In 1957, Hannah Arendt argued against the legally enforced desegregation of public schools in the American South. She argued that African Americans had mistaken schools and education for a site of political debate, when they properly belonged to a social realm instead. This article disagrees and reconsiders Arendt's separation between the social and political realms. Arendt also took exception to the role Elizabeth Eckford, a 15-year-old, played in this debate. It is argued here that Elizabeth Eckford's actions were deeply political and give rise to a need to consider the possibility of children's political agency.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AllenD. (2001), ‘Law's Necessary Forcefulness: Ralph Ellison vs. Hannah Arendt on the Battle of Little Rock’, Oklahoma City University Law Review26, pp. 857–895.
2.
AllenD. (2004), Talking to Strangers: Anxieties of Citizenship since Brown v Board of Education, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
3.
ArendtH. (1959), ‘Reflections on Little Rock’, Dissent6(1), pp. 45–56.
4.
ArendtH. (1961), ‘The Crisis in Education’ in ArendtH. (ed.), Between Past and Future: Six Exercises in Political Thought.London: Faber & Faber, Available at: http://www.eco.utexas.edu/facstaff/Cleaver/350kPEEArendtCrisisinEdTable.pdf as the title is unavailable at a Victorian library (accessed 30 September 2006).
5.
ArendtH. (1994), Essays in Understanding: 1930–1954, New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co.
6.
ArendtH. (1998), The Human Condition, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
7.
BernsteinR.J. (1986), ‘Rethinking the Social and the Political’ in BernsteinR.J. (ed.), Philosophical Profiles: Essays in a Pragmatic Mode, Cambridge: Polity Press, pp. 238–259.
8.
BohmanJ. (1996), ‘The Moral Costs of Political Pluralism: The Dilemmas of Difference and Equality in Arendt's “Reflections on Little Rock”’ in MayL. and KohnJ. (eds.), Hannah Arendt: Twenty Years Later, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 53–80.
9.
BrocklehurstH. (2003), ‘Kids “R” Us? Children as Political Bodies’, International Journal of Politics and Ethics3(1), pp. 79–92.
10.
CassB. (1992), ‘The Limits of the Public/Private Dichotomy: A Comment on Coady and Coady’, International Journal of Law and the Family6, pp. 140–147.
11.
CoadyM.M. and CoadyC.A.J. (1992), ‘“There Ought to be a Law Against It”: Reflections on Child Abuse, Morality and Law’, International Journal of Law and the Family6, pp. 126–139.
12.
Dahlgren (2006), ‘Reflections on a Small Island: Hannah Arendt, Shakespeare's The Tempest, and the Politics of Childhood’, Journal for Cultural and Religious Theory7(2), pp. 34–46.
13.
LaceyN. (1993), ‘Theory into Practice? Pornography and the Public/Private Dichotomy’, Journal of Law and Society20(1), pp. 93–113.
14.
PitkinH.F. (1981), ‘Justice: On Relating Private and Public’, Political Theory9(3), pp. 327–352.
15.
Young-BruehlE. (1982), Hannah Arendt: For the Love of the World, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
