


































Frontiers of Contemporary Education 
ISSN 2690-3520 (Print) ISSN 2690-3539 (Online) 

Vol. 4, No. 4, 2023 

www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce 

22 
 

Original Paper 

The Contribution of Education to the Formation of the 

Democratic Citizen 

Anastasia Dimitrakopoulou
1
 

1
 Hellenic Open University, Patra, Greece 

 

Received: December 3, 2023    Accepted: December 8, 2023    Online Published: January 3, 2024 

doi:10.22158/fce.v4n4p22             URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/fce.v4n4p22 

 

Abstract 

The purpose of this paper is twofold; firstly, we will attempt to highlight the contribution of education 

to the formation of the democratic citizen. However, the reason for our study was the ideas of the 

ancient Greek thinkers regarding the relationship between education and the citizen. In the course of 

the work, we ascertain the topicality of their theories, as well as their influence on modern researchers, 

which will constitute the second purpose of our research. People have the same desire for glory, power 

and material wealth as the citizens of ancient Greece, that’s why their texts acquired a timeless value. 

To support our proposal, we will invoke the proposal of T. Parsons, who argues that Western societies 

originate from the ancient Greek ones (Parsons, 1966). 

In the study at hand, we will also be concerned with the issue, if education still plays a primary role in 

the formation of the democratic citizen, given that there are now many educational institutions, such as 

the Internet. In addition, we will deal with whether the concept of democracy has been differentiated in 

relation to the way it was understood by the ancient Greek philosophers, who believed that the citizen 

should be active and participate in the commons. Nowadays, do education systems promote political 

participation or passivity, serving the interests of the ruling class of states? 

Keywords 

Citizen, democracy, politics, globalization 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 4, No. 4, 2023 

23 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

1. Introduction 

In ancient Athens, for the first time, citizenship was combined with the law and a political theory of 

virtues and institutions, and is essentially linked to the state of democracy; because only in this 

particular state does the citizen actively participate in the political process (Gosewinkel, 2001). All 

Athenians participated in the democratic state, which held the status of citizen, which demonstrates the 

priority of the public sphere of life over the private. Citizens, having the privilege of parsimony and 

defense (παππηζία και ιζηγοπία), were involved in the commons, as involvement in politics ensured 

their social position and entity in the political context (Farrar, 1991). 

The democratic citizen over time acquires the qualifications required to support the state, primarily 

through education, which inculcates in the student the basic principles of the state. However, in recent 

years with the rise of liberalism, democratic work in schools has been undermined and tends to be 

sidelined due to the divergence of priorities dictated by the political and economic system of our time. 

In our opinion, it is necessary to redefine the terms of citizenship and education based on the new 

political, social and economic data. The impetus for this effort is given by the speech of the ancient 

Greek thinkers, whose perceptions formed the basis of our reflection for the present study. 

Therefore, the question is not whether the educational system promotes the concept of democratic 

citizenship, but what kind of democracy is promoted, that is, whether students are encouraged to 

become responsible citizens and participate in political life or not (Westheimer & Kahne, 2003). This is 

exactly the question that we will ask in this work, that is, what exactly are the principles that govern 

democracy in our time and in what way will the education system create the corresponding citizen, who 

will support the specific state. This question is important because we observe that the changes that are 

taking place in the educational programs of the various states, in several cases, do not promote the 

concept of the democratic citizen, who has a critical point of view, sharpness of mind, freedom of 

speech and imagination, but are based on providing sterile knowledge, which lends itself to the pattern 

of a well-qualified official who is a passive citizen with no interest in what is going on. 

 

2. The Role of the Citizen and the Importance of Education in Its Politicization 

Aristotle perceives the citizen as an organic member of the city-state, characteristically saying that man 

is: “θύζει πολιηικὸν ζῷον” (Aristotle, Politics, 1253 a 3), which means that man by nature is destined 

to live within the social and political context and participate in the electoral process. The citizen, 

according to the philosopher, always decides with a view to the common good, setting aside his 

personal benefit for the sake of the happiness of the city and the citizens, because he has realized that 

the same benefit depends on the well-being of the whole. The concept of citizen in Stageritis is always 

defined in exclusively political terms and within the political context. The citizen, in other words, is 

contrasted with the concept of the Stranger, who is “the non-citizen” and is excluded from the 

commons of the city (Chourdakis, 2003). In this sense, the terms of the city and politics are set, as well 

as the system of organization that exists between citizens and the state, demonstrating the limits of 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 4, No. 4, 2023 

24 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

coexistence, but also a given collective economic, political and social context (Kalogiannakis, 2003). 

The role of education is important in the process of socialization and politicization of individuals, 

because it transmits the values, norms and perceptions of the specific society. The organized state, 

through education, teaches students citizenship, so that they can correctly and harmoniously fulfill their 

role as adult citizens. Certainly, many claim that education serves the enforcement of the ruling class, 

reproducing the ideological system on which it is based (Curle, 1964). Education, however, must aim at 

individual and social development, which means that individuals need to be able to participate actively 

in public life, defend democracy and coexist harmoniously with their fellow citizens, develop 

individually and to defend human rights (Ballias, 2008). 

