The Politics of Character Development

Character development is an important part of socialisation.  It is generally accepted that people’s character matters a great deal in how they behave towards others, and that character from an early age can be influenced by what and how they are taught.  However, beyond the broad consensus on these points, it is hard to find much agreement as to what should be incorporated into our education policy.

 

The Traditionalist Stance

We frequently hear from those who lament about schools not passing on important traditional beliefs and values, and why as a result of that people are failing to behave as well as they used to.  The supposed solution is meant to lie with restoring ‘traditional teaching’ that in methods and contents aids the building of ‘good character’ society could in the past count on.  But since even the staunchest self-proclaimed traditionalists have to admit that some attitudes and ideas from the past are untenable and harmful, traditions alone cannot be our guide, and we need to consider what is worth passing on from our past, and what should be critically put aside.

 

The Employment Focus

Those who adopt an employment-centric view about education maintain that the key issue is to develop characters fit for getting a job.  Everything else is basically ‘nice-to-have’, but absolute priority must be given to producing capable workers.  At one level, this opens up the question of what kind of mind-set and behavioural traits are needed in a modern economy.  For example, a questioning mind is of much greater value than a readiness to carry out standardised tasks.  At another level, there is the question of how individuals and society collectively can function well without citizens developing adequately as democratic members of their polity.  If people lack the understanding, appreciation, and preparedness to help their country govern itself in an open, fair and inclusive manner, the chance of their economy working well would in turn be much diminished.

 

The Libertarian Mantra

For those promoting libertarian ideas, any suggestion about what ‘should’ be taught has no place in public policy consideration at all.  People, on this view, ought to be able to have their children taught whatever they want – it’s their ‘choice’.  An even more extreme version would leave that ‘choice’ with the children themselves.  In any case, there is supposedly no basis for any public institution to steer the education of individuals in any particular direction.  But can society survive if people are really allowed to do whatever they want irrespective of the harm they might inflict on others?  Should people be permitted to drive recklessly if they like?  Should they be able to tell their children to drink poison?  And if the response is that there are laws that govern such matters, then that takes us precisely to what regulations, guidance, and policies society should set down for its own wellbeing, and these questions apply to the education and character development of its citizens.

 

The Case for Civic Education 

We can all see that some traditions are valuable to pass on (while some are not); fitness to be a ‘useful’ member of society goes well beyond any narrow conception of what a ‘worker’ is supposed to be; and what the state should or should not require the education of its citizens to encompass has to be linked to its impact on the wellbeing of society, and not left to the whims of individuals. 

 

All these considerations point to the need for citizens to be imparted with the outlook and capability to be dependable members of society.  Yet that need cannot be met if we do not support the appropriate kind of character development.  Political leaders should recognise that civic education is not a ‘nice-to-have’, but an essential element of any democratically healthy society.  We need education at all levels to be aware of the values, skills, abilities that should be inculcated, and committed to facilitating their transmission in developing thoughtful and responsible citizens.

--

 

For more on civic education, see ‘Educating Citizens: 3 critical aspects’: https://henry-tam.blogspot.com/2021/01/educating-citizens-3-critical-aspects.html

Rights, Security, and the Begum Case

The UK Supreme Court’s ruling on the Begum case has drawn attention once more to the contest of abstract notions such as ‘Rights’ and ‘Security’, when what is needed is a proper examination of the facts.

A UK citizen (born in Britain) – a girl of 15 – went to Syria to join an ISIS group.  According to some reports she was groomed as a companion/wife, had three children (who all subsequently died), and when later she wanted to return to the UK, the British Home Secretary removed her UK citizenship and left her as a detainee in a camp – on the ground that she posed a serious threat to national security.

 

There are important arguments about what kind of threat to national security would justify the removal of a person’s citizenship.  But any sweeping statement about concerns for security must trump citizenship rights, or for that matter, individuals’ rights must trump security policies, is bound to be vacuous unless specific details are spelt out.  Clearly, no government should be allowed to just claim it is acting to protect national security and thereby deprive selected citizens of all their rights; and equally there can be no inalienable right to endanger the lives of others in any country.

 

Yet what we don’t hear about are the relevant details.  What threats are actually posed by Shamima Begum?  Is she alleged to be a terrorist mastermind?  Is she being charged with inflicting harm on innocent people?  If so, should a UK citizen not be tried to ascertain her guilt in a British court, and incarcerated if found guilty?  Or was she duped at an impressionable age to serve extremists who exploited her?  And the loss of her UK citizenship is a punishment for being naïve?

 

Instead of the pertinent facts, all we keep hearing is the disagreement over the Court of Appeal’s view that her rights ought to override national security as interpreted by the Home Secretary, and now the Supreme Court’s pronouncement that the Home Secretary’s assessment of national security must override her rights.

 

The point is that no one’s rights and no Home Secretary’s security assessment can be regarded as absolute.  We cannot make sound judgement by declaring that people have the right to do whatever they want and should suffer no consequence even if their actions are harmful to others; or that politicians with key government positions are always right and should never be challenged for the decisions they make.

 

Rather than leaving the ‘Rights versus Security’ show to carry on distracting us from any case that brings an individual’s rights and a government decision into conflict, we must demand transparency and accuracy in establishing the evidence for rival claims, so that they can be fairly and objectively resolved.  Without a focus on the evidence, a critical disagreement is all too likely going to end up being submerged by a hollow debate.