Article Title [Persian]
مقاله حاضر درصدد ارائه یافته های پژوهش مرتبط با بنیان های فلسفی تربیت شهروندی با توجه به آراء ونظریات دو تن از مهمترین فیلسوفان معاصر مکتب پساساختارگرایی - دریدا و فوکو – از منظری تطبیقی است. مقاله دارای شش بخش می باشد : بخش اول به تبیین ضرورت مسئله وهدف تحقیق ، با توجه به تربیت شهروندی در نظام آموزشی ایران، اختصاص دارد. در بخش دوم ، نگاهی اجمالی به بنیان های نظری و پیشینه تحقیق می شود. بخش سوم به اختصار روش تحقیق را توضیح می دهد. بخش چهارم به یافته های تحقیق اختصاص دارد که شامل دو قسمت است: در قسمت نخست یک مدل تکاملی چرخشی از رابطه مکاتب فلسفی ، نظام سیاسی ، نظام آموزشی ، تربیت اجتماعی و تربیت شهروندی ارائه می گردد. سپس محققان نشان می دهند که چگونه دریدا و فوکو - ضمن نقد نظام های سیاسی اقتدارگرا – ابعاد اصلی نظام های آموزشی را در خدمت تربیت شهروندی می دانند. بخش پنجم ، به بررسی نقاط اشتراک و افتراق نظریات دو فیلسوف توجه دارد. مقاله با نتیجه گیری به پایان می رسد.
Urban population growth is a global phenomenon that has changed people's relationships and behaviors. Iran is no exception. Iran's population has grown from less than 35 million in the late 1970s to more than 82 million by 2020. More than 70% of this population is urban while cities face numerous problems such as traffic, environmental pollution, marginalization, unemployment, high housing costs, and lack of transportation facilities (Hemmati & Ahmadi, 2014). At this time, we are witnessing two crises: on the one hand, the storm of developments - affected by phenomena such as ICT and globalization - has begun to blow in all aspects of Iranian life. On the other hand, they are still confused by the conflicts between tradition and modernism (or even postmodernism) (Shaygan, 1986). The first challenge requires urban life to comply with specific laws; communications, behaviors and interactions with different social systems which require a new human being (citizen). The second phenomenon challenges the intellectual foundations underpinned by strong historical and social backgrounds. Meantime, Iranians have not received much training on the requirements of urban life and concepts of citizenship such as citizenship rights and duties (Rabbani, Haghighatian, & Ismaili, 2006; Shebani and Fatemiah, 2009; Shayani and Davoodvandi, 2010), citizenship identity (Mohammadi et al., 2010), citizenship obligations (Fatemiah and Heidari, 2010), citizenship feeling (Yousefi and Azimi, 2008) and citizenship culture (Hemmati & Ahmadi, 2014). Indeed, citizenship (its concept, dimensions, and conceptual foundations) is a new phenomenon in Iran that has not been adequately explored and analyzed. Consequently, clarification and understanding of its philosophical roots and have a common understanding of it must be regarded as the first essential step towards its institutionalization. This is one side of the coin.
The other side of the coin is age structure of the Iran’s population. The age of about 50% of population is under thirty (Mahzoun, 1989). It is a very young country with an old civilization. Youth is the age of excitement, mastery of feeling on reason and rejection of traditional values of parents and society. The majority of this young population resides in cities. They are passionate about innovation, love new world, watch TV and satellite programs, Internet , mobile , Telegram, WhatsApp , Twitter and Facebook, and like so many young people in the world Interested in new types of music. At the same time, while political and social systems are preachers of Islamic values, they have not made much of an effort to consolidate modern values and concepts - such as citizenship education.
Now we have a clear picture of educational system’s situation in Iranian society. There is a demand from this system to familiarize young generation with Iranian-Islamic culture and customs and modern life. The Iranian educational system must provide a two-dimensional social education: One looks at past civilization -religious of Iran and the other considers it’s present and future. This is a difficult task, especially when new concepts such as citizenship are introduced.