In the ancient Greek intellect, the citizen’s relationship with the city was structured through education, 

i.e., children were educated, through school, in dealing with the commons and the harmonious 

coexistence of future citizens within the social and political framework. The ultimate goal of education 

was the formation of the citizen’s personality based on the values that the city espoused in the political, 

social and economic fields. The ancient Greeks had realized the importance of political education and 

set it as the fundamental purpose of human education. The citizen in ancient Greece lived within the 

political society and was involved in politics throughout his life, as mentioned in the Platonic work 

Protagoras: “ἡ δέ παιδεία μέσπι ηῶν ἐνηλίκων διέηεινεν” and “ἐκ παίδων ζμικπῶν ἀπξάμενοι, μέσπι 

οὗπεπ ἂν ζῶζι, καὶ διδάζκοςζι καὶ νοςθεηοῦζιν” (Plato, Protagoras, 325 c-d). These views are 

accepted in our time as well, as the school is perceived as an institution that directly or indirectly 

shapes the pro-political attitudes and behaviors of students, although in our time there are many 

educational institutions, such as the internet and the Mass Media. The students in the classroom 

exchange opinions, disagree, discuss and generally find themselves in a process of expressing public 

discourse. 

In the days many definitions of the concept of citizen have been formulated, which often highlight a 

part of his status. For example, Marshall referring to citizenship says that it is “a social status conferred 

on all who are full members of a community”, adding that all citizens have the same rights and the 

same obligations towards the state (Marshall-Τ. Bottomore, 1997). This definition has received 

objections and has been characterized as passive, because “someone can have the status of a citizen and 

do nothing with it, except to fulfill the minimum legal requirements” (Manville, 1990), as the concept 

of political participation is absent. We consider this observation to be correct, because citizenship is 

absolutely intertwined with political participation, at least in the democratic state; otherwise we are 

talking about other types of states. In our opinion, the following definition of D. Gosewinkel (2001) 

more fully encompasses the work that the citizen is called upon to perform within the political 

framework, and therefore, we would say that the citizen is a member of a politico-legal regime, in 

which he participates on equal terms with the other members of the political community having the 

same rights and the same obligations. The concept of a citizen indicates his behavior towards the 

community and accordingly his attitude towards all citizens; he is characterized as a good and 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 4, No. 4, 2023 

25 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

responsible citizen. The conduct of the citizen reflects “the ideal of political virtue as assumed by the 

prevailing social morality”. Education must keep pace with citizen perception. That is why the state 

must decide the qualities necessary to govern the citizen. 

In the first year of the Peloponnesian War Pericles delivered the funeral oration in honor of the dead 

Athenian warriors, in which he mentions the following sentence: “μόνοι γὰπ ηόν ηε μηδὲν ηῶνδε 

μεηέσονηα οὐκ ἀππάγμονα, ἀλλ᾽ ἀσπεῖον νομίζομεν” (Thucydides, II 40). The Athenian politician 

aimed to extol the virtues of the democratic polity by pointing out the importance of political 

participation and the expression of public discourse by citizens. Political socialization is not a feature of 

all societies and states, but is related to the political, educational, social, economic and ideological 

framework of society. It is, in other words, a multifaceted issue with many ramifications. The process 

of political socialization takes place throughout human life, but especially during childhood and 

adolescence, when “the reception of messages and the formation of attitudes and forms of behavior are 

usually carried out unconsciously, indirectly and often decisive for the individual’s subsequent 

development as a citizen” (Kalogiannakis, 2003). At this age, the students’ experiences, which have a 

political character, are easier to turn into political stimuli or political orientations. 

Nowadays, efforts are being made to inculcate students in political participation through the 

educational process. Nowadays, however, due to the political and social changes brought about by 

globalization, it is necessary to develop, in addition to the national consciousness, the universal 

consciousness of the modern student. The student is called to become an active citizen, who will 

participate in the processes of the political society in which he lives and at the same time will 

demonstrate responsibility and sensitivity to national and universal values, as well as a critical spirit 

towards politics and social events. In this sense, political socialization takes on a broader meaning than 

in the past and “reduces to an essential question of establishing an important relationship: the 

relationship of the ego to the otherness of the Other” (Kalogiannakis, 2003). 

