, whose responsibilities were tied to the private sphere-in material, productive, domestic, or reproductive relationships-because these relationships were viewed as wholly separate from the public sphere, or even as competitive with it.  (See Kerber 1998; Pocock, 1995: 32-3) Categorical denial of citizenship, therefore, was established on the grounds of difference, whether that difference was attributed to mental, physical, or emotional weakness, or divisions of labor that limited certain groups to domestic work or reproduction. Moreover, such exclusion was grounded in the absolute, incontestable authority of "nature."  (Scott, 1996: x)

 

These formal categorical boundaries were contested and broken down-over the course of the last century and a half-- through the anti-slavery, suffrage, civil rights, and feminist movements, among others.  But the established public/private distinction persisted, and remains today one of the primary influences on the framing of citizenship as an oppositional identity.  The historical understanding of citizen roles and obligations as wholly separate from kinship, domestic, labor, or material obligations has evolved into a dominant citizenship discourse which frames procedural rights and responsibilities to the community as distinct from outside obligations and memberships.  Walzer (1995: 156) articulates this view when he contends that individuals' engagement in the economy may interfere with loyalty to the political community.  The value of work, he contends, "expressed in commitment to a career, pride in a job well done, a sense of camaraderie in the workplace¼ (is) competitive with the values of citizenship."

 

Why is the strict separation of citizen identity from other identities and roles an inadequate characterization? On the one hand, it is important to note that our private interests have always been tightly intertwined with our public interests and actions. (See, e.g., Wolfe, 1995: 241-42.) In this sense, participation in the public sphere not only does not always compete with individuals' lives, identities, desires, and interests- but rather results from individuals' engagement based on beliefs and values that they have developed in and brought with them from their private lives.  On the other hand, however (and perhaps more central to this discussion), many of the skills, qualities, and characteristics needed for effective citizenship and posited as broad goals for student learning in schools, such as critical thinking, problem-solving, and communication, among others, are also skills that are important and useful in private realms of life-in families, in the workplace, or in other relationships. When this is taken into consideration, it seems much more logical to consider citizenship identity not as a wholly separate sphere of individuals' lives, but rather as overlapping with or complementary to individuals' lives outside of areas that are traditionally thought to fall into the realm of citizenship. The following section contends that a similar pattern holds for the relationship between citizenship identity and other group or collective identities.

 

Collective Oppositions: Identity Politics and Democratic Citizenship

Individual identities and roles are tied very closely to group identities.  Even as we endeavor to distinguish ourselves from those around us, we establish commonalties with those who are similarly distinguished.^[3]  (Calhoun 1995: 193) Since individual identities are closely interwoven with group identities, it is not surprising that a similar oppositional pattern emerges in discussions of citizenship and group identity.

 

In the North American context, the reform of and introduction of new curricula and standards in subjects such as history, English, and social studies over the past two decades have been wrought with debate about the identities and histories of various groups. A central goal of multiculturalism movements, for example, has been the attempt to better recognize the identities, histories, and participation of disadvantaged minorities. (See, e.g., Gutmann, 1994: McCarthy, 1993: 289.) Much of the discussion of multiculturalism and diversity, however, has been framed in direct opposition to citizenship identity and civic education, whose goals have often focused more on unity and coherence rather than diversity and difference. The "unity" of national citizenship, within many curricular battles, stands inherently in tension with the "diversity" of multicultural, multi-ethnic populations. Parker (1997) explains that recent research and writing on citizenship education and multicultural education has exacerbated this divide. The literature on multicultural education, he explains, "has harbored a view of citizenship education as something that is inherently oppressive," while even liberal proponents of citizenship education have equated diversity with divisiveness and balkanization. (p. 12)

 

This tension between unity and diversity has led educators to treat citizenship education and multicultural education as two separate aspects of schooling: one oriented toward a broader understanding of diverse cultures, and the other focused on the unifying aspects (i.e., rights and responsibilities) of citizenship in a democratic state.^[4]  As a result, multicultural education is reduced to a focus on the inclusion of "authentic" or "accurate" representations of particular cultures, with the aim of thereby increasing tolerance (See Britzman et al.), while citizenship education is reduced to civic education, restricted to autonomous units within the social studies curriculum and aimed at an explanation of the workings of democratic government.

