Universities and Democratic Culture: General Education in a Digital Age
David M. Berry
the focus was on what was happening, how things worked, how the situation had been arrived at. The academic press and the growing number of conferences reflected the agendas contained or implied in the national policy directions. Research and discussion focused on higher education and work, the sandwich course, competences, staff development, institutional change, accountability. At the heart of what was, and what was not, on these agendas was the state.... The larger and longer term purposes of higher education are not subjects much attended to (Silver 2003: 221).
Indeed, Silver explains, "key issues were 'value for money and accountability.' Embattled, the universities were accepting the management solution, and their vice-chancellors were now to be, and often to be called, chief executives" (Silver 2003: 220). The consequences of this drift extend far beyond the ivory towers. As universities have hollowed out their commitment to what was called "general education," we witness the alarming spectacle of graduates, who are ostensibly among our most educated citizens, falling prey to conspiracy theories, misinformation campaigns, and even foreign interference designed to sow discord in democratic societies. The very institutions that should serve as bulwarks against intellectual manipulation have instead become complicit in producing graduates ill-equipped to navigate the complexities of contemporary civic life and lacking the education outside of their specialist interests to see the whole. As was noted, ironically enough, by the Head of Education Policy Group at the Confederation of British Industry in the early 1980s,
The last decade has been a disaster for higher education in the United Kingdom. Resources have been depleted, morale shattered, all sense of clear purpose and direction abandoned. Response to threats to higher education and doubts about its value have not prompted a spirited defence of the academic ethos by its guardians or a vision of the future by its leaders but an inward-looking, truculent trench mentality (Silver 2003: 219)
The Historical Context
The concern for general education in British universities is not new. Sir Walter Moberly, in his 1949 work Crisis in the University, diagnosed the fundamental problem that, I think, continues to plague higher education today. Writing in the shadow of the Second World War, Moberly was particularly troubled by the moral collapse of German universities under the Nazi's fascist regime. He observed that German institutions with the highest intellectual prestige had "failed to repel doctrines morally monstrous and intellectually despicable" and had "suffered themselves to become an instrument for manipulating public opinion in the hand of the powers that be" (Moberly, 1949, pp. 23-24).
Moberly argued that in the UK universities had become agents of drift, suffering from what he termed a "lack of values." That is that they increasingly saw themselves as value-neutral and avoided the aspect of university education that was concerned with moral or ethical thinking. Universities has lost the ability to encourage its students to question not could one do something, but should they do it. The universities claimed to educate "rounded persons" with "an understanding of themselves and their place in the cosmos," but in reality produced narrow specialists with extremely limited horizons (Moberly, 1949, p. 27). This diagnosis resonates with our contemporary situation, where graduates emerge from university with deep technical knowledge but limited capacity for critical thinking about broader social and political questions – they increasingly lack the capacity to develop interconnected thinking across disciplinary domains (Berry 2025).
The tradition of concern for general education extends back further still. Bruce Truscott (the pen-name of Edgar Allison Peers), writing in Redbrick University (1943), called for universities to return to the advancement of knowledge through research whilst maintaining their educational mission. José Ortega y Gasset, in Mission of the University, similarly warned against institutions that "feign to give and require what they cannot," arguing that universities must not pretend to offer what they fundamentally lack (cited in Moberly, 1949, p. 25). His implication that they needed to return to a set of academic values that promoted the social good, and that included inculcating a sense of connection to values and norms such as democracy, tolerance and critical thinking.
Two Philosophical Traditions
One way of approaching this historical debate about university education is through two distinct philosophical approaches, each offering different solutions to the challenge of preparing students for both specialist careers and democratic citizenship.
The first tradition, which we might call the Plato-Cartesian strand, emerges from the rationalist philosophical tradition and emphasises the cultivation of reason and systematic doubt. This approach was championed by figures such as R.H. Tawney, A.D. Lindsay, John Fulton, and W.B. Gallie. Lindsay, who later was instrumental in founding both Keele University and influencing the establishment of Sussex, argued that universities must cultivate what he called "democratic community," writing,
A democratic community cannot submit to that specialization of its ruling class. All its citizens ought to have some sort of skill and be, therefore, specialists; but equally all ought to have an understanding of the purposes and common life of the community and be educated as citizens. They need not necessarily go to university institutions of the same kind, but all university institutions will somehow have to fulfil both these purposes and we can no longer pretend that by being given the training needed for technical purposes a student is also educated. We are beginning nowadays to recognise that education in science and in the humanities must go together (Lindsay, 1949: 86).