Many question the school as an institution and blame it in relation to the role it performs, the 

dysfunctions it exhibits its relationship with the state and civil society. In addition, there is talk of 

educational and cognitive inadequacies, degradation of studies, authoritarianism and social 

discrimination. The education system is also going through periods of crisis, which do not exclusively 

concern the institution of the school itself, but are linked to the crisis of society, politics and moral 

values, because between these parameters there is an inseparable unity and therefore they are perceived 

together. Undoubtedly, in our time, due to globalization, as we have already mentioned, citizenship 

acquires an expanded meaning, as it is shaped under a universal dimension. This new dimension is 

holistic and its extremes are the personal dimension and the universal dimension. They include: the 

family, the local community and the national community. Another reason that dictates the 

differentiation of democratic citizenship and the acquisition of a global dimension is the existence of 

global problems, such as economic, environmental and international security issues (Kymlicka, 2010). 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 4, No. 4, 2023 

26 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

The issue of education is even more complex, because it is not only about the content of education or 

access to it for all students, but, due to multiculturalism, there is an urgent need for an education that 

recognizes the cultural elements of all children. This view contrasts with what Young (2011) refers to 

as “cultural imperialism”, which is essentially the non-imposition of the standards of a particular 

culture. Otherwise, we cannot speak of fair education, but of education that marginalizes a section of 

students. In human societies there is social stratification, i.e., societies are divided into social classes 

with a hierarchical distribution. Education is the most important element for social stratification and 

“takes into account the knowledge, skills and attitudes learned at school for the maintenance and 

development of a society” (Putnam, 1993). Every person has a right to education, for this reason, 

teaching should not only involve an individualistic dimension, but also a social one, otherwise 

education becomes ineffective. 

Under these conditions, the question arises regarding the meaning of education and the conditions 

under which it could become the purpose of human life. R. S. Peters, defining the concept of education, 

criticizes the subordination of education to purposes external to it and suggests “a normative 

interpretation of the above concept as a set of criteria based on which specific educational processes 

can be evaluated and the result they aim at, which is the educated man” (Peters, 1977). Hutchins (1953) 

underlines the political dimension of education, as he considers that the purpose of education is to 

prepare citizens for participation in the democratic state. However, the fundamental task of education, 

as Pavlidis (2008) points out, is the cultivation of the intellect and the development of consciousness: 

“consciousness consists in knowing and understanding the world and ourselves as an object and on the 

other hand in the conscious, in knowing and understanding ourselves as a subject as a carrier of 

consciousness, as well as in understanding the unity of the self-subject with the other people-subjects”. 

This means that the education of man lies primarily in the cultivation of consciousness and the 

formation of man as a personality. 

From the above, we understand that the need for change in the field of education is imperative, given 

the changes observed at the international level in the knowledge field and in the skills that one must 

possess in order to cope with the developments. Various theories have been formulated on this, often 

conflicting, such as the neoliberal one, which focuses on the responsibility of the individual to be able 

to cope with the financial demands of his life. Within this context, they extol “markets as a school of 

political virtue, where important virtues such as self-confidence, initiative, decorum and the full 

participation of all in society are promoted” (Kymlicka, 2010). Undoubtedly, markets teach the citizen 

to take initiative, but they do not automatically cultivate in him a sense of justice or social 

responsibility (Kymlicka, 2010). On the other hand, communitarianism, which is opposed to liberalism, 

perceives the citizen moving “within expanded autonomy, both at the individual and community level, 

able to claim the substitution of existing power structures and the transformation of values in the 

perspective of redefining the of democracy against the ideology of the market” (Petrou, 2010). The 

representatives of the communitarian view argue that “the culture of Western modernity is doomed to 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 4, No. 4, 2023 

27 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

failure, since the conditions do not allow the coexistence of two of its most basic goals: the autonomy 

of thought and the assumption of a social role on the part of citizens” (Leontsini, 1999). In addition to 

these two views, there are others that have been formulated, such as the ideological trend of inclusive 

democracy and inclusive democracy, which pose as a central issue the re-meaning of the concept of the 

citizen (Kymlicka, 2010). 

Many studies refer to the research of Lipset (1959), who stated that the maintenance of democracy 

depends on the provision of a high level of education. Subsequently, several studies were conducted, 

which confirmed Lipset’s views, such as Barro, (1999) and Glaeser et al., (2004). Of course, there have 

been scholars who disagree or question Lipse, as they do not accept that the increase in education is 

correlated with the increase in the level of democracy, as stated in a research by Acemoglu et al. (2005) 

(Castelló-Climent, 2006). The sustainability of democracy depends, according to Amparo 

Castelló-Climent (2006), not on increasing the average years of education, but what really matters for 

democracy is the improvement of the education acquired by the majority of society. This finding is 

consistent with Lipset’s view (Castelló-Climent, 2006). 

Democracy requires the participation of citizens in the affairs of the state. Through educational 

strategies, students will be able to identify aspects of society that need improvement, be supportive of 

their peers, and develop the skills needed to effectively work for change (Westheimer & Kahne, 2003). 

Almond and Verba (1989, 1st ed. 1963) have highlighted the link between education and political 

participation, considering that limited education has a different weight in the formation of a person’s 

political identity compared to a person who has received a high level of education. There are many 

examples from the international political scene, which validate the above proposition and demonstrate 

the reaction of the educated to the decisions of their political leaders, such as the student protests that 

overthrew Peron in Argentina in 1955, Peres Jimenez in Venezuela in 1958, the Hungarian Revolution 

in 1956, the Prague Spring in 1968 (Westheimer & Kahne, 2003) and of course, the student uprising in 

Athens in 1973 against the dictators. 

