26 Introduction an already existing curriculum, with its aims and objectives separated from other subjects, other educational practices or the pedagogical relationship itself. Citizenship education must—always, but especially in a situation of high diversity and complexity—be embedded in the whole of the educational process and closely tied to its personhood formation, affecting the head, heart and hands. Citizenship education in this sense means nothing less than broad citizenship formation. This theoretical deduction regarding the need for a holistic approach to citizenship education or formation is supported by a two-decade empirical study of citizenship education in the UK (Weinberg & Flinders, 2018). Through the analysis of surveys and focus-group interviews, the researchers observed a lack of understanding of citizenship, both conceptually and pedagogically. Furthermore, they noted an emphasis among teachers on individualistic notions of good citizenship. Specifically, the interplay of factors was missing. At the end of their article, Weinberg and Flinders (2018) warned of ‘the antidemocratic scenario in which our future citizens’ education becomes a lightning rod for party political interests’. They concluded that new approaches should ‘ensure that citizens receive a holistic political education that prepares them to be much more than an obedient, employable workforce in the decades to come’ (Weinberg & Flinders, 2018, p. 590). This final conclusion corroborates Biesta’s (2022) aforementioned critique of the dominance of the modern economical history of the school, as opposed to the classical and much broader conception. Earlier, Biesta (2010) advocated for a shift from an evidence-based to a value-based orientation, which might be less measurable, but would be, as he saw it, more meaningful. Wrigley (2019) moved one step ahead and criticised Western education for being too reductionistic and too focused on accountability, effectiveness and leadership—a terminology that works ‘ideologically by emphasizing technical rationalism, eclipsing questions of political or moral purpose’ (p. 156). He proposed an alternative, non-reductive understanding of schools and school culture to foster ‘an empowerment culture which enables marginalised young people to develop as learners and members of society’ and ‘would recognize the inequalities of power and the dynamic interrelation of school world and lifeworld’ (Wrigley, 2019, p. 157). Wrigley (2019) deliberately introduced the word culture here because— as he stated—it helps to avoid reductionism. Culture refers to the coherent whole that becomes both the product and the cause of how people feel, think and act, thereby matching the biological ecosystem. Developmental models in the field of education should learn from the science of living things to
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw