Issuu on Google+

The Use of Metaphorical Concepts for Strengthening Patriotism in the School System

Eva Klemencic Educational Research Institute (Slovenia), Centre of Applied Epistemology

Abstract Ongoing debates about the reconstruction of the compulsory subject named “Citizenship Education and Ethics” in Slovenia include considerations of introducing/strengthening the patriotic theme at all levels of school education and ideas about renaming the subject. To analyse the presence of metaphorical concepts as an argument for strengthening the area of patriotism in a school system and to collect a sample of specific metaphorical concepts, we chose a collection of papers entitled “Citizenship and patriotic education” to work with. Due to the different lengths of these papers, we sampled the second paragraph of the second, third and fifth page of the texts and abstracts. In the papers, where it was not possible to define the designated paragraph from the chosen page, we used the next possible paragraph. Using this method, we chose texts in which metaphorical concepts are presented and texts which defend the introduction or the strengthening of patriotism in schools. From these texts, we extracted metaphorical concepts and categorised them in original and objective domains. The results gathered were then compared to different texts in order to find a general sample using metaphorical concepts as the defence or the emphasis of the importance of promoting the notion of patriotism in the Slovene school system. Keywords: Citizenship/patriotic education, school system, metaphorical concepts

Conceptual Dilemmas – Citizenship/Patriotic Education There are different views of the role and organisation of society, the role of citizenship education in the public domain and in society as a whole (Sardoc, 2004). The same is true for discourse concerning the dilemma about citizenship education: patriotism. The dilemma is in fact 1

global and it originates in renewing classical ideological oppositions, to name a few: “liberalconservative, emancipatorical-represive, local-cosmopolitan, national-international” (Strajn, 2004, p. 85). These dilemmas originate from different conceptual frames on which some views are founded. In our case, the reflection upon the concept of citizenship, the patria and the way in which these can be thought of today (Simenc et al., 2004). Damon (Levine et al., 2006) even states that patriotism is the most (politically) incorrectly used notion in the field of education. Metaphorical concepts are basis of all our perceptions an important instrument of finding ways to comprehension diversity. It is a cognitive tool, whose intention is to bridge the gap between the known and unknown, key aspects when resolving conceptual dilemmas. These (self-evident, natural) metaphorical concepts are used in defending the strength of patriotic education in our educational area; (e.g. patriotic education is psychotherapy for the new generations). Citizenship and Citizenship Education Citizenship is not a new concept but has recently been reborn within a wider context. The interest in citizenship has not set in motion just the theoretical development but it has in fact set in motion some recent political events and new trends (Kymlicka, 2005). When speaking about citizenship today, we think about the multidimensional view, which does not include just the formal status inside the political system (individual - state relation), but this fact exposes also competences, skills and capabilities (Dűrr et al., 2005). The governing view in the discussions on citizenship should be understood (Heater 1999, in Sardoc, 2004) as a mosaic of identities, duties and rights, not as a monolithical concept, because the question “What is citizenship?” does not give a uniform answer mainly due to different, in some views, disparate traditions of political theory and the concept of citizenship.1 Modern understanding of citizenship demands the ability to adjust to two different traditional political theories: republican or classical theory of citizenship and liberal political tradition. Even though these theories agree on some points, great differences exist between them. The first understands the rights and responsibilities of the citizen are connected mainly with the national identity of the individual. This kind of understanding refers to the relational continuum, 2 while the latter theory exposes the rights of the individual within society and its institutions and the equal distribution of responsibilities and benefits between citizens (Sardoc, 2003). Unlike both of these models, the model of distinguishing citizenship represents an important step in moving away from a singular understanding of citizenship, that implicitly intercede the definition of citizenship as universality in contradiction to the particular cultural identity of the individual. These create a gap 2