 

In summary, the language of group identities, whether discussed in terms of postmodernism, identity politics, multiculturalism, or communitarianism, have each been framed in opposition to the discourse of democratic citizenship.  But they have also framed themselves in opposition to each other.  Frameworks for discussing collective identity, responsibility, and participation have developed as distinct and enclosed spheres.  But what is the role of a citizen?  How are individuals prepared for their roles as citizens?  In the following sections, I explore the public sphere as an alternative theoretical framework for thinking about citizenship and civic education. Thinking about citizenship in terms of participation in the public sphere, I argue, allows us to move beyond the kinds of oppositional citizenship frameworks discussed above and to turn toward alternative instructional and pedagogic strategies.

 

The Public Sphere as a Site of Participatory Citizenship

Recent academic discussions of the nature of democracy and democratic citizenship have centered on the vital role of the public sphere in establishing the conditions for democracy.^[5]  This is especially true since 1989, when the English translation of Habermas' Transformation of the Public Sphere coincided with radical social change in Eastern Europe, sparking renewed interest in issues of democracy, public engagement, and civil society. Habermas described the emergence of public debate as it evolved from literary criticisms and discussions taking place in coffeehouses in the 18^th century in Europe.  Gradually, these discussions expanded to include matters of broader public and political interest, in particular about topics that concerned the "common good".  My understanding of the public sphere derives from an adapted version of Habermas' conception, as the following sections will elaborate.^[6]  In short, however, the public sphere denotes both the site and the medium of political participation.  It is the space in which citizens come together to critically debate, negotiate, and discuss matters of collective interest and issues of relevance to the state. (See, e.g., Calhoun, 1992)

 

Indeed, as many scholars have pointed out, there are in fact multiple public spheres, bridging political and economic society as well as civil society. (Cohen & Arata, 1992: ix-x) For the purposes of this paper, I suggest that the importance of the public sphere rests less in how the public sphere(s) is conceived than in the ways in which it denotes civic engagement and participatory citizenship. What might it take for an individual to participate in the public sphere?  What kinds of characteristics, skills, or attributes are needed for successful participation? How does participation actually occur, and to whose benefit? Discussing these kinds of questions can help us to rethink how we structure citizenship education.

 

Citizenship as Practice-Engaging in the Public Sphere

Characteristics such as cooperation, initiative, communication skills, flexibility, individual responsibility, rational-critical thinking skills, and rational judgment skills (such as the ability to weigh pros and cons) are at the core of the literature on 'democratic characteristics.' (See Gould, 1988: 283-306; Sehr, 1997: 78-79; Miller, 1994: 26-29; Habermas, 1992) Beyond these, scholars have also included such qualities as a disposition to reciprocity^[7], open-mindedness, and commitment as critical characteristics.  Finally, there may be an argument for including traits such as supportiveness, sharing, and an ethic of care, as well as qualities such as respect for the equal right of everyone for the conditions necessary to their self-development, and an appreciation of the importance of the public, as relevant to democratic engagement. (See Gould 1988: 293-4; and Sehr 1997: 79.)

 

Rather than debating the relative merits of including any of these particular characteristics in a set of qualities deemed necessary for participation in the public sphere, for the purposes of this analysis, I will focus on a limited set of qualities drawn from the first level of characteristics: cooperation, initiative, communication skills, rational-critical thinking skills, and rational judgment skills.^[8]  I focus on these five skills, first of all, because I posit that they are the core of participatory action within the public sphere.  Critical thinking skills are at the heart of transformative action-but without the initiative to take action, the ability to cooperate with others to achieve goals, an accompanying practical competency in the art of effective communication, or the judgment to make appropriate choices about options for action, the prospects for effective transformative action are dim.  This isn't to say that the other characteristics described as critical for democracy are not as important as these five.^[9]  However, these specific characteristics are also of interest because of the ways in which they can be learned outside of the public sphere-that is, the ways in which they intersect with other identities, roles, and experiences. Moreover, the skills I describe are meant only to illustrate the kinds of skills and characteristics required to participate in the public sphere, and should by no means limit the reader's imagination or creativity in adding additional ones.

