Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T09:34:57.570Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

32 - The Epistocratic Challenge to Democratic Education

from Part Four - Challenges

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 April 2023

By
Ben Kotzee
Edited by
Julian Culp ,
Johannes Drerup  and
Douglas Yacek
Julian Culp
Affiliation:
The American University of Paris, France
Johannes Drerup
Affiliation:
Universität Dortmund
Douglas Yacek
Affiliation:
Universität Dortmund
Get access

Summary

One of the most fundamental challenges to democratic education is the “epistocratic” challenge. According to proponents of epistocracy, the ordinary citizenry is too stupid, irrational, and demotivated to vote intelligently and better-quality government would result if the franchise were restricted to a small elite of the best informed, most rational, and best-motivated citizens. If correct, epistocracy would imply that many of the ideals of democratic education are misplaced and that the educational practice of preparing all citizens to vote would be pointless. In this chapter, I review the theory of epistocracy as it is presented in the work of historical and contemporary philosophers from Plato and John Stuart Mill to Bryan Caplan and – most notably – Jason Brennan. I also discuss the implications of epistocracy for democratic education. I hold that, even if Brennan is right that the franchise should be restricted to a small cognitive elite, the question of how one should educate that elite becomes even more important. In the final analysis, I hold that Brennan’s scheme for ensuring that the cognitive elite is representative of society will require a broadening of political education opportunities that will result in a reintroduction of a democratic form of education through the epistocratic back door.

Keywords

epistocracyJason Brennandemocratic theorypolitical knowledgecivic education
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Democratic Education , pp. 550 - 573
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2023

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Achen, C., & Bartels, L. (2016). Democracy for realists: Why elections do not produce responsive governments. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Althaus, S. (2003). Collective preferences in democratic politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arlen, G., & Rossi, E. (2022). Is this what democracy looks like? (Never mind epistocracy). Inquiry, 65(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arum, R., & Roksa, J. (2011). Academically adrift: Limited learning on college campuses. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bell, Daniel. (2016). The China model: Political meritocracy and the limits of democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Bennett, S. (1988). “Know-nothings” revisited: The meaning of political ignorance today. Social Science Quarterly, 69(2), 476–90.Google Scholar
Blanco, F. (2017). Cognitive bias. In Vonk, J. & Shackelford, T., eds., Encyclopedia of animal cognition and behavior. Basel: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-47829-6_1244-1.Google Scholar
Brennan, J. (2016). Against democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Brennan, J. (2022). Giving epistocracy a fair hearing. Inquiry, 65(1), 35–49.Google Scholar
Campbell, A., Converse, P., Miller, W. & Stokes, D. (1960) The American voter. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Caplan, B. (2007). The myth of the rational voter: Why democracies choose bad policies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Christiano, T. (1996). The rule of the many: Fundamental issues in democratic theory. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Christiano, T. (2008). The constitution of equality: Democractic authority and its limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Clotfelter, C. (2017). Unequal colleges in the age of disparity. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, M. (2019). The availability heuristic, political leaders, and decision making. In Oxford research encyclopedia of politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.1028.Google Scholar
Converse, P. (1964) The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In Apter, D., ed., Ideology and discontent. New York: Free Press of Glencoe.Google Scholar
Crawford, C., Gregg, P., Macmillan, L., Vignoles, A., & Wyness, G. (2016). Higher education, career opportunities and intergenerational inequality. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 32(4), 553–75.Google Scholar
Delli Carpini, M., & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Donvaband, S., & Hoskins, B. (2021). Citizenship education for political engagement: A systematic review of controlled trials. Social Sciences, 10(5), 1–19.Google Scholar
Eatwell, R., & Goodwin, M. (2018). National populism: The revolt against liberal democracy. London: Pelican.Google Scholar
Erisen, C., Lodge, M., & Taber, C. (2014). Affective contagion in effortful political thinking. Political Psychology, 35(2), 187–206.Google Scholar
Estlund, D. (2003). Why not epistocracy. In Reshotko, N., ed., Desire, identity, and existence: Essays in honor of T.M. Penner. New York: Academic Printing and Publishing, pp. 53–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Estlund, D. (2008). Democratic authority: A philosophical framework. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Feddersen, T., Gailmard, S., & Sandroni, A. (2009). A bias toward unselfishness in large elections: Theory and experimental evidence. American Political Science Review, 103, 175–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galston, W. (2018). Anti-pluralism: The populist threat to liberal democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Giesinger, J. (2022). Education as the remedy: the justification of democracy and the epistocratic challenge. In Culp, J., Drerup, J., de Groot, I., Schinkel, A., & Yacek, D., eds., Liberal democratic education: A paradigm in crisis. Paderborn: Brill, pp. 67–82.Google Scholar
Goodin, R. (2003). Reflective democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gunn, P. (2019). Against epistocracy. Critical Review, 31(1), 26–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. (2004). Why deliberative democracy? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardin, R. (1999). Liberalism, constitutionalism and democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jeffrey, A. (2018). Limited epistocracy and political inclusion. Episteme, 15(4), 412–32.Google Scholar
Kahan, D., Peters, E., Cantrell Dawson, E., & Slovic, P. (2017). Motivated numeracy and enlightened self-government. Behavioural Public Policy, 1(1), 54–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lafont, C. (2020) Democracy without shortcuts: A participatory conception of deliberative democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Landa, D., & Pevnick, R. (2020). Representative democracy as defensible epistocracy. American Political Science Review, 114(1), 1–13.Google Scholar
Landemore, H. (2013). Democratic reason: Politics, collective intelligence, and the rule of the many. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Landemore, H. (2020). Open democracy: Reinventing popular rule for the twenty-first century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Langton, K., & Jennings, M. K. (1968). Political socialization and the high school civics curriculum in the United States. American Political Science Review, 62(3), 852–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis-Beck, M., Jacoby, W., Norpoth, H., and Weissberg, H. (2008). The American voter revisited. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Manning, N., & Edwards, K. (2014). Does civic education for young people increase political participation: A systematic review. Educational Review, 66(1), 22–45.Google Scholar
Mill, J. S. (1861). Considerations on representative government. London: Parker, Son, and Bourn.Google Scholar
Milliband, D. (2020). Brexit, populism, and the future of British democracy. Horizons: Journal of International Relations and Sustainable Development, 15, 150–65.Google Scholar
Mutz, D. (2006). Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Niemi, R., & Junn, G. (1998). Civic education: What makes students learn. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Page, I. & Shapiro, R. (1992). The rational public and democracy. In Marcus, G. & Hanson, R., eds., Reconsidering the democratic public. University Park, PA: Penn State University Press.Google Scholar
Popkin, S. (1991). The reasoning voter: Communication and persuasion in presidential campaigns. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reiss, J. (2019). Expertise, agreement, and the nature of social scientific facts or: Against epistocracy. Social Epistemology, 33(2), 183–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roth, K. (2017). The dangerous rise of populism: Global attacks on human rights values. Journal of International Affairs, 70, 79–84.Google Scholar
Sniderman, P., Brody, R., & Tetlock, P. (1991). Reasoning and choice: Explorations in political psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Somin, I. (2016). Democracy and political ignorance: Why smaller government is better. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Somin, I. (2022). The promise and peril of epistocracy. Inquiry, 65(1), 27–34.Google Scholar
Talisse, R. (2022). The trouble with hooligans. Inquiry, 65(1), 15–26.Google Scholar
Wilke, A., & Mata, R. (2012). Cognitive bias. In: Ramachandran, V., ed., Encyclopedia of human behaviour. London/Burlington, MA: Elsevier/Academic Press, pp. 531–35.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×