between the ideal of assimilation and the ideal of cultural pluralism. Thus giving priority to inclusion, participation and the role of the individual within different social groups (Sardoc, 2004). The closest connection with cosmopolitan citizenship can be found within this model. These kinds of conditions give rise to the rebirth of citizenship education, as well as to many fresh concepts and the endeavours of the world scientific community and political society. We can also say that this kind of theorisation effects the implementation of changes in the area of citizenship education. In today’s discussions on education in Europe, the theme of “citizenship education” is at the forefront of discussion.3 The notion that young citizens in public schools should learn at least the basic competences that they will require in the role of active citizens (Justin et al., 2003), not just the basic knowledge about the elements of political institutions and processes is required (Kymlicka, 1999), but the active participation and the development of different values. In globalizing societies, (global) citizenship education must also take new forms. The organization of citizenship education throughout Europe is very diverse. Some differences can be seen in the subject itself although many similarities are evident. The differences in the subject are mostly due to the autonomy of the educational systems and are a consequence of conformation of local particularities. Even though, some common aspects can be noticed. All of the different systems have a common starting point towards citizenship education, focused around the individual, later following to social matters. These are generally focused around two facts - the national and international realm, most importantly the education of the European citizen. The subject, on the other hand, differs from nation to nation. The main common points can be condensed to the personal, local, national and global realm (Klemencic, 2005). This shows that the national and cosmopolitan pole are represented both on the level of the subject and the level of the aims and purposes, and also a tendency to cognitive characteristics – from easy to difficult, simple to complex, singular to plural. When focusing on nationalism and cosmopolitanism, we can interpret this as an existence and maintenance of collective identities, starting with a small number of individuals and spreading outwards.4 The changing of citizenship education is the answer to the ever-changing political and social reality; this is also true for attempts of reconceptualization of citizenship education in the context of globalization. Citizenship has always demanded a feeling of belonging and this is true today, although the circumstances are ever-changing. The model of cosmopolitan democracy in the context of growing cross-dependence of the world a decade ago was presented by Held. This means that no one can live absolutely isolated within one nation. It is urgent to think about this kind of education for cosmopolitan citizenship, that can include the local, national, regional (for 3

instance European) and the global dimension of citizenship education (Osler et al., 2003). The fear of overstressing of patriotism is focused on this particular dimension, because it can be difficult to distinguish between nationalism (with a negative connotation) and patriotism and their possibly negative consequences. It must be understood (Debeljak, 2003) that if we wish to separate nationalism from patriotism, we need to condense patriotism to its elemental field (to the people and the land with which we have a physical and not imaginary connections). In what kind of social circumstances (suppose that European societies are in crisis) is it necessary to rouse the concept of patriotism? Is this modern patriotism or are we still leaning towards the 19th century concept of patriotism?5 What kind of identity do we wish to establish with patriotism today? Collective Identities We are focusing on one of the possible aspects of identity - the social aspect. We do not want to go around the problem of the relation between the individual and the collective identity, but in connection with patriotism, nationalism and cosmopolitanism the research in to auto-identification (the identity that is attributed to oneself) would lead us too far from our elemental idea, even though these groups of identities overlap. The national identity is (Juznic, 1993) one of the most complicated and contradictory identities, a diverse “composed� identity. We are dealing with collective forms of identification, which are relational - their goal and existence are dependent on other identities. These identities, e.g. cultural, ethnical and national identity, which could potentially be ambivalent social phenomena, frequently serve to exclude certain categories from society. However, on the other hand, they could provide either a deeper or a shallower emotional identification and attachment to society (Sabec, 2006). The exclusion is the main cause of the fear of over-stressing one nationality. What is the relation of identities concerning patriotism, nationalism and cosmopolitanism? The idea of identity circles, where an individual is the bearer of many identities, that spread towards the collective (Sabec, 2006), can explain one view towards this question. Concentric circles of identities originate in the images of oneself, set in the experience of society and are spread through currents of local, national and regional cultures (Debeljak, 2003) and within them cosmopolitanism is created and sustained.