The main challenge for the Iran education system is to pay attention to the philosophical roots of modern developments. The concept of citizenship has a philosophical origin that does not necessarily fit with the intellectual foundations of the Iran educational system. Therefore, the full realization of citizenship education without knowing these roots would not be possible. This recognition must first come to the attention of Iranian educational philosophers because they can, with the guidance of policymakers and legislators, create an appropriate mix of the long-standing Iran’s traditions with modern life developments. Based on this thinking, the main purpose of the present study is to find out what lessons Derrida and Foucault's views on citizenship education can teach Iranian philosophers. To achieve this goal, the following two questions are asked:
1. What is the relationship between the philosophical, political and educational systems and citizenship education?
2. What are the similarities and differences between Derrida and Foucault's opinions on citizenship education?
2. Research background
The history of attention to the citizenship education goes back to the time of the great Greek philosophers such as Socrates, Plato and Aristotle (Qasimpour Khoshroodi and Heidari, 2015). Also, attention to the concept of citizenship, as one of the most important topics in the world of politics has been growing over the last half century among social reformers, politicians and educational philosophers (Portahmasebi & Tajour, 2011). The basic concept of citizenship is the institutionalization of pluralism based on mutual respect, acceptance, understanding, and commitment. The idea of citizenship is also related to human rights, identity (global identity, global citizenship), political participation, and cultural support. From the perspective of social life, the concept of citizenship in today's complex societies focuses on the exchange of information, networking process of communication, differentiation of citizenship in traditional and modern societies, and the awareness of owns’ rights and obligations. From a political point of view, this concept is based on new expectations of State, sharing power, changing patterns of political development, gaining social rights, and activating democratic mechanisms (Abdollahi, 2012; Klingemann, Dieter, Fuchs, 1995). From the perspective of education, the concept of citizenship emphasizes the enhancement of individual skills, changes in ethical value systems, active individual and group participation, increase social presence (through membership in NGOs organizations), and more support for modern individual values. Oldfild (1990) regards citizenship as an unnatural act that needs to be taught to its citizens.
Regardless of the theoretical debate on the definition and dimensions of citizenship, this concept has been a research topic of interest to educational researchers for the last several decades (Johnson, Morris, 2010; Kennedy, 2012). Citizenship education has a particular focus on learning the knowledge, abilities, and attitudes that help one to interact effectively with others and State. The concept of citizenship education is synonymous with words such as moral education, personality, and civilization education and has been partly based on these concepts. Numerous studies have argued that citizenship education should be considered as one of the most important concepts of formal education’s framework (Yemini, 2014; Moon & Koo, 2011; Hahn, 2015).
In Iran, citizenship education has also been the focus of education policy makers and emphasized in national documents (Keshavarz, Amin Bedokhti and Mohammadi Far, 1977). Jamal Tazekand, Talibzadeh Noubarian, and Abolghasemi (2013) indicated that citizenship components have been disproportionately taken into account in the social science books. Koltash (2012) conducted a study to investigate the amount of attention to citizenship features in Iranian primary social studies curriculum. His findings indicate that nearly 10% of content of book is related to cognitive, 6% to performance and 3% to attitude dimensions of citizenship education which are very less. Beheshti (2007) has examined citizenship indices in social science textbooks of secondary high school. His findings showed that the most important dimension of citizenship was political rights. Of the 70 citizenship-related cases, 40 were devoted to political issues such as right to self-determination, right to vote, right to freedom of demonstration and freedom of parties. Hakimzadeh, Kiamenesh and Attaran (2007) analyzed contents of social, geography, science, Persian, and religion textbooks of middle secondary schools to find concepts related to the issues of the world. She found 1337 cases that fall into eight general concepts of development education, environmental education, peace education, equality and human rights, multicultural education, health education, citizenship and media and information technology education. In a study, Lotfabadi (2006) examines the attitudes of Iranian students and youth towards various aspects of social and civic life, value system, and globalization and concluded that many students have major weaknesses in understanding social and civil identity concepts.