 

Contextual Learning and Participatory Citizenship

Once we recognize that citizenship is a practice that is dependent on certain sets of characteristics and skills-in particular (at a minimum) on rational-critical thinking, cooperation, initiative, communication, and rational judgment skills, then the paradox of current models of citizenship education becomes abundantly clear. The focus on civic education-on instruction in procedural aspects of the functional mechanisms of government-represents a radical disconnect between the means to and requirements of participatory action and the skills with which the school system equips young people for adulthood. 

 

Identifying a set of participatory citizenship characteristics in this manner also makes clear that the framing of citizenship as oppositional cannot be sustained.  Citizenship identity cannot be conceived of as competing with the identity of an individual as worker, for example, if the same set of characteristics (or at least an overlap thereof) is necessary for participation within both spheres.

^[10] In fact, it becomes clear that these sets of characteristics are not at all limited to the public sphere, but in fact bridge across membership in varied communities, identities, and contexts.  They are learned in and applied to the labor market, to civil society, to the parenting process, and to personal or collegial relationships with friends, partners, or others. 

 

In this sense, the current model of citizenship education has also done a disservice to multicultural education by not considering the interrelationship of diverse cultures within the public sphere.  By focusing on the public sphere as a site of emancipatory transformation and action, rather than only on procedural aspects of government and civic education, it becomes clear that education for citizenship cannot possibly exclude an orientation toward a broader understanding of diverse cultures.  But multicultural education, as described above, has itself frequently focused on inclusion and representation rather than examining ways to create transformative pedagogy and classrooms.  Multicultural education could instead be designed as part of a broader project to engage students in facilitated dialogue in ways that help them to recognize and understand the ways in which power and systems of dominance, privilege, and oppression operate in the classroom, in the public sphere, and in broader society. (See, for example, hooks, 1994)

 

This requires developing an understanding of the public sphere that is in and of itself cultural.  Habermas (1992) and others (e.g., Parker 1997) have argued that the public sphere should be conceived of as a non-cultural, political sphere focused on procedures and operating alongside smaller, pluralistic cultural spheres.  As Parker (1997: 15) explains, "Being American means being politically one (this is our citizenship identity) while culturally many (these are our other identifications)."  This argument fails to acknowledge the inherently cultural aspect of the political public sphere as it currently exists, however.  The notion that the political public sphere can be separated from culture overlooks the extent to which cultural norms, values, and dispositions are already embedded within the public sphere.  Rather, multicultural education and citizenship education might be viewed as part of the same larger project with the goal of educating a diverse population for participation in a public sphere that holds the potential for emancipatory transformation.^[11]  In order for a genuinely multicultural public sphere to emerge, we must investigate ways to better coordinate citizenship around principles of citizenship practice that might begin to have some impact on the extent to which schools-and society at large-- reproduce social inequality. (See McCarthy 1993: 293.)

 

The kinds of skills and qualities discussed above are not necessarily learned best through direct instruction, however. This means that educators need to fundamentally rethink the ways in which learning has been structured in the classroom, in order to consider sites of engagement in which, for example, students might be given greater responsibility and autonomy.  This calls for a reexamination of the passive, fragmented, instruction-based approach to civic education that is currently in place, and a consideration of alternative, community-based, contextual and creative approaches.  It might mean making better use of summer vacation sessions to link school with community- and work-based learning, or using after school service learning projects and internships as sites of learning. It could include a broader involvement in students on school committees that have some decision-making power about school improvement.  Above all else, it calls for developing a broader understanding of school and community relationships, and a more open understanding of the ways in which students learn practices of engagement.