This is related to what Davie argued was the need for "the democratic intellect" through the capacity for reasoned discourse about public affairs (Davie 2013). Indeed, Davie's book was influential on C. P. Snow, and the deliberations of the Robbins committee which accelerated the creation of new universities in the 1960s (Davie 2013: xi).
John Fulton, the first Vice-Chancellor of Sussex University, explicitly linked his educational philosophy to Cartesian methodology. He believed that education should begin with "methodical sceptical approach that questions every step in our thinking, a refusal to take things for granted" (Berry, 2024, p. 279).[1] This approach emphasises the development of critical faculties through intellectual discipline, strengthened through a tutorial type system adapted from Oxford's model.
This Plato-Cartesian strand recognises that democratic participation requires citizens capable of systematic reasoning and intellectual independence. As Carr-Saunders noted, the university's role is to ensure that graduates can "think about and discuss general questions affecting the human situation and in particular to make value judgements upon them" (Carr-Saunders, 1959, p. 9).
The second tradition, what we might call the Baconian strand, takes its inspiration from Francis Bacon's empirical approach to knowledge and emphasises the practical application of learning to social problems. This tradition was developed by figures such as Geoffrey Barraclough, Asa Briggs, Alexander Carr-Saunders and others. As Barraclough argues, "What is wanted is something different: not patching, not first-aid work, but a clear-headed attempt to re-draw the map of the past with new perspectives. Such a definition of boundaries is overdue" (Barraclough 1955: 58). As Carr-Saunders argued in 1959,
We are accustomed to hear of rigid demarcation between faculties in universities abroad, but rigid departmental demarcation seems to be a special characteristic of most of our universities. It is true that an inspection of the academic map discloses centres of interest, historical, linguistic, economic and so on, and that university organisation must have regard to this fact. But departmental organisation often reaches a condition of monstrous hyper-trophy, falsifying the academic map, and bringing about the herding of teachers into pens surrounded by fences, quite literally so... In any case their segregating influence needs to be abated (Carr-Saunders 1960: 8).
One can see the influences on Briggs who later called for a new "map of learning" (Briggs 1961a, 1964).[2] Briggs argued that universities needed to "cross the Snow line" and therefore bridge C.P. Snow's famous division between the sciences and humanities. This he argues was to create "a more general degree with the same prestige as single honours but with connections to related areas of knowledge and the world of thought beyond" (Briggs, 1964, p. 68). This approach emphasises interdisciplinary connections and the practical application of knowledge to contemporary challenges.
This tradition recognises that democratic societies require citizens who can understand and address complex, interconnected problems. As Briggs himself argued, in the "modern map of learning... as Professor Barraclough has recently suggested, is 'a clear-headed attempt to re-draw the map of the past with new perspectives'" (Briggs 1956: 62). As Briggs explained,
Francis Bacon was writing in the light of the far-reaching changes in the organization of the 'map of learning' in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, changes to which historians have attached the phrase 'the new learning'. Bacon himself looked forward to much more far-reaching changes in the future (Briggs 1961a: 7).
I argue that the challenge facing twenty-first-century universities similarly calls for a need to synthesise these two traditions into a coherent approach to general education. The Plato-Cartesian emphasis on systematic reasoning and the Baconian focus on empirical research and practical application are not mutually exclusive, but their integration remains an unresolved problem in contemporary higher education. In fact, they represent the founding principles that became crystallised into the culture at the University of Sussex, and which today still struggles with the tension between them (Berry 2024).
Indeed, this synthesis becomes particularly urgent in a digital age, where the traditional boundaries between specialist knowledge and general understanding have become not just increasingly porous, but the change in knowledge forms is accelerated. For example, the rise of artificial intelligence (AI) and algorithmic decision-making systems means that citizens require not only the capacity for independent reasoning (the Plato-Cartesian contribution) but also the ability to understand how knowledge is constructed, validated, and applied in practice (the Baconian insight).
Universities have largely failed to respond adequately to this challenge. Rather than equipping students with the intellectual tools necessary to navigate digital media critically, they have turned towards narrow specialisation in their provision. Graduates emerge with detailed knowledge of particular fields but lack the broader intellectual framework necessary to evaluate competing truth claims, understand the construction of knowledge, or recognise sophisticated forms of manipulation. The consequences are evident in the proliferation of conspiracy theories, the effectiveness of foreign disinformation campaigns, and the general degradation of public discourse. When university graduates, who are supposedly our most educated citizens, prove susceptible to obviously false claims or sophisticated manipulation, this reveals a growing failure of our educational system.
As Carr-Saunders warned in 1959, the departmental segregation of knowledge creates "a situation unfavourable to general education; it promotes exclusive attention to the field covered by the department and encourages the belief that general education, if it rises into view at all, is the business of others which means in practice that it is the business of no-one" (Carr-Saunders, 1959, pp. 9-10).