3. Research Method
The present research is a qualitative adaptation of the Non-Emergent Design (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). In the Non-Emergent Design, the researcher first collects the data and then analyzes it (Strauss & Corbin, 2006). Research data were analyzed by documentary method with maximum diversity and saturation principle. Although this type of research is not very popular, in recent years - influenced by the poststructuralists' beliefs - it has attracted the attention of some researchers (Sweeting, 2007). In the present study, the content of books, articles and electronic resources containing the ideas of two post-structuralist philosophers (Derrida, Foucault) is analyzed.
Question 1: What is the relationship between the philosophical, political and educational systems and citizenship education?
To answer the first question of the study, the analysis of data show that before exploring the views of the two post-structuralist philosophers on citizenship education, one must consider the relation between philosophical schools and the concept of citizenship. This section therefore presents a rotational evolutionary model of the relationship between philosophical schools, political system, educational system, and social education with citizenship education. It then shows how Derrida and Foucault - while criticizing authoritarian political systems - see the main dimensions of education systems in the service of citizenship education.
4.1. Rotational evolutionary model
Citizenship education is a part of social education that simultaneously has an evolutionary and rotational relationship with the educational, political and philosophical systems. In fact, the two words evolution and rotation have to be explained; The evolutionary relationship is intended to be a relationship between the factors that the first factor evolves and changes the second factor, regardless of whether the effect is positive or negative. Also, the term rotation means that the relationship starts from one factor and ends with the same factor again. As a result, the factors - mediated or unmediated - influence each other. Given these two simple definitions, it can now be said that there is a rotational evolutionary relationship between citizenship education and philosophical schools through factors such as social education, the educational system, and political system (Figure 1).
Figure 1. The rotational evolutionary relationship of factors affecting citizenship education
As Figure 1 and the content analysis of the works related to the concept of citizenship show, this concept is directly influenced by social education. In fact, citizenship education is part of social education (Haste, 2004). Social education does not occur in a vacuum. Various social systems such as family system (Maunah, 2018), religious system (Balčiūnienė, I & Mažeikienė, N. 2006), political system (Claes & Hooghe, M. 2007) and educational system (Arif, 2018) have their task to somehow interfere with the social education process of the young generation. In fact, the education system (which is the most important institution in the social education process) has been providing social education for more than 15 years, through its various stages of education (from primary school to university), influenced by its relationship with the political system. The political system is also influenced by philosophical foundations and schools. The result of this relationship is a different definition of the concept of citizenship in different human societies. But the important question that arises here is that “citizenship education – as a modern concept- is output of which philosophical school or political system?" In answering this question, Bashirieh (2007) considers the concept of citizenship as one of the intellectual foundations of democracy and the basic concepts of democratic life. A concept largely derived from the thinking of Western philosophers. The concept of citizenship that governs the modern humanitarian law is an idea that was born in Western Europe. Acceptance of the legal and political rights and duties arising from the citizenship are the fundamental basis of this concept. Citizenship is, by necessity, the product of modern politics and the socio-political consequence of the French Revolution and the Industrial Revolution (Tavassoli Raknabadi and Nouri, 2016). Citizenship, in this sense, encompasses all the changes resulting from the transformation of traditional society into industrial society.
So if we accept this answer as a philosophical fact then we can define the relationship of social institutions such as the political system with the concept of citizenship in different societies. Accordingly, if we divide political systems into two groups that favor and oppose democracy, then we can also classify all philosophical schools - as intellectual supporters of political systems - into friend or enemy of democracy. Philosophical schools and political systems favoring or opposing democracy also build and support similar educational systems. In this situation, democracy-based education systems aim to support and promote "democratic citizenship", while educational systems opposed to democracy seek "non-democratic citizenship" (Apple, 1999). As such, the output of pro-democracy educational systems is citizens who advocate for the philosophical foundations of democracy, whereas anti-democracy educational systems are tyrants who support authoritarian philosophical schools and political systems. For example, Derrida and Foucault (as two democratic citizens) can be described as social education output in a democratic education system. Today these two philosophers serve the democratic political system by justifying the philosophical foundations of democratic citizenship through a post-structuralism school. The opposite is also true. They also seek to condemn the dictatorial educational and political systems by attacking the philosophical foundations of undemocratic citizenship.
