(Article No. 3.) “Der Beutelsbacher Konsens” (The Beutelsbach Consensus)                         by Edward Eggleston

 

  1. Introduction.
  2. Translation of “Der Beutelsbacher Konsens”.
  3. An educational design from “Konsens” premises.
  4. German text: “Der Beutelsbacher Konsens”.

    Introduction.

“The political-cultural founding of the Federal Republic of Germany succeeded; yet only to the extent one learned to bear and deal with the unavoidable variety and competition of philosophies and theories; and with the pluralism and conflicts between these intellectual/cultural forces. This was done either by means of mutual recognition, or at the least, through consensus based on the constitution.”

From “Political education: discussion and controversy concerning the “intellectual foundation” of the Federal Republic of Germany”, by Bernhard Sutor. (Politische Bildung im Streit um die “intellektuelle Gründung” der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. See address below.)

In the source article setting, the excerpt above provides the central theme. For present purposes, the general political and educational context is suggested, here considered more for the US. The article reference to consensus is connected to the central text that follows. Regarding the more specific circumstances of this document, one notes that these guidelines for political instruction in German schools emerged from meetings in the Fall of 1976. Again, the intention was to resolve conflicts about content and bias.1 

( 1 From “What is the Beutelsbach Consensus” by Irina Schumacher. www.politische-bildung-bayern.net/fachbeitraege/item/248-was-ist-der-beutelsbacher-konsens).

Translation of  “Der Beutelsbacher Konsens”.

 

 “Der Beutelsbacher Konsens” (1976)

  1. Prohibition on exerting pressure. It is not permitted – by any means – to pressure students into accepting a given opinion, and thereby preventing them from developing their own views. This marks exactly the difference between political education and indoctrination. Indoctrination is unacceptable for the teacher’s role in a democratic society, and for the uniformly accepted goal of developing student’s independence and maturity of judgment.
  2. Controversial political and scholarly issues should be presented as such to students. This requirement is closely tied to the previous statements, for if a variety of views are not presented, (key) options may be lost, with remaining alternatives harder to place and assess. This can contribute to indoctrination. The question arises whether the instructor even has a corrective role here, meaning whether contrasting views in particular need development; so that students, and other participants in political instruction events, are provided with views differing from those of their respective social and political backgrounds.

It is clear then, that in giving these two basic principles, why the teacher’s personal point of view – either as academic/theoretical perspective or political opinion – becomes comparatively uninteresting. To restate the example: the teacher’s view of democratic ideas presents no problem, because opposing views are also fairly presented.

  1. Students must be instructed in such a way as to comprehend their own interests and a given political situation. This is understood to include ways and means for exerting influence in a political circumstance, in accord with their perceived interests. Such goals include then a considerable stress on skills for personal involvement, taken as a logical consequence of the previous main principles.

[Trans. by E. Eggleston] (Original German text: www.didactics.eu/fileadmin/pdf/beutelsbacherkonsens.pdf)

An educational design from “Konsens” premises.

The “Konsens” pedagogical guidelines have certain implications. Some are most relevant to political instruction. Other implications have broader meaning for democratic education, and this is our present concern. The scope here, however, is limited to a selective group of basic ideas and implications. More specifically  then: from an accepted  basis of two  key “Konsens” premises, a more general yet compact educational design may be fashioned. As based on direct extension of these premises, this design exhibits a distinct and unified structure. Further, this structure, based on political instruction with special stress on the citizen’s independent judgment, illustrates a central role for humanistic studies in democratic education.

[The combination of outline form and text is used in this section for clarity and brevity.]

I. Two premises from the “Konsens” guidelines.

1) The premise (or educational goal) of the democratic citizen, instructed in the subject of politics, with special emphasis on mature, independent judgment.  This expresses the value of the autonomous citizen.

2) The central instructional method for developing the (political) judgment and autonomy of the citizen is the presentation of carefully selected alternatives for a given issue or topic; these topics are then taught without bias.

II. Three main extensions of these premises.

1) Extension one. The method of presenting alternatives for a topic, as given above, is applied within other subjects. History and literature serve as examples. The “alternatives” principle is generalized, yet expressed in subjects (internally).

2) Extension two. The method of presenting alternatives is applied to selecting other subjects. The alternatives principle is then generalized further; it is kept yet expressed externally.

3) Extension three. This extension specifies the more general extension two. Specific subjects are chosen. These lists are not complete. The subjects are divided into primary and secondary groups.

a. The primary group reflects the humanistic studies center implied by the two main premises. Thus the alternatives principle is followed for specific subject content. A starting list for this: political philosophy and political science; history, ethics, and law; with the special relevance of philosophy viewed as a comprehensive interpretive discipline.

b. The second group of subjects is clearly important in following the alternatives principle, yet more distant from the humanistic studies and values center of the two main premises. A starting list under broad headings: economics, physical sciences, and technology.

Ill. Explanation of values in this educational design. The value of the autonomous citizen: a fundamental role.

1)  The intellectual structure given here develops and extends the essential thus decisive democratic values of the two premises. Thus the autonomous citizen value/principle and directly related “alternatives” educational principle are structural and pervasive. (The premises are noted to have value implications not addressed here.) Also, recognized as intrinsic and humanistic, the named values are then best sustained in an intellectual context, or educational design, that gives priority to such values; hence the primary role given to humanistic studies.