Rethinking General Education
The problem facing contemporary universities requires a reconsideration of their educational mission. Whilst we cannot simply return to the experimental vision of the 1960s plate glass universities, we can learn from their insights about the relationship between specialist knowledge and general education. So for example, students need deep understanding of how societies have previously responded to technological transformation and information manipulation. The collapse of democratic institutions in the 1930s offers particularly relevant lessons for navigating contemporary challenges. This could include students obtaining a grounding in fundamental questions about knowledge, truth, and value that enable them to evaluate competing claims and understand the basis of their own beliefs.
Similarly, one of the key issues raised in the 1950s and 1960s and which remains relevant today is the problem of boundaries between academic disciplines which must be challenged to help students understand the interconnected nature of contemporary problems. Climate change, for example, cannot be adequately understood through purely scientific, economic, or political lenses, but requires integrated understanding across multiple domains. Lastly, of course, the centrality of media requires deeper understanding and students need to develop a more sophisticated understanding of how information is produced, disseminated, and monetised in digital environments (see Berry 2014). This includes understanding algorithmic curation, the economics of attention, and the techniques of sophisticated propaganda (Berry 2025).
Democratic Intelligence
The restoration of general education is not merely an academic concern but a democratic imperative. As Moberly recognised, universities have a responsibility for "the creation, generation by generation in a continuous flow of a body of men and women who share a sense of civilised values, who feel responsible for developing them, who are united by their culture, and who by the simple pressure of their existence and outlook will form and be enlightened public opinion" (Moberly, 1949, p. 23).
This responsibility becomes more urgent in an age where artificial intelligence systems increasingly mediate our access to information and shape our understanding of reality. Citizens require not only the technical knowledge to understand these systems but also the broader intellectual framework to evaluate their social and political implications. Citizens, we might say, need less artificial intelligence and more democratic intelligence.
The current emphasis on vocational training, whilst addressing legitimate economic concerns, fundamentally misunderstands the nature of work in a rapidly changing technological environment. As John Fulton argued in the 1960s, education should prepare students for a world of "rapid technological change" where "traditional educational practices were no longer appropriate" (Berry, 2024, p. 263). The specific technical skills taught today may well become obsolete within a generation, but the capacity for critical thinking, adaptability, and civic engagement will remain essential. As Carr-Saunders eloquently expressed the dual nature of university education:
Every student has to earn his bread, or at least to fulfil his function in life in and through a profession or calling, and for this purpose he requires the special knowledge and accomplishment proper to that calling. Every student is also a member of civil society, a participant in a common humanity, is a soul or mind capable of a perfection or development of its own, and for that purpose he may be made the subject of a general or humane training and accomplishment (Carr-Saunders, 1959, p. 16).
Restoring general education to its proper place does not require abandoning specialist knowledge or ignoring economic realities. Rather, it demands a more sophisticated understanding of how specialist and general education can be integrated. I believe that the way forward is that universities should consider adopting modified versions of the experimental approaches pioneered by institutions like the University of Sussex in the 1960s. This might include, adapting the Oxbridge/Sussex tutorial model to encourage active learning and critical engagement using AI and other tools critically rather than passive absorption of information or reliance on the "thinking" of the AI models. Related to this, structured opportunities for students to apply their knowledge to real social problems needs to be created, this would foster understanding of how specialist knowledge relates to broader civic responsibilities. This would then allow students to understand connections between different domains of knowledge whilst maintaining depth in their chosen field. This would also need to be linked to helping students understand not only how to use digital technologies but how these technologies shape cognition, social relationships, and political processes. The result would be a refreshed general education for digital societies.
Conclusion
As John Fulton asked in reflecting on the University of Sussex in 1986, who are "the keepers of the university's conscience?" (Blin-Stoyle and Ivey, 1986, p. 207). This question becomes more pressing in our current context, where universities face intense pressure to demonstrate immediate economic utility whilst the foundations of democratic culture erode around them. It is clear that the management class currently running universities are ill-equiped to serve the role the being the keepers of the "university conscience," overly concerned as they are by the operational details of running complex organisations.
But the restoration of general education is not a luxury that universities can afford to ignore but an essential responsibility that they neglect at their, and society's, peril. As Carr-Saunders warned, "little can be done to advance general education until the conditions ruling in our universities have been appraised" (Carr-Saunders, 1959, p. 9). The conditions ruling today found in fragmented knowledge, vocational pressure, and digital disruption, therefore demand urgent attention and voices from the academy, rather than management, who believe in the university as more than just a big high school for 18-22 year olds.
I argue that the synthesis of Cartesian systematic reasoning and Baconian practical engagement might thereby offer a pathway forward for thinking beyond our current impasse. But this is only possible if universities have the courage to resist the narrow pressures of immediate utility and reclaim their broader educational mission. The stakes could not be higher as the future of democratic culture itself depends upon our willingness to educate citizens capable of thoughtful participation in an increasingly complex and interconnected digital world.[3]
** Headline image generated using DALL-E 3 in September 2025. The prompt used was: "An oil painting portrays two people from diverse backgrounds looking at two visions of the university, on the one is Oxbridge and on the other are Redbrick universities. They hold their smartphones before them. The individuals—each exhibiting concentrated expressions—are focused on their decision between them, highlighting meticulous details in skin, hair, and devices, with soft, warm lighting enhancing the scene's depth and emotional balance." Due to the probabilistic way in which these images are generated, future images generated using this prompt are unlikely to be the same as this version.
Notes
[1] Fulton's emphasis on Cartesian methodology reflects his philosophical training at Balliol under A.D. Lindsay, who was himself influenced by Plato and Descartes and the philosophical tradition that has its emphasis on systematic critique (see Berry 2024).
[2] Asa Briggs was not consistent in his use of singular and plural in regard to the "map of learning" or "maps of learning" (see Briggs 1961a, 1961b, 1964). He seems to indicate that each university would have its own "map of learning," by which he seems predominantly to have in mind the disciplinary divisions of the university in schools, departments or faculties. I think this helps explain his use of geographical metaphors to explain his thinking. Barraclough's use of the idea of a map seemed to be more particularly concerned with abstract periodisation that was used in history itself, e.g. the middle ages.
[3] The rising question of artificial intelligence in education deserves particular attention. As AI systems become increasingly sophisticated at generating plausible text and solving specific problems, they are increasingly used uncritically by students and the general public (Berry 2025).
Bibliography
Bacon, F. (1605) The Advancement of Learning. London: Henrie Tomes.
Berry, D.M. (2014) Critical Theory and the Digital. 1st edn. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5040/9781501302114.
Berry, D.M. (2024) A History of the Concept of the University of Sussex: From Balliol-by-the-Sea to Plate Glass University, in Darwall-Smith, R. and Feingold, M. (eds.) History of Universities, Volume XXXVII/1–2. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 257-286.
Berry, D.M. (2025) ‘Synthetic media and computational capitalism: towards a critical theory of artificial intelligence’, AI & SOCIETY [Preprint]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-025-02265-2.
Blin-Stoyle, R.J. and Ivey, G. (1986) The Sussex Opportunity: A New University and the Future. Brighton: Harvester.
Briggs, A. (1956) ‘History and Its Neighbours’, Higher Education Quarterly, 11(1), pp. 55–63. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2273.1956.tb00911.x.
Briggs, A. (1961a) The map of learning. Canberra: Australian National University (Research Students’ Association. 1st annual lecture, 1960). Available at: https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/001735715 (Accessed: 1 September 2023).
Briggs, A. (1961b) ‘Maps of Learning’, New Statesman, 6 January, pp. 338–340.
Briggs, A. (1964) Drawing a New Map of Learning, in Daiches, D. (ed.) The Idea of a New University: An Experiment in Sussex. London: André Deutsch, pp. 60-80.
Carr-Saunders, A. (1960) English Universities Today. Oration at the London School of Economics, 11 December 1959, London School of Economics and Political Science.
Cole, J.R. (2012) Great american university: its rise to preeminence, its indispensable national role, why it must be protected. 1st pbk. ed. New York: Public Affairs.
Davie, G.E. (1961) The democratic intellect: Scotland and her universities in the nineteenth century. Third edition / edited by Murdo Macdonald. Edinburgh: University Press (Edinburgh classic editions).
Fulton, J. (1964) New Universities in Perspective, in Daiches, D. (ed.) The Idea of a New University: An Experiment in Sussex. London: André Deutsch, pp. 9-21.
Gallie, W.B. (1960) A New University: A.D. Lindsay and the Keele Experiment. London: Chatto & Windus.
Lindsay, A.D. (1949) The Commission on German Universities, Higher Education Quarterly, 4(1), pp. 82-88.
Moberly, W. (1949) Crisis in the University, Macmillan.
Ortega y Gasset, J. (1930) Mission of the University, Princeton University Press.
Tawney, R.H. (1926) Religion and the Rise of Capitalism, John Murray.
Truscot, B. (1943) Redbrick University, Faber & Faber.
Comments
Post a Comment