Homeschooling, Pluralism, and Germany

I have recently read a speech given to a German home educators group on pluralism and the homeschooling situation in Germany. In case you are unaware, Germany seems to be completely determined to eradicate homeschooling completely.

I want to critique a few points of this speech because I believe that many points made therein articulate beliefs or partial beliefs of some who belong to the HSLDA. The author of the essay/speech is attempting to demonstrate that homeschooling is consistent with democratic pluralism. The goal, I believe, is to mitigate the German state by arguing that homeschoolers really are not trying to create "parallel societies" and that homeschooling is consistent with the pluralism that German education ministers are so eager to bring up. I tend to disagree with both points.

The author essentially defines pluralism within the context of a democratic republic as a group of individuals co-existing in what he calls a common society. A common society, then, is nothing more than a society formed by common belief and implemented democratically through the apparatus of the state. The author believes that this is good and articulates that the benefits of a pluralistic society in abstract notions about working together for the "common good" to protect "human rights" under the auspice of "equality."

Geez, this guy almost sounds like a leftist (the sad part is that he probably considers himself conservative indicating that the conservative movement is impotent). The problem is that a common society can only be sustained democratically by mob rule. One group of people may have their beliefs seriously compromised if that said group is a small minority. The majority, then, has the ability to impose foreign cultural beliefs on a minority population by using the state to enforce it's edicts. This is precisely the same reason why empires, for example, extinguish culture - because they conquer and impose a foreign culture on the native population. Moreover, I surmise that even the notions of "common good" and "human rights" are to be determined by the majority.

Moving on, the author then contrasts this idea of "pluralism" with the idea of "parallel societies." He notes:

[P]arallel societ[ies] ... [consist of] a group of people who live inside or within another society but do not share in these minimum common characteristics [characteristics needed to sustain common society for pluralism to survive (this is the author's view)]. These societies within a society seek not to interact but to remain isolated. Such a "parallel society" limits its contact with the larger society and seeks to operate its own civic institutions, legal functions, and would likely reject learning a common language.

I agree that this is what the German officials desire to prevent but the author's use of language seems to imply that this is bad. Alas, I predicted this even before reading the next few paragraphs:

If we accept the idea that government exists to maintain order by establishing a rule of law that applies equally to all within its jurisdiction—then indeed parallel societies are dangerous.

In such parallel societies the rights that should be protected and enjoyed by all citizens of the society could be repressed in the name of some other philosophy, legal system or religion, perhaps. If this were true, it would mean that that not all citizens would be receiving equal protection under the law. Because it is the duty of the state to protect the rights and equal application of the law to all people living within its jurisdiction—this cannot be allowed.

The question here is dangerous to whom? More often than not, parallel societies are dangerous to the state itself. Many groups of people simply desire to be left alone to govern themselves but he speaks of this almost as if it is a heinous crime. Of course, the reasoning here is couched in protecting "human rights" but remember that in a democratic society, such things can be arbitrarily determined by a majority. And what of "repression?" Law itself might be unjust and immoral. In fact, this is the problem that homeschoolers in Germany face but he doesn't see it.

Ludwig von Mises believed that in order to prevent international wars, genocide, and physical oppression of one group against another, democracy had to be voluntary. It seems to me that the author glorifies what he calls "order." But even this idea itself can also be subjective in the context of democratic government.

He then inquires whether or not homeschoolers seek to create "parallel societies" and then unequivocally answers NO. Perhaps some homeschoolers are not trying to do this but the point I am trying to make is that this is not necessarily a bad thing. I am a believer in homeschooling not because I believe that the public schools simply do not teach what I desire them to teach. I am a believer in homeschooling because I find the mere existence of public schools repulsive and I believe that education is a lifelong process that begins at home, not in some impersonal institution. Indeed if one is honest, one will admit that homeschooling is a separate institution from public schools so this argument cannot even survive the most mild criticism from the German officials.

To give a more specific example, why do you think that Hedge Schools came about in colonial Ireland? The elders were trying to teach their children things which were inconsistent with the current ruling body because these cultural things were being extinguished. Would the author here oppose Hedge Schools? The author might argue that this is different because at the time, monarchical government was common. But would it really matter if the Irish were a minority in a democratic government? Of course not.

The author then notes

Parallel societies may indeed be the enemy of a democratic state. But dogmatic and coerced uniformity is the enemy of a pluralistic society.

The question is not whether a free society can or must be either democratic or pluralistic—it can and should be both. All civilized nations profess a commitment to both democracy and pluralism. I would suggest that no responsible homeschool leader or homeschooler would advocate for the creation of what I have defined as parallel societies.

He gets one thing right: parallel societies are the enemy of a democratic state but I believe that his argument about "dogmatic and coerced uniformity" is wrong. Why? Well, it might be true in theory but it cannot be true in practice because I don't believe that pluralistic societies can genuinely exist in nature. That is, they don't naturally exist without the presence of an artificial entity like the state to sustain them and force various groups to remain united to it. So, pluralistic societies do exist within the confines of compulsory democratic states but are unnatural because they are sustained by gunpoint and not by free association. Therein lies the hypocrisy of remaining committed to "democratic pluralism" while seeking to eradicate "parallel societies."

Moreover, the virtue of the modern democratic state is that is is ok to plunder and coerce your neighbor so long as one appeals to the democratic process. More often than not, the reason that one group oppresses another is because the latter group is forced to endure such oppression by the nature of the democratic process. Besides this, one must accept the proposition that forcing group A to remain united with group B when group A does not want to be united with group B does not ameliorate the situation. If group A ever becomes a majority, then they now have the ability to oppress group B.

Because all "civilized" nations profess commitment to democracy and pluralism, I would suggest that all "civilized" nations are actually barbaric. Has it occurred to the speaker that moral decay is rampant in all "civilized nations" (seethis)? The nature of the democratic state itself breeds and sustains the whole idea of what he calls "moral relativism." To the author's credit, he admits that "human rights must rest on an objective standard." Yet, this can never be guaranteed within a democratic state. And whose standard should be applied? I believe that a Christian standard should be applied but a Muslim or an atheist would beg to differ. Naturally, if the atheist standard was applied, there would exist conflict from the Christian and possibly some Muslim communities. Hence the situation in Germany.

The author continues:

[I]n seeking this goal or protecting the rights of all, Germany may not use this argument to justify repression of educational freedom and the right of parents to determine the best form of education for their children. The undisputed empirical reality is that homeschooling by itself does not create parallel societies—and if German authority structures and those who influence them (such as the media and academics) would care to look beyond its own borders, this would be obvious.

This argument is self-defeating and am forced to ask him "why not?" To the speaker, educational freedom is a human right but to Germany, the EU, and the U.N. forced compulsory education is a human right. Pragmatically, the latter is true simply because the state has all of the guns and the power of coercion at it's disposal.

I don't want to go through every point made by the author because he articulates similar ideas and thoughts. He does claim that "the democratic state should not exist to form or mold or shape society" but this is a statement that I believe is always fundamentally false. The problem with democracy is that it sounds good unless you fall within the minority.