 

The good news is that there is no need to completely reinvent the wheel. There are numerous existing programs, projects, and reform efforts underway, both in the U.S. and abroad, which have made significant progress in this direction. In the course of my research, I have come across multiple examples of community-based, school-based, and workplace-based learning settings where students are learning the practices of civic engagement in the ways described above-although not all of the settings were designed as civic education projects in particular. Below, I briefly explore examples from practice of different approaches to creating these kinds of learning environments.

 

 

V. Examples from Practice

"Every experience is a moving force.  Its value can be judged only on the ground of what it moves toward and into."  --John Dewey, Experience and Education

 

Learning "Key Qualifications" in the German Workplace

In Germany, it was outside of the realm of civics instruction-in Germany's extensive vocational training system, which educates over two-thirds of all German youth-that I found particularly relevant initiatives regarding skills for participatory engagement in the public sphere.^[12] The German apprenticeship system might seem an unlikely place to turn for case-study material on citizenship education.  But vocational educators have been struggling to respond to the demand of a changing economy and emerging forms of workplace engagement, where employees are expected to become more independent, flexible problem-solvers, among others.  For about 15 years, apprenticeship experts have been initiating programs to help German young people learn "key qualifications," (Schluesselqualifikationenen), which include, among others, communication and cooperation competencies, including teamwork skills, responsibility, motivation, and flexibility, initiative and independence, especially regarding problem-diagnosis and analysis. (See, e.g., Mannesmann 1988.) The notion of "key qualifications" takes into account the fact that subject-specific expertise is no longer adequate in the absence of social and personal skills-a lesson that-while recognized in discussions about citizenship education-has not yet been seriously incorporated into most reform efforts either in the U.S. or abroad. In the German setting, apprentices work with master trainers to acquire these kinds of competencies, working independently and in groups to design solutions and strategies for specified problems.

 

It is important to note that German civic educators are not currently partnering with apprenticeship trainers to work on these kinds of problem-solving skills.  At the moment, the key qualifications are only being discussed in the realm of the apprenticeship system.  Indeed, many of these "key qualifications" may have different meanings in the workplace than in the public sphere. Problem-solving skills on the factory floor may, for example, mean something different than problem-solving skills in a debate over local recycling initiatives. However, many of the process steps and ways of working through the problems are similar, despite the content differences. Indeed, there is evidence that there may be more overlap between the goals and strategies of preparation for work and preparation for democracy than previous educators and policymakers may have acknowledged. (See, e.g., Miller and Wayne 1999.) If young people can learn skills such as problem-solving and communication effectively in experiential settings, including workplace settings such as internships and apprenticeships, then it may be useful for citizenship educators to more thoroughly explore potential overlaps and collaborative projects with vocational educators or other subject area educators.

 

Learning Communication and Problem-Solving in Poland

Recent Polish initiatives are more similar to efforts many citizenship educators are familiar with in the U.S. The programs are nonetheless remarkable, in the sense that educators had to create an entirely new civics curriculum after the massive political and social changes of the early 1990s. In Warsaw, the Center for Citizenship Education (CCE) has sponsored two major initiatives to create broader democratic participation and critical engagement among young people. Both programs are being piloted at the national scale, in hundreds of schools. Since 1995, CCE has sponsored a school-based program, "Young People Vote," which helps schools organize mock presidential, parliamentary and local government elections, as well as constitutional debates and referenda in the schools themselves. The activities are sponsored at both the elementary and secondary school level.  At the same time, CCE assists schools with the activities of student government development.

 

The "Young People's Civic Action" Program is modeled after a California-based project, and links classroom and community-based learning.  Groups of students identify social problems in their local community, select one problem and work out solutions as a group. Solutions and ideas are presented to local authorities, after students have researched and practiced ways to persuade the authorities of their solutions' merits.^[13]  These types of activities provide the opportunity for students to engage in public life at an early age, while still having a structured educational setting to reflect on the kinds of democratic practices they are learning. Students learn factual information about presidential, parliamentary, and local government elections, but they also gain significant oral communication skills in ways that can be more focused and engaging when compared with what they experience in traditional classrooms.