It is necessary for schools to cultivate in students the idea that political participation is an important 

component of democracy and that this should not be limited to rhetorical effort but should also be 

cultivated through various educational methods. In this way, students will immerse themselves in the 

obligations of civic mindedness, participation in the electoral process, constant information on political 

issues and the expression of speech with pride on issues concerning collective issues. 

An important parameter in the education of the democratic citizen is the process of socialization, which 

is promoted through textbooks and is the pillar of curriculum design. The purpose is for students to 

develop cooperative relationships, self-regulate their behavior and strengthen the relationship with 

adults (Glaeser, Ponzetto & Shleifer, 2006). E. Glaeser, G. Ponzetto, A. Shleifer (2006) state that the 

relationship between education and democracy is clear, but the reason for the association is not. In their 

study they try to explain the correlation between the two parameters. They argue that education is 

linked to political engagement. Schools aim at the socialization of young people and possibly political 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 4, No. 4, 2023 

28 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

involvement is a form of socialization (Glaeser, Ponzetto & Shleifer, 2006). The consolidation of 

democracy depends on the support of the vast majority of citizens and in this process the assistance of 

education is very important, because educated states preserve and protect democracy from 

interventions by factors that lead society to political deviation. 

 

3. Public and Common Education 

According to Aristotle, the relationship between the city and the citizen is dialectical. The achievement 

of the virtue and well-being of the city depends on the morals of its citizens, in the formation of which 

the state contributes directly and decisively: “ζποςδαία γε πόλιρ ἐζηὶ ηῷ ηοὺρ πολίηαρ ηοὺρ μεηέσονηαρ 

ηῆρ πολιηείαρ εἶναι ζποςδαίοςρ” (Aristotle, Politics, 1332 a 33-34). The education of citizens needs to 

go hand in hand with the principles of the state, because the alignment of the principles of the state with 

the educational system is the distinguishing feature of the superior state: “Γεῑ γάπ ππόρ ἐκάζηῳ 

παιδεύαιζθαι” (Aristotle, Politics, 1337 a 14 Dimitrakopoulou, 2012). According to Aristotle, 

education is a moral, political and social institution and has as its ultimate purpose the creation of 

virtuous and just citizens (Aristotle, Politics, 1332 a 30-b 10). Therefore, it is required that it agrees 

with the state of the city and, of course, that it is public and common to all citizens and that it is not left 

to private initiative, because the purpose of the city is common and it is not possible for each of the 

citizens to the educates his children-the future citizens-with the values that he himself desires, given 

that the citizen primarily becomes the recipient of the values of the society in which he lives (Aristotle, 

Politics, 1337 a 21-26). Democratic and public education develops in student’s political competence 

and a sense of community so that democracy is established. 

Aristotle’s views on the importance of the public and the character of education have influenced 

modern education systems. Modern education accepts the political and social role that Aristotle gave to 

education, considering that the student, through the educational process, softens his egocentrism and 

acquires social consciousness. The social character of the modern school is made evident by the 

methods and practices it uses, as through cooperative forms of teaching and the observance of school 

rules, students are prepared to take on a political role. 

We must point out that Stagiritis is opposed to the provision of vocational education, as it is considered 

that this type of education is contrary to the type of education that aims to build the healthy character of 

students. Therefore, he wonders about the content of education: “πῶρ σπὴ παιδεύεζθαι” (Aristotle, 

Politics, 1324 a 5-7), that is, in which areas will the education system focus; on shaping the best life, on 

providing knowledge or on serving the daily needs of life? The answer is essential, because it is the 

foundation on which the moral, intellectual and spiritual education of citizens is built. Aristotle rejects 

the utilitarian dimension of education as inappropriate for free people (Aristotle, Politics, 1338 b 2-4). 

The educated man acts as a universal being and not as an individual. Aristotle characterizes manual 

workers as unfree, because they submit to purposes alien to themselves, while their work destroys them 

physically and mentally (Aristotle, Politics, 1337 b, 1338 a). Commenting on Aristotle’s view, H. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 4, No. 4, 2023 

29 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Marcuse says that “in idealism a special historical form of the division of labor and the structuring of 

society into classes takes the eternal, metaphysical form of the relationship between necessity and 

beauty, between matter and idea” (Marcuse, 1985). 

The question that concerns us is the following: if we assume that education is related to social 

inequalities, what are the particular processes with which it is associated? Could it be that education is 

not only a derivative but also a producer of inequalities, which confirms the utopia that a truly equal 

education is only possible in an equal society? Education, to the extent that it is an active activity in the 

creation of social reality, has the ability to turn towards the ideal of a different society and to fight for 

it. 