Although this analysis simply divided societies into two groups of supporters and opponents of democracy identifies the process of citizenship education and its relation to the philosophical foundations - and perspectives of Derrida and Foucault- , but it does not fit the current realities of human life. In fact, data analysis shows that human societies do not have a unified philosophical, political, and educational identity. Other social systems - such as family system - are also involved in the evolutionary cycle and in many cases counteract the influence of political and educational systems on the process of social education and citizenship. In addition, the impact of technological and mass media factors cannot be ignored, which has greatly influenced educational and political boundaries. Consequently, for philosophers of education - such as Iranian philosophers of education - these questions remain as to whether can be made a proper integration between the ideas of the philosophers of the modern philosophical schools of the world - such as post-structuralism - with a young and multi-ethnic Iranian society. Can a citizen of Iranian-Islamic and global identity be raised? To answer these questions, one must first recognize the philosophical foundations of Iran, Islam, and the world. Given the rotational evolutionary model, the purpose of the present study is to explain the views of two contemporary post-structuralist philosophers on citizenship education and to provide lessons for Iranian educational philosophers.
Question 2: What are the similarities and differences between Derrida and Foucault's viewpoints on citizenship education?
For a better understanding of Derrida and Foucault's perspective, let's first take a look at the main post-structuralism views on education. Post-structuralism is a movement bound up with the new ideas of French intellectuals and thinkers such as Jacques Derrida, Julia Christova, Roland Barth, Gilles Deleuze, Felix Guattari, and Michel Foucault. This movement grew within structuralism as a result of thought as well as a way to escape its limitations.
4.2. Post-structuralism educational ideas
If we consider the main dimensions of the educational system as goals, curriculum, teaching / learning practices, learner role, teacher role, and evaluation methods, it is best to state the post-structuralism school's view of these elements as follows:
As for the purpose of education, post-structuralists believe that it is impossible to design and implement a comprehensive and systematic program for the growth and training of all human beings. As such, post-structuralism scholars have strongly criticized modern education systems and believe that they have an inverse function because education is a dynamic process. In their view, current schools also face problems such as violence, stagnation of curricula, inappropriate assessment methods, and emotional exhaustion of students (Biesta, 1994).
From the standpoint of teaching and learning, post-structuralists believe that "constructive discourse of knowledge" as an educational goal is a discourse that occurs in the classroom - in order to construct knowledge rather than to prove it. The focus of this type of discourse is on understanding, cooperation and collaboration. What the students are doing in this discourse is evidence of hidden, scientific research and methodology. The beginning of this discourse may be personal interests (Cazden, 1988). Many of the concepts recommended for the post-structuralist school - such as polyphony and multiculturalism - are also intertwined with the concept of discourse. Applying the discourse method at school is to promote a tendency for cooperation, collective action, and increased tolerance for opposition views, development of collective thought, and development of new approaches to problem solving (Carter, 1995). Critical dialogue is also one of the post-structuralist approaches to teaching / learning. In this way, the teacher discusses the lesson content with the students and asks them to construct the material (Bruner, 1986).
From a curriculum perspective, it should be said that post-structuralist perspective provides more opportunities for reform in curriculum. In order for the curriculum to be more closely related to one's real life, it is imperative that textbook writers consider aesthetic, interpretative, phenomenological, and post-structuralist analysis in practice. Post-structuralists agree with the creation of ecological and holistic models of curriculum, as they can break the artificial boundary between the classroom and society. Post-structuralist curricula seek to link knowledge and learning experiences with the natural world and the international community (Slattery, 1995). In this view, students are encouraged to find inconsistencies and conflicts when reading texts and articles. Understanding the contradictions of a text will help students develop analytical skills.