 

Learning standards for participatory citizenship in the U.S.

There is also fruitful ground to learn from in the U.S., at both the level of local projects and increasingly, at the level of state and national policy. Indeed, the set of characteristics identified for participatory citizenship practice has begun to appear in the language of education reform, although they are not usually identified with citizenship education in mind.  For example, several of the characteristics can be found in curricular reform strategies that aim to better prepare students for entry into the labor market. The Cornell Youth and Work Program (1993) has developed a set of personal and social competencies required for young peoples' successful participation in employment, which include teamwork, communication, self-confidence, initiative, motivation, and continuous improvement (which includes such elements as taking responsibility for continued learning and seeking and accepting constructive criticism).  (Cornell Youth and Work Program 1993) The State of Maryland's 'Skills for Success,' which were developed through business/education collaboration, include skills such as critical thinking, working effectively with others, communicating effectively, adapting to change, problem-solving, and clear, creative thinking. (MSPP 1996, Skills for Success: 1) New York State's plan for new curricular frameworks actually places a similar set of characteristics within a citizenship framework, listing within their set of "key competencies," a set of interpersonal and citizenship competencies: the ability to work cooperatively with others, participate as a member of a team, help others learn, analyze group situations and communicate with others effectively, negotiate agreements and resolve diverse interests, and understand multiple perspectives.

 

There has also been a concerted effort at the national level to broaden citizenship competencies among young people, culminating in the creation of several national standards documents for civics and government.^[14] These standards frameworks articulate what young people ought to be able to know and do as they become adult citizens, with the intent of helping local educators and professionals design appropriate curriculum and assessments for citizenship education.^[15] Most significantly for the purposes of this paper, all of the national standards documents that have been developed in the U.S. over the past decade highlight skills that overlap significantly with many of the learning standards laid out in workplace skill standards frameworks, for example. (See Miller and Wayne 1999.)  For example, according to the civics frameworks, among other competencies, young people ought to be able to identify and respond to situations in which social action is needed and work alone or with others to decide upon the appropriate actions.  Students should be learning how to negotiate conflicts and differences, how to communicate their convictions while listening to and respecting the opinions of others, and to recognize shared responsibilities within groups.  These kinds of goals are, in many ways, strikingly similar to the qualities and skills described in the "key qualifications" in the German apprenticeship system.

 

There are many other examples of local projects and national reform movements, in schools, communities, and workplaces worldwide.  In France, for example, a fledging youth council movement has grown into a movement of 650 town councils of children and youths (CMEJ) in France, located primarily in smaller towns and villages.

^[16]  The councils are comprised of young people between the ages of 10 and 25, who are elected by their peers at the beginning of each school year to two-year terms. At Central Park East High School in New York City, classes related to citizenship topics (like all academic classes) are half-day and designed around themes that help students gain habits of thinking rather than facts and pieces of information.^[17] (Meier and Schwartz 1995: 35 and 40) In many states in the U.S., high school students now need to complete community service learning hours in order to graduate from high school, which encourages students to engage with community and social problems and in later classroom sessions, to reflect on and discuss their experiences.

 

Each of the examples from practice described above offer potential lessons for ways in which education for democratic participation can be organized in schools, workplaces, and the community at large. Giving young people the autonomy and responsibility to initiate tasks, design projects, and manage complex goals in experiential settings outside of the realm of traditional citizenship education, therefore, can also be an opportunity for learning citizenship competencies.  (See also, for example, Hamilton, Basseches et al. 1985.) The German case, for example, demonstrates the significant role that non-classroom based settings can play in engaging young people in ways that help them strengthen modes of communication, interpersonal skills, and gain self-confidence and motivation. Students are also in positions of greater responsibility and often have higher expectations for their work performance than they often do in traditional classroom settings. In the French example, similarly, the CMEJs offer an innovative example of the potential for involving youth directly in the existing democratic process at the local level.

 

This isn't to imply that any of these particular projects are necessarily perfect or ideal; indeed, many experiential projects could benefit from stronger linkages between school-based and non-school based learning, for example. Rather, each of these settings illustrates ways in which characteristics conducive to citizenship practice-in particular, the five qualities described above (cooperation, initiative, communication skills, rational-critical thinking skills, and rational judgment skills)-can be learned in non-traditional, experiential environments. This offers direct contradictory evidence that experiences and identities not directly linked to citizenship operate in competition with citizen identity.  Rather, we have seen that citizenship practice is comprised of a set of relational identities that develop in multiple, varied settings and are carried over into citizenship when individuals enter the public sphere of 'rational-critical will formation' and dialogue.

Conclusion

Current conceptions of democratic citizenship, as I have posited in this paper, have been framed in opposition to group and individual identities and roles.  These oppositional frameworks have affected the ways in which education for citizenship has been framed, most frequently reducing citizenship education to a relatively narrow aspect of the social studies curriculum. I suggest, however, that these oppositional frameworks represent false dichotomies.  They overlook the ways in which identity is framed in multiple, overlapping, relational and intersecting manners, as well as the ways in which actors make cognitive shifts within and across those identities, adapting tools or cultural schemas from one setting for use in another. (See Calhoun, 1995; Calhoun, 1991; DiMaggio, 1997; Sewell, 1992)  Instead of operating alongside or against one another, I posit, individuals' multiple individual and group roles and identities are (or need to be) intertwined within citizenship frameworks.  Using the public sphere as a framework for thinking about what it means to be a citizen can help us do this.

 

Focusing on the public sphere as the site of democratic participation and citizenship also helps to show how we might rethink the meaning of citizenship as practice (as engagement in the public sphere) in addition to status (as a singular or collective static identity). This raises new questions, however, about what it means to practice citizenship-about what kinds of skills and qualities are needed to engage effectively in public life. Asking these questions, in turn, makes visible the multiple ways in which participatory civic engagement might be experienced, learned, and transferred to new settings.  To illustrate, I suggested that there is a common set of qualities individuals need to participate in diverse settings and identities. These characteristics-- cooperation, initiative, communication skills, rational-critical thinking skills, and rational judgment skills-do not, by any means, equal the sum total of what citizenship is and means.  They represent a starting point for thinking about the kinds of characteristics and qualities that are needed for engagement in the public sphere. They challenge us to consider how engagement is encouraged and what schools and communities can do to create learning settings based on experience that will help young people acquire these skills. In fact, as the examples from practice illustrate, these qualities can be learned in a variety of settings.  I chose the examples from practice to illustrate potential ways in which these qualities can be learned in community-based, school-based, and work-based settings.  This should not be taken to mean that all of these approaches have citizenship as their primary goal or that they are interchangeable approaches, but rather to point out the overlap among them. 

Reference List

 

Bellah, R., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W., Swidler, A., & Tipton, S. (1985). Habits of the Heart:  Individualism and Commitment in American Life. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Britzman, Deborah, Kevin Santiago-Válles, Gladys Jiménez-Múñoz, and Laura Lamash. (1993) "Slips That Show and Tell: Fashioning Multiculture As a Problem of Representation." In McCarthy, Cameron and Warren Crichlow, eds.,  Race, Identity, and Representation in Education.. (pp. 188-200). New York: Routledge.

Calhoun, C. (1991). Morality, Identity, and Historical Explanation:  Charles Taylor on the Sources of the Self. Sociological Theory, 9(2), 232-263.

Calhoun, C. (1995). Critical Social Theory:  Culture, History, and the Challenge of Difference. Cambridge: Blackwell .

Calhoun, C., ed. (1992). Habermas and the Public Sphere. Cambridge: The MIT University Press.

Cohen, J., & Arata, A. (1992). Civil Society and Political Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Cornell Youth and Work Program. (1993). Ithaca, NY: Cornell Youth and Work Program.

