DISKUSSION ELLER DEMOKRATI? : I spänningsfältet mellan åsiktsmässig pluralism och normmedling i pedagogisk praktik

Sammanfattning

This study is a theory-driven, qualitative study that combines text analysis with interviews to investigate how teachers manage situations where the moral education duty conflicts with diversity of thought. The study includes elements of theory testing. The study also analyses how the governing documents manage the tension. Four interviews have been conducted with teachers who teach in secondary- and upper secondary school, one of the teachers works in an upper secondary school for children with intellectual disabilities. Two democratic theories were compared to each other: militant democracy and deliberative democracy. These theories have differing views on when freedom of speech should be restricted. An additional theory that describes how teachers handle controversial discussions in the classroom has been used as an analytical tool. The results show that the teachers encourage free discussion as long as the students stay within the framework of the fundamental democratic values. This approach from the teachers has support in the governing documents. More mature students tended to be allowed more freedom under responsibility during the discussions. A relational aspect emerged clearly from the teachers’ arguments. They said that discussions tend to work better when everyone involved has good relations with each other. One insight made during this study suggests that the militant democratic theory may presuppose the deliberative view of democracy. Protection of the fundamental democratic values may be a requirement for a rational discussion to work at all.