The role of individual negation in enabling social capital, moral education, and citizenship education - Abstract

Oct 15, 2026

The essay examines how the “negation of the individual” supports social capital, moral education, and citizenship education in democratic societies. It clarifies disputed meanings of these core concepts and argues that virtuous life education requires ethical theory that can be taught across curricula. Drawing on Dewey and Watsuji Tetsuro, it links moral citizenship to sociomoral experience, cooperation, reciprocity, trust, and the interconnectedness of individuals within communal life.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages6

Reading Time15 min

AccessFree to download

Abstract

Core concepts: social capital, moral education, citizenship education

Moral citizenship education and Dewey’s approach

Social capital as negation of the individual

Critique of extreme individualism and schooling goals

The negation of the individual: meaning and implications

The role of individual negation in enabling social capital, moral education, and citizenship education Thomas Misco Abstract Social capital, moral education, and citizenship education are three big ideas fundamental to the health ofany democratic state. Yet exactly what these terms mean is a source of much contention and divergent thinking. Bringing some clarity to the three might help the cause of bolstering their prominence in educational discourse and reform. Therefore, in this essay I explore the underlying form of social capital, moral education, and citizenship education, which I characterize as “the negation of the individual.” Demands for effective citizenship and moral education, and the ultimate building of social capital, abound. One of the most important and troubling of all human tasks (and hence a challenge of educators) is to be able to know what it means to live the virtuous life (Purpel, 1991, 309), which includes arriving at an ethical theory that is both teachable and inherent in all curricula. Although the inclusion of a wide-variety of subject matter into the school day has resulted in a scarcity of time for moral education, Dewey suggested “if other studies do not correlate well with this one, so much the worse for them—they are the ones to give way, not it”(1893, 60) . Dewey was not merely suggesting the centrality of ethics instruction for the school day, but rather an interpenetration of perspectives of the world in which we are all members. The teaching of ethics in this way ranked higher in importance to Dewey than any other subject for “the subject-matter of ethics must furnish the measure of others studies and not vice versa”( 1893, 61) . Central to a successful moral citizenship education is, as Dewey noted, the fashioning of individuals into a group, which implies the value and necessity of sociomoral experiences (Osterman, 2000) . Our ability to foster social capital, within schools and beyond, depends upon many of the same requirements necessary for successful moral citizenship education. Social capital is fundamentally based on the engagement of individuals, which is often promoted through the development of selfless, altruistic, reciprocal, and trusting behaviors. Because the school is an institution erected by society to maintain and advance the welfare of society, we must ensure that the social aim remains in focus (Dewey, 1909, 7) . As with moral and citizenship education, social capital is fundamentally based on the negation of the individual. One problem that jeopardizes our educational goals is nascent extreme individualism, cynicism, and narcissism within our society. For example, our communities overwhelmingly believe individuals are less honest and moral than a generation ago and far too prevalent are institutions that enable individualism and competitive spirits, rather than finding commonalities and collaboration (Osterman, 324) . Teachers are cognizant and concerned with this growing self-interest (Kohn, 1997, 433) thereby highlighting the need for a paradigmatic change in our society, one that would re-emphasize a common vision. Within this context, the focus of schooling should not be the present one of competition, content mastery, individualism, and success, but rather one of cooperation, common goals, harmony and temperance (Purpel, 1991) . In short, we need to allow for students to recognize that they are individuals within society, which necessitates the recognition of each individual’s social relations and responsibilities involved in conjoint life (Dewey, 1909) . The Negation of the Individual The common thread of social capital, moral education, and citizenship education is the negation of the individual. What is meant by “negation” is not a pejorative concept, but is rather a state of being where one realizes the interconnectedness of all individuals and their mutuality. This negation is fundamental to the necessary altruism, trust, and reciprocity t

FAQs

What does the essay mean by “negation of the individual”?

It means recognizing that individuals are interconnected and mutually dependent, not treating the concept as a negative judgment. This realization underpins altruism, trust, and reciprocity needed for social capital and citizenship education.

Why does the essay emphasize moral education and citizenship education as essential for democratic health?

It presents these as foundational ideas for sustaining democratic life, while noting that the terms are contested and require conceptual clarification. Effective education must deliver ethical understanding that is teachable and integrated into curricula.

How does the essay connect social capital to students’ social relationships and responsibilities?

It argues that fostering social capital depends on sociomoral experiences and engagement that encourage selfless, reciprocal, and trusting behaviors. Schooling should therefore shift from competition and individual success toward cooperation and common goals.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by A glass of water