This session examines how political thought, education, and discourse shape—and often constrain—the horizons of democratic possibility. Presenters interrogate the historical and intellectual boundaries that define what counts as “democratic” imagination, tracing how systems of knowledge, power, and pedagogy both enable and limit civic agency. Lunch provided.

Registration required: click here to register

Peter S. Baron (JD/MA in Philosophy, Georgetown University) will present “Constructing an Overton Window: How Enlightenment Discourse Narrowed the Potential of Abolition.”

Ariana Zetlin (Ph.D. candidate in Education, Culture, and Society, University of Pennsylvania) will present “Epistemic Fallibility for Democracy: How Intellectual Humility Enables Civic Dispositional Development.”

-------------------------

Paper abstracts:

This paper interrogates the anti-slavery writings of Enlightenment thinkers such as Montesquieu, Rousseau, and Condorcet to reveal how their ostensibly abolitionist rhetoric functioned to delay and constrain meaningful emancipation. While often cited as early advocates of freedom, these figures framed abolition as a white managerial project, removed from the realities of enslaved resistance. Their discourse built a narrow Overton window in which abolition could be considered only gradually, cautiously, and under elite supervision. This framing preserved the foundational structures of racial capitalism while redefining slavery’s end in ways compatible with continued domination.
Through a close reading of Enlightenment texts, this study identifies two key rhetorical strategies: 1) the destabilization argument and 2) the readiness argument. The first positions immediate emancipation as a threat to social order, while the second casts enslaved people as unfit for freedom, requiring prolonged tutelage. These strategies redefined freedom as legal formality rather than material autonomy, limiting the scope of political possibility. Drawing on theorists such as Yarran Hominh and Ibram X. Kendi, the paper examines how these rhetorical devices contributed to what Hominh calls “unfreedom”: structural constraints that masquerade as liberation.
By abstracting slavery into a theoretical problem, Enlightenment writers erased the role of Black resistance in shaping abolition. They transformed freedom into a gift conferred by white society, suppressing the revolutionary energy of collective struggle and cross-racial solidarity. This paper argues that Enlightenment abolitionism, rather than dismantling white supremacy, restructured it under the guise of reform. The legacy of this discourse persists today in dominant narratives that valorize institutional reform while ignoring grassroots resistance. Re-examining Enlightenment texts through this lens uncovers how the language of liberty was wielded to foreclose more radical futures and reassert elite control at the moment of historical rupture.

Civic education reforms increasingly emphasize development of civic dispositions alongside content and skills; however, scholars debate which dispositions schools can, and should, cultivate. To address these questions, Allen & Kidd (2022) advocate for “identifying as necessary only the limited set of dispositions actually needed to enable learners to function effectively as members of a self-governing community committed to shared decision-making” (p. 36). On their account, these core dispositions include civic efficacy, equitability, and self-protection. In this paper, I argue that there is a precondition to students’ development as efficacious, equitable, and self-protective civic actors: intellectual humility. This paper makes the case for why, and how, intellectual humility should be intentionally fostered through civic education.

First, I define intellectual humility, adopting Whitcomb et al.’s (2017) widely cited definition: “when one is appropriately attentive to, and owns, one’s intellectual limitations because one is appropriately motivated to pursue epistemic goods, e.g., truth, knowledge, and understanding” (p. 520). This definition emphasizes that limitation-owning is not done for the sake of modesty, but rather for the pursuit of epistemic goods, which undergird shared-decision making in a democracy. In the next section, I analyze the connection between intellectual humility and the three dispositions identified by Allen & Kidd, establishing intellectual humility as a precondition. My argument shows how intellectual humility enables students to feel more confident in their views and actions (civic efficacy); enhances trust and respect towards managing competing interests (equitability); and disposes students to challenge, rather than lean into, their biases (civic self-protection). Then, I address a key counterargument by unpacking the seemingly paradoxical relationship between intellectual humility and civic self-confidence. Lastly, this paper discusses implications for the civics classroom, considering specific strategies for how intellectual humility could be fostered. Accordingly, this paper not only contributes to discourse but also to pedagogical practice.

-------------------------

Speaker bios: