Are you landing on "true freedom" in your moral education lessons on "Stolen Freedom"?

Discipline or freedom—which flag are you ultimately raising?

Prince Gerard, who felt that discipline was stifling and fled to the forest in search of a free country. Under the guidance of the head hunter Galiou, he enjoys freedom for a while, but eventually realizes that this "freedom" is actually nothing more than the rule of power that tramples on others.

Many teachers have likely used this teaching material in upper-grade lessons on "freedom and responsibility." Toward the end of the lesson, they start with the question, "What is true freedom?" and land on the phrase, "Freedom comes with responsibility." The children have likely written neatly summarized reflections such as, "Selfishness is not freedom," or "Because there are rules, we can be free and feel secure."

I, too, have been satisfied with this kind of landing in the past. This is because I thought it was a moral lesson that made the importance of discipline intuitive.

However, I have come to think that this "neatness of the landing" might actually be a bit dangerous.

This lesson might actually just be tracing the "ideal form of civic education."

The conclusion that "freedom comes with responsibility" appears at first glance to be a correct conclusion that everyone can agree with. However, it simultaneously stands on the premise that the conflict between the position of seeking freedom and the position of valuing discipline can be ultimately resolved through discussion.

This premise is, in fact, the very idea that citizenship education has long used as a model. Deliberative theory, represented by Habermas, assumes that if citizens engage in rational discussion, they can reach a consensus even on themes like freedom and discipline. The standard lesson development for "Stolen Freedom" is precisely a microcosm of this theory.

However, political philosopher Chantal Mouffe questions this very premise. Mouffe argues that the voice seeking freedom and the voice seeking order are conflicts that will never disappear as long as democracy exists, and they should not be "resolved" through discussion; rather, the question should be how to maintain a space where both can continue to exist as legitimate positions.

Thinking about it this way, doubts remain as to whether the conflict between Prince Gerard and Galiou can simply be dismissed as a "growth story from an immature view of freedom to a mature one." Could it be that the "way of life unbound by discipline" advocated by Galiou also contained a legitimate objection to the court discipline that the prince felt was stifling?

Mouffe's Agonistic Democracy—Conflict is not something to "graduate" from

The point of Mouffe's theory is not to view conflict as an "immature stage." Instead of treating a child's understanding that "freedom comes with responsibility" as the goal of growth that has overcome conflict, we can reset to the premise that the position seeking freedom and the position seeking discipline will continue to exist as legitimate opponents, both inside and outside the classroom.

From this perspective, the goal of the lesson changes from "arriving at the correct view of freedom" to "recognizing that both the feeling of seeking freedom and the feeling of seeking discipline will continue to coexist within oneself and within others."

Three shifts possible in the lesson

1. Try sealing the phrase "true freedom"
The question "What is true freedom?" implicitly assumes a single correct answer. Instead, try changing the question to, "If both Prince Gerard and Galiou have a point, where does that lie?"

2. Do not close the conclusion with the single word "responsibility"
Instead of ending with "freedom comes with responsibility," add a follow-up question: "Is it a bad thing to still feel stifled?" This is a way of ending that does not deny the discomfort with discipline itself.

3. Connect to conflicts outside the story
Connect it to the children's own conflicts outside the teaching material, such as "Let's write down both what you feel is free and what you feel is stifling regarding school rules." Bringing the conflict back into the real space of the classroom, rather than ending it with the conflict within the material, corresponds to the second condition of agonistic moral learning (keeping the space for conflict open).

Perhaps that conflict doesn't need to be graduated from.

A lesson that concludes "Stolen Freedom" with the phrase "freedom comes with responsibility" certainly wraps up neatly. However, that neatness might just be quietly silencing the voices that seek freedom.

Keeping both the flag of freedom and the flag of discipline raised, while still continuing to learn in the same classroom—I will think about such a moral education session next time using teaching materials for middle grades. Next time, I will take up "Postcards and Stamps" and think about another never-ending conflict: "sincerity and compassion."