Patriotism – Nationalism – Cosmopolitanism: What to Teach? Most authors define patriotism as positive emotions and feelings, behaviours and beliefs to the community to which the individual belongs to. Patriotic behaviours and beliefs take different forms and different theoretical definitions: liberal and republican patriotism, democratic and authoritarian patriotism, loyal and critical patriotism etc. Westheimer (2006) distinguishes between two versions of patriotism, which are highly relevant in discourses about curriculum and other politics in the field of education. Both, a democratic and authoritarian patriotism in classrooms are politically contested terrains. “/I/s patriotism and its teaching outmoded?” (Archard, 1999: p. 158). A world-famous debate about the role, the meaning and the teaching of patriotism is the debate between Callan and Galston. In spite of differences, both see the need for a civic education in a modern system of education, which must contribute to the patriotic youth’s identification with national identity. For them a civic education is interweaving with elements of patriotism and that citizenship education will ensure the attachment of citizens to the political institutions of the liberal society. They are also unified in frequently expressed care that is evident in almost every attempt for the introduction of a patriotic education in the public system of education. Due to a concern about the prosperity of non partial, objective thinking and the further existence of conditions for critical thinking, the belief is a frequently threatened belief that patriotism is a positive value and is good for modern society, in order to have citizens who love their own patria (Archard, 1999). “Patriotism, in being similar to cosmopolitanism, is more an opinion then a moral point of view, and is often defined as one’s love (loyalty) for the country which could be a nation or a state” (Gutmann, 2001: p. 293). The democratic education must teach pupils about the history and philosophy of patriotism - together with history of cosmopolitanism. 6 This extensive planning of a democratic education includes a wide selection of attachments and identities. The principle of mass accessibilities of a modern educational system, which exceeds identificational borders of different social classes, is an education at the same time offering the possibility for an individual to cross over “the borders of narrow ethnicity into the direction /…/ of cosmopolitism” (Juznic, 1993: p. 283). However it wouldn’t be incorrect to say that cosmopolitism is drawing energy from the future orientation, from ideas of universal humanity, while nationalism always looks back to the past and is strengthened with the memory of past victories or defeats. Cosmopolitism must be equipped with intercultural competences, but for the effective activity, it also needs a juridical frame, which could be found in the conception of citizenship identity (which greatly differs from 5

the “natural” ethnic identity, due to the fact that it is based on the republican respect for differences and their public expression). Cosmopolitism, substantiated to ethnically neutral conceptions of citizenship contributes to the transformation of “natural”, “inherited” and “authentic” identities into the citizenship identity. Cosmopolitanism based on general laws, which are accepted by liberal and equal individuals (Debeljak, 2003). At this point, we can start questioning ways of creating a democratic form of trans-national citizenship and the citizenship education incorporating cosmopolitan democracy.7 Kymlicka (2005, p. 441) found that while in the past “liberal national creation may served to strengthen and build up a democracy at a national level, now we need global comprehension of a democratic citizenship” which will direct attention toward the transnational and international institutions.8 Many recent surveys deal with the relation between a national and a European identity and often find out that national identity is still more prevalent than European identity. The opinion of several authors is that European identity is still not exactly possible to define, it is still in formation, namely it is not only an arithmetic sum of all national identities. Rizman (Sabec, 2006) states her position as being between national identities and global cultural influences, which exceed

Europe. The only relation

that is

questioned in this

context is



transnational/cosmopolitan idea (or identity) can be compatible with the European identity. Is it maybe exclusion? Feeling as Europeans especially in a relation to non European nations, refers to European identities exclusion, which is doubtlessly connected to national identity. A positive attitude to one’s nation is also indicated in IEA survey CIVED, 9 where results pointed out (Krek et al., 2003: p. 98) that pupils’ have very positive attitude about one’s state. International result distributions have namely indicated “that 45% of pupils »strongly agree« with positively directed statements concerning love to the country and flag, and that others approximately 40% »agree« with these statements”. So it is reasonable to raise the question- why should we emphasise patriotism? We think that the exaggerated emphasis on patriotism can delay the efficiency »of establishing« a new identity. In the worst case scenario it could lead to the civic nationalism. Todorov (Rizman, 1991: 146) sees civic or political nationalism as “descended from a certain approved inclination to »own« damaging to all »others«; it seems that this is, from the earliest recognised collectives from the antique period – what we could call patriotism”. Fromm (Sabec, 2006) defined nationalism as »our« form of incest, our idolatry, our madness and patriotism as his cult. Taylor (2000) sees a more neutral position of nationalism; according to his opinion, patriotism can draw from nationalism, however we may not confound them.10 6

Contemporary concepts of education are striving to exceed such an “elitistic” (which could be called loyal patriotic)11 views of the social reality. For this reason, emphasizing patriotism, based at these presumptions could be a risky activity. Indeed, this is relational continuum altogether, for which it isn’t necessarily to be so “elitistically” defined in its basis. That is why the themes within a curriculum are very important; they can impede or stimulate this process. Citizenship Education for Primary and Lower Secondary Education The educational system in Slovenia includes a citizenship education in different forms and levels. At the primary and lower secondary level, a citizenship education is included as a separate compulsory subject (Citizenship education and Ethics in 7 th and 8th grade– 1 lesson per week (35 hours per school year), selective separate subject (Citizenship Culture in 9 th grade), then as a crosscurricular theme (totality of school life- where also activity days are included) and as integrated (the topic forms a part of one or more other subjects)). If we examine the topics that are prescribed by the syllabus for the compulsory subject Citizenship education and Ethics we find that the content of the subject comprises both compulsory and optional themes and compulsory themes (for 7 th and 8th grade) are: life in the community (nation, state), family, role models and authorities, how we communicate and how we decide, mass media and information, generations and cultures, religions and faiths, dealing with common questions: the question of democracy, vocation and work, future society. Out of these, we can identify contextual factors of citizenship education: historic tradition, social, political and economic structure and global trends. Considering the aims of citizenship education (and also other norms and other documents) we see that actual solutions already involve national themes and some dimensional patriotic themes, since all of normative documents anticipate national-cultured as multicultural competences. More detailed confirmation can be found in a single syllabus (in aims, inside themes and in didactical instructions). Compulsory subject Citizenship education and Ethic is actually in the phase of making changes - the national parliament is now dealing with the introduction of the bill, which would change the name of the subject into the Citizenship and Patriotic education and Ethics. The updated syllabus is also being prepared, which will include more patriotic themes. Policy makers of this bill have namely found out that those themes are lacking in the previous solutions. This could signify a political arbitral decision about subject content, because much of the public discourses expose: an importance in a share of history and strengthening of particular values. This is also evident in a those political (and others) discourses, which question the relation to a patriotic and citizenship 7

education – or learning about citizens rights or citizens duties – and at the same time forgetting, that the concept of citizenship education is (all over Europe) simultaneous learning about rights and duties. It is interesting that the teachers surveyed IEA CIVED were not sure in answering the question whether general consensus exists at the society with regard to what should be taught in citizenship education.12 How can we therefore to reach the consensus about (renovated) conceptualization of patriotic education in the Slovenian school sphere? In a late political system some expert discourses expose the possibility to note the following: as an argument of strengthen patriotism in school system in Slovenia the metaphorical concepts are used – generalizations as copying over notion areas. With that, a metaphor is the main (indispensable) part of a general conceptualization of the world, in which our ordinary behaviour reflects our metaphorical understanding of experience (also the most abstractive notions). Therefore, it seems to be a suitable tool for a textual analysis (even more because of defect of the empirical facts, which must be required argumentation) in a defending the strengthening patriotism in the educational system. Metaphorical Concepts In the cognitive analysis, a conceptual metaphor is the bases of all our perceptions, it should be apparent in all forms of description of abstract experiences with concreteness. Thus it becomes an important way in finding, in what way people comprehend different events, things and people around us (Petan, 2004). We couldn’t equate a language with our experience of the world (words do not matter, it is what they refer to), but language could only represent our experiences, those are the metaphorical characteristics of language. These metaphorical characteristics as result of the historical development of a language and its routine adaptation to more and wider segments of the human experience; these new ideas and objects can be understood in a way of using words from well known vocabulary (Kante, 1998). Classical and contemporary metaphor theories are connecting a metaphor to a conception of similarity, on the basis of which their basic differences are founded. Classical theory presumes that a literal meaning is fundamental, so all subject matters can be taken literally (Kante, 1998). Metaphors are recognised like a matter of poetic imagination and rhetoric manner - they are objects more so of extraordinary rather than ordinary language. In this context, a metaphor is an addition to a literal language; metaphoric is typically viewed as characteristic of a language alone (Lakoff et al., 1980). Contemporary theory of metaphor doesn’t find only what it is similar to 8

(though there exist several kinds of similarity), but 13 that a “/m/etaphor is pervasive in everyday life, not just in language but in thought and action” (Lakoff et al., 1980, p. 3). Our conceptual system is not something we are normally aware of. Metaphor is not only a matter of language, like the presumed classical theory. So, we could separate linguistic (“poetic”) metaphor, known from the literal theory and mental metaphor, which Lakoff and Johnson call metaphorical concepts. Though they spawned from the same cognitive material, there is a difference between them in the instrument or medium through which they are expressing themselves. “Metaphorical conception is used as a bases for the human thinking processes, while a language metaphor conception structures represent to other people threw semantically mediums of our voice and gestures” (Hart, 1995, in Petan, 2004, p. 17). We could find some similarity when we use metaphorical conceptions inside cultural environment, and on the contrary, in a different cultural environment metaphorical conceptions can easily be comprehended differently. Metaphorical conceptions are part of cultural representations. Thus, their social condition is the first and actually the only condition that metaphorical concepts become the basic structure/support in our thinking about certain phenomenon, due to the activation of background conceptions. Which metaphorical concepts are represented as an argument for strengthening the patriotism in our educational system? Method, Text Choice and Type of Analysis To analyse the presence of metaphorical concepts and eventual sample of appearing specific metaphorical concepts we have chosen a collections of papers “Citizenship and patriotic education” (Barle-Lakota et al., 2006).14 Sampling Due to the different lengths of papers, we were sampling 2nd paragraph of 2nd, 3rd and 5th page of texts and abstracts. In the papers, where it was not possible to define the paragraph at the chosen page, we used the next paragraph. Using this method, we chose texts in which metaphorical concepts are presented, in texts which defend the introduction or the strengthening of patriotism in schools. For the analysis, only the first part of the collection of papers (About citizenship and Patriotic education) was adequate, because the second part (Curriculum and Citizenship and Patriotic Education) dealt with the curriculum (especially existent syllabuses), so this part included mostly 9

aims of the syllabus, themes about the importance of history and was actually not focused on patriotic education. So we analysed 46 pages of texts (without references). Type of analysis We extracted from texts’ metaphorical concepts and categorised as original and objective domains. Metaphorical concepts are namely linked by two empirical areas, one is substantial, concrete area of the well known outside world, and the other is abstract, the not so well defined area in our thinking. First there was an original and then a second object domain, which define the general notion of a language metaphor. The received results were then compared between different texts, in order to find a general sample, using metaphorical concepts as the defence or emphasise the importance of promoting the notion of the patriotism in Slovene school system. Analysis results From the texts, 150 metaphorical concepts were extracted. All were used as an argument for strengthen patriotic themes in the Slovene educational system. More precise grouping give us some modalities (categories), at the base of their original domain: horticulture (24), body/physical effort (21), physics/chemistry (15), medicine (14), soul/psyche (9), exercise/sport (7), fight/war (7), art (7), family/education (6), constructing (6), history (5), economy (4), geometry (4) and so on. In the texts there are a large number of horticultural original domains and we often notice that very different original domains are tied to the same objective domain. We also became aware of a few classical schemes (mapping) metaphorical concepts; “rational is up – emotional is down”, for which (asymmetrically) double use is significant in analyzing texts, meaning that a scheme “rational is down – emotional is up” was also present in the analysis of texts. The first scheme was evident most in case, when texts were dealing with half past regime (in the meaning of a political authority and former president of our country), and the second, when it speaks about introducing of patriotism in the school field, when love for the patria is represented strictly as a positive emotion, which is serving for argumentation to strengthen patriotism. As we expected, more specific metaphorical conceptions and notion schemes (connected to patriotism and history) are appearing in the connection to materiality, emotional feeling - “love for the patria”15 and history. With an assistance scheme “front - behind, which could be used also for 10

the comprehension of a time “forward to future - back to past,” was several times used in a sense of negative half past history, positive future. We also find interesting “container metaphors,” which is several times used in the relation citizenship-patriotic education like argument for the strengthening of patriotism – especially that patriotic education contains also citizenship education. Conclusions The concept of the Slovene educational system already contains patriotic, cosmopolitan and national (not necessary connotative negative) ideas. A statement would be even more precise at concrete analysis of syllabuses. The same is evident from the survey on 14-year pupils- our pupils (international comparative) who express very high inclination to all that is connected with national identity and patria. As Europe and Slovenia (empirically viewed) do not have problems with recognition and relation to the national identities (including patriotism), it would be logically to emphasize something different, in order to balance both, national and international, and not an excessive emphasis only patriotism. That is why citizenship education, global citizenship and other concepts are fronting with large challenges. For a progress of democratic transnational institutions and identities the development, restoring and preserving of cosmopolitan democracy is necessary. The fear is redundant, because cosmopolitan democracy does not demand (just the opposite) rejections of national citizenship and patriotism, but presupposes the whole learning of citizenship and the influence on a wider understanding of national citizenship. Patriotism could mean also exclusion, so the fear about excessive emphasis this identity is present. So we must be more interested in how to make patriotism and nationalism more secure. Patriotism namely sustains some political connotation. A discussion about citizenship education expressed concerns about some special type of values and parts of history which are the object of many disparities. It is necessary to exceed political arbitral decisions- which means name and contents changes, as it certainly shows now. We must be conscious that it is necessary for today’s individual that national identity and patriotism are shaping in co-dependents with transnational identity and cosmopolitan democracy. Various and complex identity of youth (in relative terms and wider) is in a globalizing world a coexistent fact. A political and some authority discourses often use these arguments for the strengthening of patriotism in educational system that are without empirical data. These were also manifested in analysing texts, where is evident that the only argument for the promotion of patriotism are metaphorical concepts (mostly general and not specific one’s). The question is if these are really strong arguments for this sort changing of an educational system. 11