But what is the role of education in modern society? According to P. H. Hirst, education aims at the 

“multifaceted development of the mind, the acquisition of knowledge and the cultivation of the ability 

to understand experience in a variety of ways”. Education does not consist in imparting specialized 

knowledge but basic forms of knowledge, which are considered to contribute to the goals that have 

been set, such as the development of the mind and the pursuit of the good life or, using Aristotle’s term, 

the happy life (Hirst, 1973a). Hirst accepts the passage from Plato’s Republic, according to which 

human beings know the nature of things through knowledge and thereby attain the happy life. Like the 

myth of the cave, believing that people through the use of logic can escape the cave and ascend to the 

real world (Hirst, 1973a). Hirst referring to the modern era argues that liberal education has as its main 

purpose the development of people based on what our time perceives as valuable. Education, however, 

should not be subject to the whims of politicians or other powerful groups in society (Hirst, 1973a). 

This perception of the author is accepted because education must serve the purpose of each society and 

therefore it is necessary not to be subject to or serve the interests of the ruling class, perpetuating a 

certain social regime. Education, of course, transmits the values of the specific society and the specific 

state, therefore, it is reasonable to respond to the social, moral and political requirements of the 

democratic state and not to the model of life that the economic agents want to shape with their 

assistants politicians and the representatives, mainly, of the social sciences. Therefore, the purpose of 

education is to provide knowledge, which covers all levels of social life, aiming to create virtuous and 

just citizens. In support of the above, we refer to the proposal of R. Pring, who, referring to the modern 

professional dimension of education, says that: “it serves the new class of managers perfectly, but it 

does not result from any analysis of what it means to be an educated person” (Pring, 2002). 

Hirst (1973a) worries about the utilitarian approach to education, because through the educational 

system, the acquisition of skills by students is sought, in order to respond to the ever-changing 

environment of the workplace. Unfortunately in our time the economy sets the rules of politics and not 

the other way around, resulting in the widening of the gap between the rich and the poor. This tactic 

drives society into disequilibrium and disintegration, as conflicts arise between the poor and wealthy 

citizens. Society must promote the well-being of all citizens, because in this way the occurrence of 

events that would cause social conflicts is prevented. This view was first formulated by Plato and 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 4, No. 4, 2023 

30 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Aristotle. In particular, in Stagirite’s texts it is mentioned that there must be a reasonable relationship 

between wealth and poverty, because excessive wealth or excessive poverty undermines political 

stability (Aristotle, Politics, 1266 b 8-15). Therefore, neither an individual nor a social class is allowed 

to acquire too much power. Social balance and order is ensured by the existence of a strong middle 

class, which manages to offset the excessive claims of the extremes: “ἡ δε πενία ζηάζιν ἐμποιεί και 

κακοςπγίαν” (Aristotle, Politics, 1265 b). Aristotle considered that the impoverishment of citizens is 

against democracy: “ηοῦηο γάπ αἴηιον ηοῦ μοσθηποῦ εἶναι ηήν δημοκπαηίαν” (Aristotle, Politics, 1320 a 

34) and for this reason he considered the middle class as the condition of development and order within 

the city, which is accepted and Nowadays. 

 

4. The Role of Education in Shaping the Democratic Citizen 

The school is recognized as the institution of socialization and politicization of young people, but at the 

same time criticisms are made against it, as it is considered to be the most important mechanism within 

which capitalist relations of production and social inequalities are reproduced. In addition, there are 

doubts whether the school is able to promote the virtues of the state better, at least than the church or 

the family. On the other hand, the school “can and must be (re)shaped, with the support of other social 

institutions, in order to become an effective nursery of state virtues, covering an important gap, since it 

is not self-evident that children are taught the full range of state virtues in the family or other social 

groups but certainly not in the market” (Kymlicka, 2010). “The educational system consists in teaching 

the class education of the dominant social groups, traditionally maintaining the elements of 

individualism and competition, which are necessary for the adaptation of future adults to today’s 

structures”. Even group forms of teaching, when proposed, do not aim to build a society based on 

human solidarity, but rather are used as a means to develop cooperative skills, which “are required by 

modern socio-economic conditions” (Matsangouras, 2003). 

Citizenship education is now a key parameter in modern education systems, which aim to develop the 

virtues appropriate to a democratic citizen and the development of active participation in political 

processes (Papadopoulos, 2016). The school system transmits the dominant ideology through the 

pedagogical act, which “objectively is nothing more than a symbolic violence, understood as an 

imposition, on the part of an arbitrary power, a political arbitrariness” (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1970). 