DiMaggio, P. (1997). Culture and Cognition. Annual Review of Sociology, 23, 263-287.

Etzioni, A. (1995). Too Many Rights, Too Few Responsibilities. M. Walzer, ed. Toward a Global Civil Society (pp. 99-105). Oxford: Berghahn Books.

Fraser, N. (1992). Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy. C. Calhoun, ed. Habermas and the Public Sphere (pp. 109-142). Cambridge: The MIT University Press.

Galston, W. (1995). Progressive Politics and Communitarian Culture. M. Walzer Toward a Global Civil Society (pp. 107-112). Oxford: Berghahn Books.

Gould, C. (1988). Rethinking Democracy:  Freedom and social cooperation in politics, economy, and society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gutmann, A., ed. (1994). Multiculturalism:  Examining the Politics of Recognition. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Habermas, J. (1992). Further Reflections on the Public Sphere. C. Calhoun, ed. Habermas and the Public Sphere (pp. 421-461). Cambridge: The MIT Press.

hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom. New York: Routledge.

Kerber, Linda K. (1998). No Constitutional Right to be Ladies: Women and the Obligations of Citizenship. New York: Hill and Wang.

Mannesmann  Demag. Vermittlung von Schlüsselqualifikationen in der Ausbildung. Duisburg, im November 1988.

Maryland School Performance Program. (1996). High School Core Learning Goals. Baltimore, MD: Maryland State Department of Education.

McCarthy, C. (1993). After the Canon: Knowledge and Ideological Representation in the Multicultural Discourse on Curriculum Reform. C. McCarthy, & W. Crichlow, eds. Race, Identity, and Representation in Education (pp. 289-305). New York: Routledge.

Miller, C. (1999) Rethinking Citizenship Frameworks: Education for Citizenship Practice, not Citizenship Status. Education in Russia, the Independent States and Eastern Europe, 17 (1), Spring 1999, 19-31.

Miller, C. and A. Wayne. (1999) Preparing for Work, Preparing for Democracy: Finding Common Ground. Paper presented at the 1999 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association in Montreal, Canada.

Miller, C. (1994). The Challenge of Attitudinal Adjustment in Eastern Germany: a case-study of the German apprenticeship system. Unpublished thesis, Cornell University.

The National Association of Children and Youth Boards (L'Anacej). Children and Young People's City Councils: An Evaluation. (pp. 35-45) G. Bell, ed. Educating European Citizens: Citizenship Values and the European Dimension. London: David Fulton Publishers Ltd.

Parker, W. (1997). Navigating the Unity/Diversity Tension in Education for Democracy. The Social Studies, 88(1), 12-17.

Pocock, J. G. A. (1995). The Ideal of Citizenship Since Classical Times. R. Beiner, ed. Theorizing Citizenship (pp. 29-52). Albany: State University of New York Press.

Scott, J. W. (1996). Only Paradoxes to Offer:  French Feminists and the Rights of Man. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Sehr, D. T. (1997). Education for Public Democracy. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Sewell, W. (1992). A Theory of Structure:  Duality, Agency, and Transformation. American Journal of Sociology, 91, 1-29.

Somers, M. (1993). Citizenship and the Place of the Public Sphere:  Law, Community, and Political Culture in the Transition to Democracy. American Sociological Review, 58, 587-620.

Somers, M. (1995). What's Political or Cultural about the Political Culture Concept?  Toward an Historical Sociology of Concept Formation. Sociological Theory, 13(2), 113-144.

Walzer, M. (1995). The Civil Society Argument. R. Beiner, ed. Theorizing Citizenship (pp. 153-174). Albany: State University of New York Press.

West, C. (1993). The New Cultural Politics of Difference. C. a. C. W. McCarthy, eds. Race, Identity, and Representation in Education . New York: Routledge.

Wolfe, A. (1992). Democracy versus Sociology:  Boundaries and their Political Consequences. M. Lamont, & M. Fournier, eds. Cultivating Differences:  Symbolic Boundaries and the Making of Inequality (pp. 309-325). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.