{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02040816326530612, 'fraction_numerical': 0.011259676284306826, 'mean_word_length': 5.771428571428571, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Democratic leadership theory in late modernity: an oxymoron or ironic possibility?

This article is intended to enrich and expand scholarly reflection on democratic leadership theory. Leithwood and Duke (1999), make the claim in their review of the literature on school leadership, that contemporary philosophy of educational administration has made no significant contribution to leadership theory. However, one can argue that contemporary philosophy has indeed implicated educational administration and the assumptions of enlightenment/modern philosophy that support its practice. The article begins with the question of the possibility of democratic leadership theory after the postmortem critique of democracy, epistemology and all meta-narratives (Maxcy 1991; Taylor 1992: Starratt 1996). The question is posed whether democratic leadership theory is thereby defeated, or significantly chastened. It goes on to ask whether democratic theory may overcome its own contradictions through a self-consciously ironic pragmatism. The next section of the article explores the limits and constraints on leadership theory after Postmodernism. Leadership theory and its proponents have to agree to a continuous evaluation by a hermeneutic of suspicion, a continuous deconstruction of its treatment of power and authority. It has to respond to the unavoidable issues of racism, sexism, classism, and other oppressing ideologies.