In regards to role of learners in post-structuralist, it is clear that education should provide students with the opportunity to expand their critical capacity to fight and change existing political and social systems, rather than adapting to them. This kind of education should seek to educate "critical citizens" instead of "good citizens" who are capable of understanding and recognizing inconsistencies, social inequalities and combating domination. For the post-structuralists, a student-centered classroom is a place where opportunities for social interaction, independent study, creativity, and opportunity to experience different learning styles are provided. In such a class, it is student who creates knowledge (Gray, 1999). Arnowitz and Giroum argue that students need to understand the richness of other cultural traditions and different voices. In the post-structuralist class, there is no precise definition of ideal student, but what is certain is that the student is freer than in the past.
On the role of teachers, post-structuralists believe that teachers should be aware of different learning processes and use different learning methods. Teachers should foster collaborative learning, interpersonal interactions, and work groups. Teachers need to know that learning is not just a transfer of knowledge but that they must teach text in the way he calls “Take a deep look at text” (Aronowitz, Girou, 1991).
The post-structuralist curriculum emphasizes topics that enhance cultural, historical, political, ecological, aesthetic, and theological awareness, meaning that this type of curriculum relies on the context and general conditions of human life. In addition, it is said that the content of the syllabus should be such that it puts people in the process of 'becoming'. The curriculum should look for a kind of transformational training that will enable teachers and students to explore issues on a journey of discovery and hope. The post-structuralist curriculum must be dialogic and interactive in order to incorporate the reunion of “teacher with learner” and “text with reader” (Pinar, 2011). In the post-structuralist view of the curriculum should not look for fixed meanings. The meanings are unstable and fleeting, except those that are dictatorial and coercive. Meanings are varied, different and changeable (Chiraldelli, 2000). Post-structuralists prefer to talk about information than knowledge, because information is temporary and constantly changing.
From evaluation method aspect, the purpose of the interaction between teachers and students is to explore and retrieve two-sided issues of interest. The curriculum will be viewed not as a priori and periodic set to be implemented, but as a path of personal change or a stage of personal thought. The concept of exam and grade has no place in school. The learning process will continue until the student reaches a place where he or she feels competent (Fermihani Farahani, 2010).
4.3 Derrida's Thoughts and Citizenship Education
Although the tradition of philosophers' attention to the concept of citizenship and the training of a good citizen goes back to the days of ancient Greek philosophers, and especially Plato, Derrida and Foucault have indirectly referred to citizenship in their works. In fact, the most important work of Derrida related to the present study is book of “The Politics of Friendship". In this book, Derrida analyzes the behavior of individuals, political system, and educational system by describing subject of friendship. In Derrida's view, friendship between humans is essentially based on two principles of freedom and responsibility. In discussing one's responsibility to friends, he mentions three types of responses: “answer for ", “answer to ", and “answer before “(Derrida, 1988, p. 638).
In the first response, the individual is responsible for himself / herself. The second response shows the relationship of the individual with the other person. The third response is forming friendships with the community and its associated institutions. Here people are held accountable by the law of various social institutions such as courts, schools, hospitals, and so on. In the modern world, this accountability has shaped the notion of "citizenship". A citizen has freedom and responsibility: he is free to defend his rights and is responsible for respecting the laws. So a good citizen is an active citizen who has initiative in both freedom and responsibility. Derrida also emphasizes that society, through organizations such as State (the political system) and school (the education system), focuses on citizenship education. So what happens in schools through curricula, teacher behavior, and extracurricular activities can be seen as an attempt to regulate the friendship and citizenship education of the young generation. In addition, Derrida believes that in the history of political thought, friendship has always been with a brotherhood. The emphasis on friends and citizens as brothers is another sign of "equality." Democracy In short means equality. Here you see why friendship plays a key role, because in friendship, even in its classical definition, there are elements such as reciprocity, equality, symmetry (Eidzadeh, 1396). There is no democracy except equality for all, of course equality that can be calculated and fundamentally calculable. That is, in that democracy you can count and calculate the number of units, voters, voices, and citizens. We are therefore in the political and social arena with both "brother-friend" and "brother-enemy" (Derrida, 1997, p. 106). The difference between us and the other provides the potential for contention, complaint and litigation, and the risk of friendship being destroyed. In Derrida's view, both in friendship and in politics, we must learn to forget childish self-centeredness and accept the difference between ourselves and others. This requires us to value our separation from the other and acknowledge our vulnerability. The important question, however, is how childish self-centered abandonment is possible. It is here that the role and evolutionary relationship of the education system, social education and citizenship education is understood (Figure 1). It is not possible to abandon childish self-centeredness without citizenship education, a task largely left to the educational system.
