David-Álvaro Martínez

This article focuses on the distinction between political liberalism (PL) and comprehensive liberalism (CL) as the foundation of citizenship education. PL is freestanding vis-à-vis comprehensive doctrines and it is restricted to the basic structure. CL is not freestanding and it is not restricted to the basic structure: it has a wider scope. According to John Rawls, PL demands less of citizenship education and therefore it would be more accommodating of social diversity than CL, insofar as it requests a thinner (thinner than CL) core of principles as the foundation of citizenship education. Some scholars argue that there are no substantial differences between PL and CL concerning citizenship education, and that it must be grounded on both notions of liberalism: this is the so-called convergence thesis. In empirical conditions, for instance, in school systems characterized by segregation and inequalities, citizenship education should develop both PL and CL. Also, in a social context in which some citizens are not reasonable, it is necessary to teach both. Then, education provides the tools to examine and criticize these beliefs. If this orientation is correct, the problem is that it seems that citizenship education would impose more burdens on students that endorse comprehensive doctrines different to CL. Relying on recent literature on post-secularism, the article provides an account of citizenship education that places burdens onto CL and non-CL students alike.