Search results

The British Government white paper 'Excellence in Schools' and the subsequent report of the Advisory Group on Citizenship Education for Citizenship recommend that schools educate pupils in citizenship and democracy. This recommendation is considered in the context of reasons why there has traditionally been no formal or well articulated political education in schools. Among these reasons a pervasive antipathy to politics and to government is identified as one of the most powerful. This antipathy is expressed from the left and the right wings of the political spectrum, and the 'critical' opposition to both, as well as from interests such as those defending professional and personal autonomy. These arguments imply that 'politics' is optional, not a set of practices and institutions with which individuals must be familiar. It is argued that this proposition cannot be valid.

The British government white paper, Excellence in Schools & the subsequent report of the Advisory Group on Citizenship, Education for Citizenship, recommend that schools educate pupils in citizenship & democracy. This recommendation is considered in the context of reasons why there has traditionally been no formal or well-articulated political education in schools. Among these reasons a pervasive antipathy to politics & to government is identified as one of the most powerful. This antipathy is expressed from the left & the right wings of the political spectrum, & the "critical" opposition to both, as well as from interests such as those defending professional & personal autonomy. These arguments imply that "politics" is optional, not a set of practices & institutions with which individuals must be familiar. It is argued that this proposition cannot be valid. Adapted from the source document.

This paper presents analysis of the distinctions between public & private life that were drawn & reflected upon in the London press coverage of the death & funeral of Diana, Princess of Wales (who died on 31 Aug 1997). This corpus is notable because journalists & other commentators had unprecedented opportunity & incentive to reflect, in print, on how & where the line between public & private ought to be drawn. In so doing, their efforts served to expose more clearly the difficult, controversial, & fuzzy nature of this distinction. The corpus is also notable because it contains considered accounts of the nature of public life, the role of "the public," & the constitution of political rule in GB. It is here suggested that, within the context of normative political theory, "reflexivity" must be a key component of "publicity." The analysis also shows how, in discursive genres such as broadsheet print journalism, a variety of contrasting & even inconsistent conceptual analyses & social theories can be integrated. In the material analyzed here, the feminist & the psychoanalytic critiques of liberal & conservative "public" vs "private" distinctions are prominent. To some degree they destabilize the meanings of public & private that liberal & conservative commentators deploy; to some degree they fail to do this. Discourse, it seems, can contain contradiction without much discomfort. 1 Appendix. Adapted from the source document.