2)   From this perspective, the educational design structure reflects the democratic values emphasis of recognized German commentary on the “Konsens”. (Bernhard Sutor, “Politische Bildung im Streit… “)

“Politische Bildung im Streit um die “intellektuelle  Gründung” der Bundesrepublik  Deutschland”, von Bernhard  Sutor. (http://www.bpb.de/apuz/26627/politische-bildung-im-streit-um-die-intellektuelle-gruendung-der-bundesrepublik-deutschland?p=all)

IV. Additional explanation of values in this educational design.

1)  As structured and pervasive, the central value and (derived) instructional principle are connected, as abstractions, across each extension and form a distinct pattern. This pattern represents a hierarchy as well, on this value foundation, that emerges as an educational design. The design offers further, by a reasonable or rationally satisfying form, a way of establishing priorities in instruction: of what to teach and why; as the pattern of subjects, topics, etc. are extended outward, they can also be traced back and so understood and judged. This shows how the key values and principles are woven together: as structural and pervasive. It is noticeable also, then, the abstract (principle) character relates and generates form; while the value “content” gives such connections meaning.

2)  This value-centric nature is, finally, the true justification of this educational design. The pattern of this design is (as said) rationally satisfying; yet it is the purpose more than form as such: this educational design outline is centered on the citizen as unique and intrinsically valuable. The design reflects then the attempt to hold or reinstate the autonomous citizen (idea) in education: first, as individuals; second, by extension, as this reasonably applies to groups; with each level reflecting an important (value centered) common good.

V. Summary and conclusion.

1)  The educational design given here in outline form, with textual elaboration, is based on implications from the two main “Konsens” premises. As such, it represents one possible interpretation. Yet it is suggested also as a model, to a limited extent, of a democratic educational design that is decisively citizen centered and balanced. As discussed, the design demonstrates a structure that maintains key values: with a thorough stress on their intrinsic and humanistic character. That the design and its methods are then, fundamentally, philosophic and humanistic has been repeatedly stated. There is then a strong implication that a democratic educational design that takes seriously, consequentially, the autonomous citizen value/principle as basic, will necessarily involve a humanistic studies framework. Providing a specific version of this general implication or idea is, again, a central purpose of this article.

2) As conclusion and postscript, the article series explanation is given:

“An educational model excessively governed by business, science, and technology subjects is inadequate and unbalanced, despite the gloss of “modern progress”. The reduction (or even elimination) of humanistic studies deserves serious attention. The long term effects of such educational policies, carried out by various institutions,   will be immense. In view of the scale and power of the forces involved, one has no illusions about any small scale contrary effort. This does not mean, however, that the effort should be neglected.”

 

German text: “Der Beutelsbacher Konsens”.

“1. Überwältigungsverbot. Es ist nicht erlaubt, den Schüler – mit welchen Mitteln auch immer – im Sinne erwünschter Meinungen zu überrumpeln und damit an der “Gewinnung eines selbständigen Urteils” zu hindern. Hier genau verläuft nämlich die Grenze zwischen Politischer Bildung und Indoktrination. Indoktrination aber ist unvereinbar mit der Rolle des Lehrers in einer demokratischen Gesellschaft und der – rundum akzeptierten – Zielvorstellung von der Mündigkeit des Schülers.

2. Was in Wissenschaft und Politik kontrovers ist, muß auch im Unterricht kontrovers erscheinen. Diese Forderung ist mit der vorgenannten aufs engste verknüpft, denn wenn unter-schiedliche Standpunkte unter den Tisch fallen, Optionen unterschlagen werden, Alternativen unerörtert bleiben, ist der Weg zur Indoktrination beschritten. Zu fragen ist, ob der Lehrer nicht sogar eine Korrekturfunktion haben sollte, d. h. ob er nicht solche Standpunkte und Alternativen besonders herausarbeiten muß, die den Schülern und anderen Teilnehmern politischer Bildungsveranstaltungen von ihrer jeweiligen politischen und sozialen Herkunft her fremd sind.

Bei der Konstatierung dieses zweiten Grundprinzips wird deutlich, warum der persönliche Standpunkt des Lehrers, seine wissenschaftstheoretische Herkunft und seine politische Meinung verhältnismäßig uninteressant werden. Um ein bereits genanntes Beispiel erneut aufzugreifen: Sein Demokratieverständnis stellt kein Problem dar, denn auch dem entgegenstehende andere Ansichten kommen ja zum Zuge.

3. Der Schüler muß in die Lage versetzt werden, eine politische Situation und seine eigene Interessenlage zu analysieren, sowie nach Mitteln und Wegen zu suchen, die vorgefundene politische Lage im Sinne seiner Interessen zu beeinflussen. Eine solche Zielsetzung schließt in sehr starkem Maße die Betonung operationaler Fähigkeiten ein, was aber eine logische Konsequenz aus den beiden vorgenannten Prinzipien ist.“

(http://www.politische-bildung-bayern.net/fachbeitraege/item/248-was-ist-der-beutelsbacher-konsens)