9/15/08 Diversity in Democarcy

Upon a first glance the curriculum, ideals, goals set forth by James A. Banks et.

al. in Democracy and Diversity: Principles and Concepts for Educating Citizens in a

Global Age seem to be firmly entrenched within the driving forces behind the

Transnational discourses of citizenship education. Both ideologies celebrate and

promote a global awareness in order to improve local conditions. Although this

perception has a good deal of intellectual heft to it, upon further examination

we can also see that the theory proposed by Banks’ research group is an

amalgam of almost every discourse that we have (so far) read about citizenship.

One of the defining principals of Civic Republican Citizenship is the “matter of

‘healing’ our fragmented contemporary civil society.” [Knight, Abowitz &

Harnish, pg. 658] A major impetus for Democracy and Diversity is the fact that

the U.S. is a part of in an increasingly globalized world, while simultaneously

meeting a steadily swelling immigrant population. In order to face these

challenges, while remaining as a unified democracy, Banks et. al. proposes an

approach to citizenship that embraces diversity while still placing a high value

on unity.

According to Knight, Abowitz, and Harnish, every new theory of citizenship

stems from the discourse of Liberal Citizenship. Diversity in Democracy certainly

owes a great deal to this tradition of thought. While the individual might not

play as central role in Banks’ view, he and his group are certainly proponents of

the open forums and lively debates that are so strongly suggested by Benhabib,

Habermas, Cohen, etc.

Banks et.al.. interest and concern for human rights and the effects of

migration find foundations in the Feminist discourses of Werbner & Yuval-Davis,

and the progressive thread of Reconstructionist theory; especially the mandate

to “think locally and act globally.”

The one discourse Democracy in Diversity has some trouble fitting into is Queer

Theory. While these two philosophies share a common ground in the primacy of

diversity, the seemingly infinite social niches that writers like Gilbert and Hall

propose seem to be antithetical to Banks et. al. all inclusive mission.