This chapter introduces you to a relational approach to citizenship education, one that is grounded in how educators can and do engage children in coming together to interact with and learn from others in their communities. In this chapter, we are interested in a broad understanding of citizenship education, one which might be better understood as education for citizenship. While commonly understood as either a ‘status’ or a ‘practice’, this chapter argues that citizenship, above all else, concerns relationships. Recognising this fact requires us as educators to consider how civic relationships have been and are (often problematically) framed and how relational pedagogies can recognise and draw upon learners’ existing civic dispositions, might develop those civic dispositions further, and can build civically responsive educational settings. The chapter will provide a critical overview of relevant existing research on citizenship education before developing key features, including key pedagogical features, of a relational approach to citizenship education.

Trust in political institutions represents a central component of democratic systems. When citizens lack confidence in state bodies, such as the government and parliament, the legitimacy of democracy is dangerously challenged. In the case of Latin America, we observe a critical scenario, with a steady decrease of institutional trust in the last decade, accompanied by alarming levels of support for authoritarian regimes. Most of the previous evidence in this regard refers to the adult population and omits the young generation who certainly have a stake in the future of democracy in the region. Focusing on the role of the acquisition of civic knowledge at school as a protective factor for democracy, we analyse the role of civic knowledge to understand trust in civic institutions and authoritarian attitudes among fourteen-year-old students. The data correspond to the International Civic and Citizenship Education Study (ICCS) of 2009 and 2016, in which seven Latin American countries participated. The results indicate the puzzling role of civic knowledge, as it diminishes trust in institutions, yet at the same time reduces authoritarian beliefs. The consequences for democracy and citizenship education are addressed.

This chapter demonstrates how Deleuze and Guattari’s notion of ‘microfascism’ is of crucial importance to an understanding of the complexities of contemporary pedagogical efforts to combat populism, right-wing extremism, and fascism. In particular, I discuss how ‘affect’ and ‘biopower’ are entangled in everyday processes of discipline and control, and argue that these concepts are pivotal for appreciating the affective relations and capacities of microfascism. To illustrate how affect and biopower are intimately linked to microfascist practices in schools and classrooms, I analyze two examples—one in health education and another in citizenship education. Finally, I suggest pedagogical strategies that could unmake microfascist subjectivities, emphasizing that it is important to understand the complexities involved since fascism is easily disguised in many forms that are often aligned with (neo)liberal values.

Increasingly, studies have focused on the potential of the education system to enhance social cohesion, in particular in multi-ethnic societies. Indeed, the education system can strengthen social cohesion by providing learners from diverse groups equal learning opportunities. Moreover, schooling can impart the “rules of the game” in a democracy and contribute to developing a common sense of belonging. In this chapter, we reflect on three strands of education that are generally not explicitly linked to social cohesion, but that could play a particularly promising role in this regard: multicultural, citizenship, and peace education. Innovatively, we study these educational approaches from an African perspective – for the continent is often overlooked in the current literature – analysing education in postconflict Côte d’Ivoire and in the ethnically divided society of Kenya. Notwithstanding promising contributions, we identify a number of hurdles to advancing social cohesion through education, including, most importantly, remaining biases and negative inter-group attitudes among teachers.

This chapter considers whether there is a trade-off between growth and equality, as economists sometimes assert, differentiating between vertical inequality (among individuals) and horizontal inequality (among groups). Most evidence challenges the supposed trade-off, suggesting greater equality increases growth, especially sustained growth. Inequality among individuals tends to limit human resources, while inequality among groups can lead to violent conflict, and both constrain growth. Greater equality also supports other desirable objectives, including better nutrition, less crime, and better health. The impact of growth on equality is analysed. This depends on how far earnings are spread via employment; and the redistributionary effects of tax and government expenditure. Labour-intensive activities tend to improve distribution, while capital-intensive ones, heavy reliance on minerals for exports and rising skill requirements tend to worsen it. For horizontal inequality, the impact of growth varies according to group location, economic specialization and policies, illustrated by the experience of Ghana, Peru, Malaysia and Northern Ireland. The chapter surveys policies likely to improve vertical and horizontal distribution, with examples drawn from many countries. Finally, the chapter considers the political conditions needed to support equalising policies.