For these reasons, the role of education needs to be redefined, because in our time, economic growth is 

emphasized, while the other aspects of the human condition are neglected. Man needs to be treated as a 

whole and not in an isolated and fragmented way. According to M. Nussbaum, internationally the 

situation is hopeless, in terms of civic education in primary and secondary education. The education 

system fails to assess critical thinking, imagination and empathy because there is no adequate way of 

assessment. Thus, the student becomes passive and the teaching becomes routine, because creativity 

and individuality do not find room to develop (Nussbaum, 2003). 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 4, No. 4, 2023 

31 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

A democratic society requires changes in education in order to educate the kind of citizen that is 

needed to function properly and the traits that are considered necessary are critical thinking, dynamism, 

reflection, empathy and exchange of ideas based on mutual respect and mutual understanding with 

people belonging to different groups. The functioning of the democratic state is left to the forces of 

rationality and imagination. In today’s age, education systems produce useful people, who bring profit, 

but have limited imagination. Results in democratic citizens falling into logical errors, acting sloppily, 

behaving selfishly and narrow-mindedly. “Education primarily aimed at profits in the context of the 

world market magnifies these defects, producing greedy idleness and a technically cultivated gullibility 

that threaten the very survival of democracy and are sure to hinder the cultivation of universality” 

(Nussbaum, 2003). Education and democracy are inextricably linked and the relationship is broken 

only by human fault. 

Althusser notes that no class can maintain state power without exercising its hegemony over and within 

ideological state apparatuses. The school, in other words, is an institution through which children 

acquire the ideology that suits the role they will fulfill in the future in class society. Individuals are 

fashioned into subjects suited to the needs of capitalism (Althusser, 1983). The school, in other words, 

is an institution through which children acquire the ideology that suits the role they will fulfill in the 

future in class society. Individuals are fashioned into subjects suited to the needs of capitalism. In 

addition, in school children are taught “how” things happen but by methods that ensure submission to 

the dominant ideology. Education does not seem to offer future workers the possibility of a “total 

understanding of the production process” (Grollios, 2005). While the “development of any critical and 

creative thinking aims one-sidedly at the understanding of school knowledge”, as the discussion of 

social becoming has no place in a teaching act that aims, for example, to succeed in exams (Liambas & 

Kaskaris, 2007). In the book Schooling in Capitalist America, Bowles & Gintis argued that there is a 

strict correspondence between the type of social relations that develop in the school and the relations of 

the economic environment. Education, in other words, is perceived as a purely passive reflection of the 

world of work. The effort to liberalize education and the democratization of economic life are 

inextricably linked. Education is governed by interactions in relation to other parameters, social, 

political, economic and cultural, and should be approached in this way (Bowles & Gintis, 1976). 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 4, No. 4, 2023 

32 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

5. Pedagogical Love and Democracy 

Plato focuses on the way of teaching and on the relationship between the educator and the educated, 

with the ultimate goal that the encounter between the two persons should be fruitful. The philosopher 

refers to the dangers faced by the young, when he does not have the appropriate teachers:  “σπῆ 

ἐπαζηη μᾶλλον ή μή επωνηι ἐκ ηῶν ὁμοίων σαπίεζθαι» (Plato, Protagoras, 318 E). The work of 

teachers is essential because it refers to the moral formation of young people, so great care is required 

in the selection of people who undertake the education of children. The wrong choice of the teacher 

undermines the future development of the young person as a citizen, as well as the achievement of the 

happy life (Plato, Protagoras, 313Α-Β). Socrates, talking to the young people of the city, reveals to 

them the beauty of his soul and leads them to the development of their personality, while they 

themselves win him over with their physical qualities, combining at the same time their spiritual gifts 

(Plato, Symposium, 209 B). Man, according to Plato, is a deficient being and needs knowledge; 

otherwise he cannot survive in the world. However, this learning process is a difficult road, which a 

deficient existence, i.e., man, must travel, so that with effort and anxiety he can shape his life (Plato, 

Protagoras, 531 B-C, 522B). 

The educational process is the relationship of dominance of the adult over the minor, which is approved 

and validated by the holding social system. This situation is justified because the child is unable to act 

independently, without meaning that the children are the property of the parents or the teachers, 

anyway, if the education of the children is defective, the state intervenes. The child gradually joins the 

world of adults, which in his eyes appears inaccessible and elusive and because it is difficult to take 

part directly, the coming of age and maturity, as well as the learning that necessarily accompanies them, 

have become problematic (Karakatsanis, 2015). 

A large part of children’s education takes place at school, so new problems arise regarding the 

relationship between school and life. However, many differences are observed in the upbringing and 

education of children, which are a consequence of the social and economic background of the students. 

First of all, the children of the higher social strata are familiar with the language code of the school, 

since their environment works with this code, and coming to school they do not change the language 

code, but continue with their environment, which means that they are familiar with the educational 

environment (Karakatsanis, 2015). 

The purpose of learning is the independence of the child from parents and teachers and subsequently, 

the ability to create new autonomous relationships both with peers and with other people. The school 

develops the child’s abilities that correspond to each evolutionary field and must be promoted or they 

will fade. That is why every lesson taught is taught at the specific developmental fade; otherwise the 

smooth development of the child is harmed, as it results in compulsive learning (Karakatsanis, 2015). 

Choices in the area of education must be made based on the three concepts: maturity, participation and 

emancipation. This is necessary because democracy requires mature people and citizens. Adorno notes: 

“every attempt to promote ideals from the outside that do not spring from the mature consciousness of 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 4, No. 4, 2023 

33 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

the individual and do not express it, is a collectivist reaction” (Adorno, 2006). 

