Pedagogical Transaction in Religious Education: Diversified Society and John Dewey’s Philosophy of Education

Abstract

The focus of the article is on how a new approach to religious education (RE) in diversified societies can be constructed on the basis of the theory of pedagogical transaction presented by John Dewey. Reflections of developing RE are very current in Western secularized societies. We believe that Dewey's pragmatist philosophy of education and philosophy of religion are still highly relevant to RE. The article consists of three sections: (1) contemporary discussions of RE, (2) reflections on Dewey's philosophy of religion, especially religious experience, and (3) the implementations of Dewey's theory to RE. We conclude by applying pedagogical transaction theory to current challenges in order to design new models of RE in diversified societies. Accordingly, we construct a theory of RE for democratic, multifaith societies that are based on mutual understanding, respect, and recognition of active citizens living in diversified society.

Notes

The Toledo declaration in 2007 emerged from the work of the Council of Europe and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). The Toledo Declaration aims to improve the understanding of the growing religious diversity in the world and the growing importance of public space. The goal of this declaration is to help OSCE member states when they want to promote the knowledge and study of religions and beliefs in schools, particularly the efforts to increase freedom of religion. The declaration is based on a multidisciplinary and multifaith working group. The Toledo Declaration was adopted by the Council of Ministers and presented to the 15th OSCE ministerial meeting in Madrid in 2007 (Santoro 2008, 83).

A Common Faith is based on Dewey's Terry Lectures, delivered at Yale University in January 1934. This slim volume was originally published by Yale University Press in 1934. The references in the text are made in the standard manner to vol. 9 of Dewey's Late Works (LW9). For a more comprehensive discussion of Dewey's philosophy of religion in general and of A Common Faith in particular along the lines of this section, see Pihlström (2013), chapter 3.

For brief accounts of this basic message of A Common Faith, see, for example, Hickman (2007), ch. 11; and Hildebrand (2008), ch. 7. Many interpreters have argued that Dewey's main interest in A Common Faith is not religion as such, but social progress, democracy, and other more “worldly” topics on which he wrote voluminously elsewhere. Be this as it may, applying Dewey to the topic of religious education serves to link religious life not only with democratization but also with social progress.

However, although Dewey clearly rejects religious traditions and focuses on the functions of religious experience, these functions can also be used to evaluate the traditions in terms of how they succeed in promoting religious qualities (see Soneson 1993, 126). Rather than rejecting traditions, it may be more helpful to say that no specific religious tradition is superior to others in serving genuinely religious functions (134). We might then talk instead about the multiple realizability of religious qualities in different religious traditions. In this way communication across religious communities becomes a crucial issue (144–145), and we thus again come to the heart of the problem concerning RE. Hickman (2007, 197) also notes that Dewey did not reject religious institutions but argued that they should be pragmatically assessed in terms of their functioning in the enhancement of experience.

Cf. also Dewey, “One Current Religious Problem” (1936), LW11, 115–117; “Anti-Naturalism in Extremis” (1943), LW15:49–62, especially 56; and “Contribution to ‘Religion and the Intellectuals’” (1950), LW16, 390–394.

Gert Biesta and Siebren Miedema (2002, 179–180; see also Biesta 1995, 277; Wardekker and Miedema 2001, 78–79) point out that at a theoretical level it is possible to trace a transmission model to teaching and learning. This model is the so-called sender–receiver model of communication. Under the sender–receiver model of communication applied to a teaching and learning process, a teacher or an adult/parent is an information sender and a child or a student is an information receiver. The main idea of the sender–receiver model of communication is from “the processes of encoding by the sender in order to get the information ‘ready’ for the transmission. And it includes processes of decoding on the side of the receiver to restore the encoded information to its original state.” This model of communication can be criticized in a very simple way. A human being is not a passive actor but an active meaning maker. And this meaning making process realizes itself in cultural practices between human beings.

For the notion of pedagogical transaction, see also the concept of transformative education in Gert Biesta's and Siebren Miedema's article “Instruction or Pedagogy? The Need for a Transformative Conception of Education” (2002). For the concept of transformative education applied to RE, see Willem Wardekker's and Siebren Miedema's article “Identity, Cultural Heritage, and Religious Education” (2001).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Ari Sutinen

One author of this article, Ph.D. Ari Sutinen, died suddenly on the 29th of June, 2014, at the age of 49 years old. He was one of the leading researchers in the field of philosophy of education in Finland, concentrating his research on American pragmatism and progressive pedagogy. We dedicate this article to his memory.

He is missed by his loving wife and two children. We all are very sad about this loss.

Ari Sutinen taught at the University of Oulu and Arto Kallioniemi and Sami Pihlström teach at the University of Helsinki. E-mail: [email protected]

Arto Kallioniemi

One author of this article, Ph.D. Ari Sutinen, died suddenly on the 29th of June, 2014, at the age of 49 years old. He was one of the leading researchers in the field of philosophy of education in Finland, concentrating his research on American pragmatism and progressive pedagogy. We dedicate this article to his memory.

He is missed by his loving wife and two children. We all are very sad about this loss.

Ari Sutinen taught at the University of Oulu and Arto Kallioniemi and Sami Pihlström teach at the University of Helsinki. E-mail: [email protected]

Sami Pihlström

One author of this article, Ph.D. Ari Sutinen, died suddenly on the 29th of June, 2014, at the age of 49 years old. He was one of the leading researchers in the field of philosophy of education in Finland, concentrating his research on American pragmatism and progressive pedagogy. We dedicate this article to his memory.

He is missed by his loving wife and two children. We all are very sad about this loss.

Ari Sutinen taught at the University of Oulu and Arto Kallioniemi and Sami Pihlström teach at the University of Helsinki. E-mail: [email protected]