Notes We must understand this according to emphasis (emphasising citizenship literacy, development of some skills, cultivating values etc.). 2

Understanding of citizenship is founded with its relation to someone else; in the relation to somebody who is “no citizen” or simply “other”. 3

Today, in most European countries, the widest frame of citizenship education has somewhat settled, even though most countries are still searching for new approaches, developing new didactics and didactical materials and optimizing the organization of varying educational content and emphasis - in short, they are trying to achieve greater efficiency of these educational activities. Due to the governing (public) opinion that European societies are in crisis, the minimalistic interpretation of civic education in Europe is less and less acceptable (Justin, 2006). 4

The processes of identifying the individual are very diverse, but a general rule applies, that individuals are not selfsufficient and so they gather in ever larger collectives. 5

»Because the citizen of 21st century is a member of deterritorializing country” (Mitchell, 2003, p. 1), on the contrary to the citizen of 19th century. 6

“The lesson of understanding and the respect of liberty and justice to all in several perspectives” and how to resist the idea that of subordinating the self within society (ibid., p. 296). 7

We reduced cosmopolitanism to one of the dimensions- which means reestablishment of identity- and avoidance of doubtfulness about cosmopolitanism being the forgetting of ones’ nation and that it could also be a leading ideology. 8 The author is further questioning if in a cosmopolitan democracy we can see an alternative to an obsolete model of democracy, which is based on a nation (ibid., p. 443). 9

CIVED was a study of civic education undertaken in 1999 (on 14-year old pupils), under the cover of International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. 10

According to Taylor (2000, p. 126) patriotism is bounded to the state, »but nationalists think, that they own to the state only as much loyalty to embody their national identity concretely«. That is why he sees nationalism as an employment of patriotism. Seeing that nationalism, which sometimes accelerates the homogenization of societies, becomes its result the next time. 11

While patriots sometimes think about others maliciously, no critical patriotism emphasises a wrong opinion (or feelings) concerning history and her consequences, which is consecutively wrong (even concerning) loyalty to the actual political leading and its politics, resulting from former feelings. This is most obvious during the time of national crises. This non critical patriotism Merry calls a loyal patriotism and critical patriotism as its opposite. He also proves that the attachment to ones own native country does not necessarily lead to drastic influences to individual critical thinking in relation to individual – patria – foreign country. Critical patriots strive also for national benefit and human kind benefit outside borders of their patria regardless of geopolitical affiliation (Merry, 2006). Merry is defining patriotism as membership of some area, whether it be patria or »adopted« patria, which is expressed in deeply psychological affiliation and pride. 12

Scepticism in a social consensus about citizenship knowledge prevails from both teachers from stabile democracies and teachers from post-communist societies (Krek et al., 2003, p. 165). 13

According to those, whose argument of this theory are that language is one’s own figurative (metaphorical ) essence, and generalizations which leads to metaphorical expressions are not in the language but in our thinking – they are generally utilising other conception areas (how to comprehend one mental area into the frame of another (Petan 2004). 14 The collection of papers was published after the public presentation of dilemma citizenship-patriotic education (National Council of the Republic of Slovenia, 23rd December 2005). 15

By which is confirmed the thesis that important part of metaphorical thought and language come out from the characteristic of human body.