The teacher is now perceived as a professional mediator between the student and the world, 

“connecting with reality and acquiring an entity with which every teacher could identify” (Karakatsanis, 

2015). Children have no possibility of rejecting the agents of socialization and necessarily accept the 

existing conditions. From the above, the question arises in education regarding freedom, given that the 

parameters of “freedom, the participation of the students, their differentiation with the teachers, the 

selection of the necessary material and the use of the appropriate textbooks” are included. The 

educational system needs to be structured on the basis of regularity and freedom in the educational 

process without dogmatism and arbitrariness (Karafillis, 2007). Education differentiates and modifies 

human nature, leading man to the perfection and acquisition of his humanity, as Menander said, the 

purpose of man is the fulfillment of his natural destiny and the highlighting of his essence, which make 

him graceful “Ὡρ σαπίεν ἄνθπωπορ, ὅηαν ἄνθπωπορ ᾖ”. Man is the being of nature “who manages to 

escape definitively from the shackles of nature, to escape from the center of the oppressive power of 

repetitive natural laws and thus to become the eccentric being, the essential being, the being 

differentiated from. it manages to position itself and acquire its uniqueness” (Karafillis, 2007). In this 

difficult path of educating the young person, the role of the competent teacher is fundamental and 

essential. 

Socrates as a teacher did not treat his students as knowledgeable, but his discourse was aimed at 

shaping the student’s “ethos” and developing the powers of his soul. Modern teachers can learn from 

the Athenian philosopher’s approach to young people. Therefore, the Socratic teacher exchanges 

arguments with his student and through the dialogue their correctness is checked, then new arguments 

are reformulated and created (Kalfas, 2011). In this way, the philosophical discourse develops, i.e., 

with the exchange of discourses. Of course, students during the educational process must be receptive 

to the teacher’s words, so that the discussion that will be held is constructive and fruitful (Plato, 

Phaedrus 277a). The souls of young people are always receptive and offer the fertile ground for sowing 

the teacher’s words and through creative dialogue, young people acquire the supplies they need to meet 

their duties as citizens (Kalfas, 2011). 

The Socratic teacher inspires the students and leads them to the virtuous life. But in modern times, 

most educational systems focus on highlighting technical and scientific skills and not on how to form 

the virtuous citizen, consequently stifling creativity and personality for the sake of success in school 

exams. Our society is fixated on the pursuit of wealth and the aim of education is for future citizens to 

serve this process of profit and not to create thinking citizens. Democracy does not need people who 

will submit to authority and the pressure of the social environment, but who will have the courage to 

express their individual dissent. We must mold children according to Socratic values, so that they 

become “active, critical and inquisitive spirit, able to resist authority and environmental pressure” 

(Nussbaum, 2013). 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 4, No. 4, 2023 

34 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

6. Epilogue 

In the study at hand we dealt with the effect of education on the construction of the status of the 

democratic citizen of the modern society, however, we referred to previous manifestations of this status, 

as we referred to the intellect of the thinkers of Ancient Greece. The reason for the mention was 

compelling, because modern European citizenship is largely based on the characteristics of the citizen 

of the ancient Athenian democracy and the theory of the ancient Greek philosophers. Athenian 

democracy promoted equality and freedom as the basic characteristics of the citizen. The ancient Greek 

philosophers proclaimed the engagement of the citizen with the commons and the promotion of the 

common good of the city. In our opinion, these elements can be the foundation for the creation of a 

modern democracy, in which the leader will make decisions based on the interest of all citizens and not 

the social class that supported him for his election and themselves citizens will be active, deciding their 

own lives. 

 

References 

Acemoglu, D. et al. (2005). From Education to Democracy? American Economic Review Papers and 

Proceedings, 95, 44-49. https://doi.org/10.1257/000282805774669916 

Althusser, L. (1983). Theses. Athens: Themelio. 

Balias, S. (2008). Human rights. Citizenship and education. In S. Balias (Ed.), Active Citizen and 

Education (pp. 198-220). Athens: Papazisis. 

Barro, R. (1999). Determinants of Democracy. Journal of Political Economy, 107, 158-183. 

https://doi.org/10.1086/250107 

Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J.-C. (1970). Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture. London: Sage 

Publications. 

Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in Capitalist America: Educational reform and the 

contradictions of economic life. NY: Basic Books. 

Castelló-Climent, A. (2006). On the Distribution of Education and Democracy (pp. 1-18). Retrieved 

from https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/7151204.pdf 

Curle, A. (1964). Education, Politics and Development. Comparative Education Review, 7(3), 226-245. 

https://doi.org/10.1086/445002 

Dimitrakopoulou, A. (2012). Aristotle’s Teaching on Education: Effects on Plutarch’s work, as well as 

on Byzantine and modern pedagogy. Athens: Ennoia. 

Farrar, C. (1988). The Principles of Democratic Thought in Classical Athens. Athens: Papazisi. 

