Translating globalization theories into educational research: thoughts on recent shifts in Holocaust education

Abstract

Much educational research on globalization aims to prepare students to be successful citizens in a global society. We propose a set of three concepts, drawing on systems theory (Nassehi, Stichweh) and theories of the subject (Butler, Foucault), to think the global which enables educational research to step back from hegemonic discourses and reflect on current practices. Globalization is understood in this approach as referring to: (1) a cognitive shift; (2) expanding relevancy spaces; and (3) new forms of subjectivation. The framework is illustrated with examples from educational policy and learning materials, with an extended look at how globalization is articulated in recent shifts in Holocaust education.

Keywords:

• globalization
• education
• discourse
• subject
• systems theory
• Holocaust education

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the team involved in developing The Search materials for their openness and generosity; Hanna Schissler for long and constructive discussions about the theoretical framework presented here; and the two anonymous reviewers for their very helpful comments and suggestions.

Notes

1. A globalized modernity does not mean there are no longer borders. It means instead that existing borders (e.g., between nation states, surrounding the EU or Schengen states, between what were called races, between the sexes) are increasingly precarious, because they can no longer be claimed as ‘natural’. Borders are increasingly seen as constructed through social processes, implicated in power relations and thus visibly contingent (Nassehi, 2000, p. 188).

2. We recall again here that despite any apparent general consensus on forms of subjectivation, the notion of ‘hegemonic’ (in the Gramscian sense of consensual domination) discourse entails fissures and ruptures; no consensus will ever be complete. Since there will by definition be gaps in any partial hegemony, it will not necessarily be accepted; there will be space to reject or negotiate its meanings.

3. Levy and Sznaider (2006) have analysed the increasing ‘universalization’ of the collective memory of the Holocaust, which started in the 1980s and picked up speed following the end of the Cold War. They illustrate how this process has led to the removal of the Holocaust from its original singular meaning and its embedding in a tension between particularization and universalization: in one sense, the Holocaust has become a universal moral metaphor. Engagement with the National Socialist policy of annihilation, they argue, is increasingly becoming part of a deterritorialized discourse on morals and values. Recent comparative research focuses on locating the traces of global discourses in local practices of Holocaust memory. Findings stress the interaction between national dynamics and global configurations (e.g., Eckel & Moisel, 2008).

4. The centre of society is represented by the circle marked ‘bystanders’. To a certain extent, these individuals can decide to become ‘followers’ or ‘Nazi helpers’; some become ‘perpetrators’. A small proportion decides to become ‘helpers of the persecuted’ and thus in danger of themselves becoming the persecuted. Those defined as Jews (or Roma or Sinti) cannot decide to be bystanders, they are by definition excluded from this category; some manage to ‘escape’; many become the ‘persecuted’.

5. Also, networks of local and national bodies were involved in each country. In Germany, for instance, the translation of the graphic novel itself was conducted/supported by the Anne Frank House and the Jewish Historical Museum, both in Amsterdam. A pilot study, trialling The Search in classrooms, was conducted by the Anne Frank Centre (Berlin) and supported by the National Model Program ‘Vielfalt tut gut: Jugend für Vielfalt, Toleranz und Demokratie’ [‘Diversity is good for you: Youth for diversity, tolerance and democracy’], the Berlin Senate's Representative for Integration and Migration and the Rothschild Foundation in London.

6. These guidelines were hosted by the USHMM for several years and available on their website until 30 September 2009. The guidelines are now available on: http://www.holocausttaskforce.org/education/guidelines-for-teaching.html (retrieved 30 September 2009).