Jeg leste en sak i går morges som jeg ikke klarer å få ut av hodet. Professor
Dietlind Stolle inviterte fire- og femåringer til statsvitenskapsforelesningene sine ved McGill University.
Eksperimentet er beskrevet i The Montreal Gazette:
Stolle asked her students to prepare a lecture introducing the little ones to the concepts of voting, democracy and choosing a prime minister.
They started by talking about what a prime minister does – making decisions for all Canadians. Someone a little like the teacher in their daycare, except a prime minister can be chosen.
Then Stolle’s students made up a game. First, daycare kids were given clickers and asked to vote which sticker they liked best, one of an ice cream cone or a soccer ball. Because this was a democracy, and ice cream had trounced soccer, everyone got a sticker with an ice cream cone on it.
But what would have happened if this wasn’t a democracy?
“They voted again for a sticker, but instead they got nap time,” said Stolle.
“They were puzzled, and one girl said right away, ‘I want democracy.’ Then all the others joined in. It was fantastic as an experience.”
Hele artikkelen er inspirerende lesning.
Det får meg til å tenke. Én ting er at demokratisk deltakelse må ha vært en betydningsfull erfaring for barna - men barns deltakelse er også inspirerende for oss voksne. Det å inkludere barna i politiske debatter krever mye av oss; vi må uttrykke oss enklere og klarere, og vi tvinges til å vurdere våre egne argumenter fra barnas perspektiv. Jeg tror for eksempel det er en effektiv måte å se verden omtrent slik som
Adam Smith så for seg
da han skrev om the impartial spectator.
Jeg kom forresten over denne
saken via The Monkey Cage.