Another point about the relationship of friendship with citizenship has attracted Derrida. In Derrida's view, the history of political thought shows us that mainly the focus of friendships was on the male sex. Throughout history and in most human societies, men have been active citizens and women were housewives and passive citizens. New philosophical schools and a political system based on democracy have changed the status of women in the world. Education systems, by educating girls, reduced male-centered friendships. However, Derrida's view is still on the role of political and educational systems in citizenship practices (with regard to the gender of students). Given the concept of friendship, Derrida takes a critical look at social organizations such as schools. Derrida expects the education system to focus on a few key points in citizenship education: First, learning the relationship of the young generation with themselves, with others, and with social institutions with respect to the two principles of freedom and responsibility. Second, citizenship education based on the principles of a democratic and anti-authoritarian society; and third, citizenship education based on equality, especially gender equality.
4.4 Foucault's Thoughts and Citizenship Education
Foucault's ideas base more on politics than on Derrida. He has presented one of the most pervasive narratives of how power, control and supervision are associated with the formation of modern society. Accordingly, Foucault's views on citizenship require an awareness of his understanding of power in modern society. In two books of " Discipline & Punish: The Birth of the Prison" and " The History of Sexuality,” Foucault says that every social relationship is a power relationship. Power in modern society is a system of knowledge-based relationships (knowledge / power network) that accommodates the individual and at the same time as he / she is known (registered in offices or classified within the norms and knowledge imposed by society) or subject to a system of knowledge such as medicine, psychology or education, It becomes visible and thus dominated by power (care and punishment, 1378). Power even affects one's body through education and order in the living environment, so one can speak of the bio-power or bio-political that wants to apply to the body and organize it in its own order (Foucault, 1980).
Foucault's most important conception of power is disciplinary power. In this sense, Foucault rejects the institutionalized forms of power in structures such as the State or its monopoly by elite groups - such as ideological theories or values or traditions (McKinney, 1994: 1). For Foucault, the discipline community operates through comparable normalization strategies. Judges of normalization appear in shape and form of social expert, teacher, physician and wherever they are, evaluate each individual in terms of a set of norms - resulting from commitment or a knowledge / power network." Individuals are controlled by normative power, and this power works because it is relatively invisible and intangible (Meknai, 1994). For Foucault, these disciplinary institutions created a control system that acts like a microscope to observe behavior. The subtle subdivisions and analyzes that disciplinary institutions carried out formed a machine of observation and training in human beings (Foucault, 1999: 218). In Foucault's view, panopticon, methods of discipline, hierarchical surveillance and normalizing judgments are some of the methods outlined here (Kazemi, & Rezaei, 2009). Because of its success, this pattern has also been used in urban planning, schools, hospitals and prisons.
For Foucault, any discipline is a political way of maintaining or changing the discourse and knowledge and the powers that come from it. In addition, educational systems in the distribution of their facilities (Positive: Beneficial Opportunities, and Negative: Preventive Opportunities) are subject to factors that determine their boundaries, socioeconomic distances, conflicts, and struggles. Power-knowledge systems are therefore regarded as a dominant order, focusing on the role of education within a disciplinary organization: Specific architectures, space and time organizing tools, physical techniques, supervision, and pedagogical relationships. Foucault says that these principles are not educational to be important for understanding the formation of the mind, but are based on the presuppositions of the schools and their organizational forms. For Foucault, school is not an economic agent or a state-controlled instrument but a form of bureaucratic discipline (O'Neill, 1986). Foucault believes that in fact all sciences are political. Textbooks and their production each represent specific political approaches and mainly support those who have shaped them economically and politically. "Power produces knowledge, and power and knowledge directly imply each other. There is no power relation without the accompanying structure of knowledge in the same fields as no knowledge can be conceived without having power relations" (Foucault .M, 1978).
