Civic education through artifacts: memorials, museums, and libraries

ABSTRACT

While civic education may not always be explicitly included in school curriculums, it can still be imparted through various non-teaching practices and in different places. In this article, we will delve into three potential educational spaces -memorials, museums, and libraries- that are commonly found in Western democracies. We will explore the significance and scope of each of these spaces and discuss their respective ethical, political, and aesthetic responsibilities. Additionally, we will examine how they possess agency and can influence the educational process, recognizing that even non-human entities, such as nature itself, can play an important role in shaping our understanding of civic education.

KEYWORDS:

• Civic education
• memorials
• museums
• libraries
• post-critical pedagogy

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank participants of XL Interuniversity Seminar on Educational Theory (Salamanca, November 13-16, 2022) for their comments and fruitful discussion, where a previous and larger version of this article was presented (Thoilliez, Esteban, and Reyero, 2022).

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. In a time where digital innovations and personalized learning methods have garnered significant attention, the significance of tangible school infrastructure sometimes finds itself overshadowed. This shift has led to the emergence of a movement advocating for adaptable learning environments beyond the confines of conventional school settings. Within this evolving educational paradigm, an intriguing inquiry emerges: how can we effectively navigate the complexities and opportunities associated with embedding civic education within these unconventional spaces? This exploration may prompt us to contemplate potential approaches for tailoring civic education to suit these non-traditional settings. Delving into this dynamic arena would undoubtedly offer compelling insights; however, this investigation lies beyond the scope of this article. It is a topic we reserve for potential exploration in future works, as the intricacies of adapting civic education to alternative environments warrant a more in-depth exploration at a later juncture.

2. Throughout this article, the term ‘ethical’ will consistently be contrasted with the terms ‘aesthetic’ and ‘political.’ This recurring pattern of juxtaposition forms a fundamental thread within the paper. While we cannot delve into an exhaustive exploration of these terms at this juncture, it is important to underscore our view that monuments and memorials, as well as museums and libraries, embody civic education artifacts characterized by a multi-dimensional essence. These entities possess the capacity to function and hold responsibilities within all three realms: ethical, aesthetic, and political. It is crucial to emphasize that this article does not purport to culminate in definitive interpretations. Rather, its purpose is to serve as a precursor, laying the groundwork for a comprehensive dialogue that traverses the crossroads of cultural heritage and public spaces within the sphere of civic education.

3. Readers seeking more detailed insights on ‘post-critical pedagogy’ can refer to the following works who explicitly engage with this term and provide valuable contributions to the discourse: Hodgson 2020; Hodgson, Vlieghe, and Zamojski 2017, 2018, 2020a, 2020b; Oliverio 2019, 2020a, 2020b; Oliverio and Thoilliez (accepted for publication); Ramaekers 2020; Schildermans 2020a, 2020b; Schildermans et al. 2023; Thoilliez 2019, 2020; Thoilliez and Wortmann (under review); Wortmann 2022; Vlieghe and Zamojski 2019; Wortmann 2019, 2020, 2022. For a critical examination of these works see: Ayuste and Trilla 2020; Gibbs and O’Brien 2021; Huarte 2020; Mejía 2020; Noguera 2020; Pagès 2020; Schwimmer 2019.

4. There are anthropological reasons for the rejection of certain material objects, and to fully understand this phenomenon, it is worthwhile to examine the religious origins of iconoclasm and the dangers of idolatry. This topic has been widely studied since the works of Mircea Eliade (2005) and other philosophers of religion. According to Eliade, the founding distinction that gives rise to religion is the separation of the sacred and the profane. The sacred is found in concrete material objects, also known as ‘hierophanies,’ such as stones, rivers, icons, or carvings, that attempt to capture the world of the sacred. However, the danger of hierophanies is that they may become idolatrous objects that try to enclose the immeasurable, representing an attempt to maintain control over the vast reality and a way of seeking security. Iconoclasm is thus a violent reaction to this attempt, resulting in the prohibition of producing images in some religions. Similarly, monuments and memorials seek to ‘petrify’ and reify history, giving it a closed interpretation, and the rejection of these objects is a rejection of a limited way of telling history that cannot contain the complexity of interpretations it admits. However, while iconoclasm is marked by the search for purity, it also demonstrates a certain contempt for the material condition of human beings, who have the capacity to seek abstract truth about the real but must always start from their material conditions. The body, with its limited capacity for understanding and dependence on the senses, instils respect for the paths of knowledge, which may often require hierophanies as a teacher. Iconoclasm thus works as a kind of dematerialization that promises an infinite and impossible opening. Overall, the phenomenon of rejecting certain material objects is complex and multifaceted, and understanding its roots in religious history can provide insights into its ongoing impact on society today.

5. We will retake this idea more thoroughly with an example in the next section.

6. See, as an example: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5c5e0c57d86cc9226827c754/t/5ef0f65e0919c101f827be21/1592850017131/DTP_AMNH+Map+final_2016.pdf; https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5c5e0c57d86cc9226827c754/t/600b3b61caec9b2e049d6ca8/1611348841260/DTP_Decolonial+OM_ReaderSpreads_FINAL_lowres.pdf; https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5c5e0c57d86cc9226827c754/t/6164581b1b3a2c27d91a2dfa/1633966109096/AMNH+Actions_Zine_low+res.pdf (Deconolonize This Place s.f.).

7. We follow here classic ideas on the matter by Jaeger (1957). Although acknowledging the notion of ‘perfection’ may deserve a more careful problematization than the one we can do here and now, it cannot be denied that it occupies a pivotal yet intricate role within the realm of education. Contemplating the constituents of human perfection beckons us to delve into profound musings about the very essence of the human experience. As we confront the discourse of post-humanism, which champions perfection as the path toward shedding our biological confines, temporal and otherwise, we find our perspective divergent. For us, perfection is not a destination divorced from our inherent imperfections; rather, it emerges as a process painstakingly crafted within the framework of our own flaws. In this context, our approach diverges sharply from the tenets of transhumanism, which fervently seeks ontological perfection through a transformative journey. Instead, we view perfection as an ongoing endeavour that takes root within the fertile soil of our imperfections. It is a nuanced, organic development that unfolds as we engage with and embrace our inherent limitations, crafting a unique trajectory towards an elevated state of being. As it has recently been stated by Gil Cantero, ‘It is in this making of ourselves that our best identity is found. We are, above all, what we do, bit by bit, with our successes and failures, to be able to improve by ourselves and with the help of others. And this is what is truly great about education: its self-structuring power not just as a perfective end that we reach but as a means for our own human development’ (Gil Cantero 2022, 23).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades [PID2019-104566RA-I00/AEI/10.13039/501100011033].