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511552489 

Glaeser, E., LaPorta, R., Lopes-de-Silanes, F., & Shleifer, A. (2004). Do Institutions Cause Growth? 

Journal of Economic Growth, 9, 271-303. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOEG.0000038933.16398.ed 

 

 

https://doi.org/10.1257/000282805774669916
https://doi.org/10.1086/250107
https://doi.org/10.1086/445002
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511552489
https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOEG.0000038933.16398.ed


www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 4, No. 4, 2023 

35 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Gosewinkel, D. (2001). Citizenship, historical development of Citizenship. In N. J. Smelser, & P. B. 

Bakes (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences (pp. 1852-1857). 

New York: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-043076-7/02682-6 

Grollios, G. (2005). Paulo Freire and the Syllabus. Thessaloniki: Vanias. 

Hirst, P. H. (1973a). Liberal education and the nature of knowledge. In R. S. Peters (Ed.), The 

Philosophy of Education (pp. 87-111). Oxford University Press. 

Hourdakis, A. (2003). Hospitality City or Foreign Citizen? The stranger, the neighbor and the barbarian 

in Greek antiquity. In A. Kazamias (Ed.), Education and Citizen: The education of the citizen of 

Greece, Europe and the world (pp. 78-96). Athens: Atrapos. 

Hutchins, R. M. (1953). The Conflict in Education in a Democratic Society. N.Y.: Harper and Row.  

Kalfas, V. (2011). Love in Plato. Archaeology & Arts (issue 109, pp. 10-15). Retrieved from December 

10, 2023, from https://www.archaiologia.gr/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/109-2.pdf 

Kalogiannakis, P. (2003). Political Socialization and School: Comparisons, aspects and perspectives. In 

A. Kazamias (Ed.), Education and Citizen: The education of the citizen of Greece, Europe and the 

world (pp. 151-172). Athens: Atrapos. 

Karakatsanis, P. (2015). Philosophy of Education. Athens: Gutenberg. 

Karaphyllis, G. (2007). The Philosophy of Education. Athens: Vania. 

Kymlicka, W. (2010). The rise and fall of multiculturalism? New debates on inclusion and 

accommodation in diverse societies. International Social Science Journal, 97-112. 

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2451.2010.01750.x 

Liambas, A., & Kaskaris,, I. (2007). Critical Postmodernism, critical pedagogical and the ideological 

forms of neophile liberalism in education. Retrieved November 5, 2023, from 

http://www.theseis.com/index.php?optio 

Lipset, S. M. (1959). Some Social Requisites for Democracy: Economic Development and Political 

Legitimacy. American Political Science Review, 53, 69-105. https://doi.org/10.2307/1951731 

Lipset, S. M. (1960). Political Man: The Social Basis of Modern Politics. New York: Doubleday. 

Manville, Ρ. Β. (1990). The Origins of Citizenship in Ancient Athens. Princeton: University Press. 

Marcuse, H. (1985). On the “Affirmative Character of Culture”. Athens: Ypsilon. 

Matsangouras, C. (2003). The School Class. Athens: Grigori. 

Nussbaum, M. (2003). Not for Profit. Princeton. University Press. 

Papadopoulos, Κ. (2016). For a citizenship education with a democratic orientation under conditions of 

neoliberal ideological hegemony. Erkyna, Review of Educational-Scientific Issues, 8, 19-32. 

Papanaoum, Z., & Tzika, Z. (1989). Political Socialization and School. Thessaloniki: Kyriakidis. 

Parsons, Τ. (1966). Societies: Evolutionary and comparative perspective. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. 

Pavlidis, P. (2008). Education as the purpose of life. In K. Voudouris (Ed.), Education in the Age of 

Universality (pp. 238-253). Athens: Ionia. 

Peters, R. S. (1977). Education and the Education of Teacher. London. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-043076-7/02682-6
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2451.2010.01750.x
https://doi.org/10.2307/1951731


www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 4, No. 4, 2023 

36 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Petrou, A. (2010). Education, education, ethics of emancipation and democratic citizenship. In M. 

Sakellariou, M. Zebylas, & A. Petrou (Eds.), Ethics and Education (pp. 119-152). Dilemmas and 

Perspectives, Athens: Critique.  

Pring, R. (2002). Neglected purposes of Education. In R. Marples (Ed.), The Purposes of Education. 

Athens: Metaichmio. 

Putnam, R. D. (1993). The prosperous community: Social capital and public life. American Prospect, 

4(13), 35-42. 

Westheimer, J., & Kahne, J. (2003). Democracy and Civic Engagement Reconnecting Education to 

Democracy: Democratic Dialogues (pp. 9-14). https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170308500105 

Young, A. (2011). La diversité linguistique à l’école: Handicap ou ressource? In C. Dorison, & N. 

Lewi-Dumont (Eds.), La formation des tous les enseignants à la diversité, Suresnes: INS-HEA (pp. 

93-109). https://doi.org/10.3917/nras.055.0093 

        

  

  

https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170308500105
https://doi.org/10.3917/nras.055.0093