With a brief look at Foucault's view, it can be said that with a pessimistic view on power systems, he believes that these systems foster their desirable citizens. Education systems, through the power of discipline and from early childhood, shape the personality of individuals and nurture them as obedient citizens. In this process, the educational system takes advantage of all observational tools of student behavior. Through Panopticon students feel constantly monitored by teachers and school principals; normalizing educational practices strives to institutionalize correct behavior in all students; hierarchical supervision creates humility and humiliation in students and normalizing penalties will crush rogue students who obey school rules. For a period of twelve year (from primary to upper secondary schools) all of these tools make the young generation ready to enter the community. A community tried to educate its citizens in advance. In this process, naturally, all the elements of the education system (such as books and teachers) are in the service of citizenship education.
4.5. Comparison of Derrida and Foucault's viewpoints on Citizenship Education
Investigating Foucault's and Derrida's views on citizenship is not an easy task, since both philosophers discuss indirectly about citizenship through their critique of political and intellectual systems. However, similarities can be found in both perspectives. Both philosophers oppose the philosophical and political systems that diminish the essence of human existence. The values and ethics that Foucault and Derrida emphasize in educating the citizen are: toleration of others' beliefs, freedom and equality, respect and acceptance of cultural diversity, and freedom. Also, the educational approach of both philosophers is pluralism. One aspect of this pluralism is that it is meaningless to accept the same basic principles and methods for education (Farahmani Farahani, 2014).
Of course, there are also slight differences between the views of the two philosophers. Derrida's theories create a more delicate and tolerable image of social systems and their function by appealing to the notion of friendship. In Derrida's view, the positive thinking is stronger, and people can more freely choose own citizenship practices. Also, Derrida's image is more pleasing to the work of public organizations such as schools. In contrast, Foucault's pessimism about the performance of social systems in citizenship is also conveyed to his readers. In Foucault's view, schools are prisons that educate future citizens through tools such as corporal punishment, psychological repression and humiliation, scoring system, dropouts, and expulsion. What is common to both philosophers is that they have been able to clearly distinguish the exact boundaries of democratic educational systems from undemocratic educational systems.
Post-structuralism philosophical foundations that emphasize the acceptance of principles such as cultural diversity, understanding differences, acceptance of others, generosity and friendship, and active citizenship can provide very valuable lessons for Iranian society with wide ethnic, linguistic, cultural, religious and generational diversity. Also the views of those like Derrida and Foucault who have carefully delineated the characteristics of oppressive intellectual, political and educational systems can be of great benefit to the young Iranian society - which has a long history of despotism - in the new millennium (Alavi Pour, 2016). This young society - if it does not have the proper citizenship education - must prepare itself to live with all sorts of conflicts, problems and crises. The present article seeks to explain Derrida and Foucault perspectives to provide critical lessons for Iranian educational philosophers - as well as educational and policy makers and politicians -. Through the use of Derrida and Foucault's ideas, they can transform many of the social challenges into areas of mutual understanding, companionship, and empathy.
The characteristics of Iranian society also show that today's young generation - heavily influenced by new innovations through information and communication technologies - cannot easily accept the concepts accepted by the political and education system. They seek citizenship based on interaction, equality, responsibility and democracy, while reflecting on the ideas of Iran's current political and educational system reflects a contradiction with what we call civil rights and civil rights indicators (protection of individual freedoms and equality), political rights (right to participate in the exercise of political power), and social rights (right to enjoy economic prosperity and personal security) (Tavassoli Raknabadi and Nouri. 1395). The conflict between content of school textbooks with the realities of modern life, the beliefs of the young generation, and the beliefs of other social systems (such as family) must be taken into consideration by Iran’s educational philosophers.