References Archard, D. (1999). Should We Teach Patriotism? Studies in Philosophy and Education, 18, 157173. Barle-Lakota, A. Rustja, E. (ed.) (2006). Državljanska in domovinska vzgoja. Slovenska Bistrica: Beja. Davies, I. Evans, M. Reid, A. (2005): Globalising Citizenship Education? A Critique of „Global Education“ and „Citizenship Education“. British Journal of Educational Studies, 53(1), 66-89. Debeljak, A. (2003). Kozmopolitizem in koncentrični krogi identitet. (23.07.2007). Dűrr, K. Spajic-Vrkas, V. Ferreira-Martins, I. (2005). Strategije za učenje demokratičnega državljanstva. Informacijsko dokumentacijski center Sveta Evrope pri NUK. Gutmann, A. (2001). Demokratična vzgoja. Ljubljana: Slovensko društvo raziskovalcev šolskega polja: i2. Justin, J. (2006). Državljanska vzgoja: Slovenija in Evropa. In: Barle-Lakota, A. Rustja, E. (ur.): Državljanska in domovinska vzgoja. Slovenska Bistrica: Beja, 90-99. Justin, J. Sardoc, M. (ed.) (2003). Državljanska vzgoja pri pouku zgodovine, geografije in slovenščine. Ljubljana: i2. Juznic, S. (1993). Identiteta. Ljubljana: FDV. Kante, B. (1998). Kaj je metafora? In: Kante, B. (ur.): Kaj je metafora? Ljubljana: Krtina, 7–42. Kerr, D. (1999). Citizenship Education in the Curriculum: an International Review. The School Field, X (3-4), 5-32. Klemencic, E. (2005). Edukacija za demokracijo. In: Haček, M. Zajc, D. (ed.): Slovenija v EU: zmožnosti in priložnosti. Ljubljana: FDV, 415-434. Krek, J. Simenc, M. (2003). Državljanstvo in izobraževanje v osemindvajsetih državah: državljanska vednost in angažiranost pri štirinajstih letih. Ljubljana: Liberalna demokracija: Center za študij edukacijskih strategij, PEF. Kymlicka, W. (1999). Education for Citizenship. In: The School Field, X(1-2), 9-36. Kymlicka, W. (2005). Sodobna politična filozofija: uvod. Ljubljana: Krtina. Lakoff, G. (1998). Sodobna teorija metafore. In: Kaj je metafora? Ljubljana: Krtina, 271–325. Lakoff, G. Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. 13

Levine, P. Youniss, J. (ed.) (2006). Youth Civic Engagement: An Institutional Turn. Washington: Circle working paper. Mitchell, K. (2003). Educating the national citizen in neoliberal times: from the multicultural self to the strategic cosmopolitan. USA: Royal Geographical Society, 18. 07.2003, 1-17. Merry, M.S. (2006). Civic Education, Legitimate Partiality and patriotic Loyality to the state: Are American Public Schools Doing Well By Their Students? (23.03.2007), [1-12]. Osler, A. Starkey, H. (2003). Learning for Cosmopolitan Citizenship: theoretical debates and young people's experiences. In: Educational Review, 55/3, 243- 254. Petan, K. (2004). Metafora v novinarskih prispevkih o nogometu (diploma). Ljubljana: FDV. Rizman, R. (ed.) (1991). Študije o etnonacionalizmu. Ljubljana: Knjižnica revolucionarne teorije. Sardoc, M. (2004). Sodobni izzivi državljanske vzgoje: teorije, politike in koncepti. In: Šolsko polje, XV(1-2), 5-20. Sabec, K. (2006). Homo europeus: nacionalni stereotipi in kulturna identiteta. Ljubljana: FDV. Simenc, M. Straus, M. Sardoč, M. (2004). Empirični pogled na dilemo med domovinsko in državljansko vzgojo. Šolsko polje, XV(1-2), 45-62. Strajn, D. (2004). Politika vzgoje identitete in razlike. In: Šolsko polje, XV(1-2), 85-94. Taylor, C. (2000). Nelagodna sodobnost. Ljubljana: Študentska založba. Westheimer, J. (2006). Politics and Patriotism in Education. Phi Delta kappan, April 2006, 608620.

Note about the author Eva Klemencic is an assistant researcher at the Educational Research Institute (Slovenia) and a doctoral student. Her major research areas are citizenship education and school systems.


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

The use of metaphorical concepts for