Signposts and the Council of Europe: special issue on the contribution of ‘inclusive’ religious education to intercultural understanding

This special issue of Intercultural Education considers the contribution of ‘inclusive’ religious education to intercultural understanding, focusing on the relationship between non-confessional and ‘inclusive’ religious education – often seen as a broader subject also including some study of ‘non-religious worldviews’ (e.g. Religious Education Commission 2018) – and intercultural education, seen in the context of the education systems of democratic states. The articles¹ focus on issues discussed in the Council of Europe book Signposts: policy and practice for teaching about religions and non-religious worldviews in intercultural education (Jackson 2014).² Of course, both the terms ‘religious education’ and ‘intercultural education’ are (and have been) used in academic and professional discourse in some very different ways, as have associated terms such as ‘religious literacy’ and ‘multicultural education’ (Jackson 2014, 27–31).

The articles are written by scholars affiliated to the Signposts International Research Network (SIRN), a group of European researchers and curriculum developers concerned to improve the quality of religious and worldview education in schools, who are engaging in independent research projects, but whose work also addresses issues identified by education ministries in Council of Europe member states, and reported in Signposts (Jackson 2014) (http://www.theewc.org/Content/What-we-do/Other-ongoing-projects/Signposts-International-Research-Network-SIRN).

SIRN currently includes researchers from the UK, Sweden and Norway who are conducting school-based research projects on classroom religious and worldview education, and others who are engaged in curriculum development related to such research. The curriculum developers include colleagues based at the European Wergeland Centre in Oslo who have produced a teacher training module (see Jackson and O’Grady 2019, below).

Since the Council of Europe³ classifies its work in religions and education as ‘the religious dimension of intercultural education’, it is important to clarify what is meant by this, and to correct misapprehensions, such as the idea that the Council of Europe reduces ‘religion’ to ‘culture’. The articles in the present issue illustrate that this is not the case, and engage with topics arising from experience of teaching about religions and beliefs in mainly state-funded schools in some European countries. Part of the explanation for misapprehension of the Council of Europe’s work in this area is the ambiguity of the terms ‘religious education’ and ‘intercultural education’, so some clarification of terminology is appropriate.

Religious education

The term ‘religious education’ is often used as a synonym for religious nurture, or upbringing within a particular religious or faith tradition. However, ‘religious education’ is also commonly used as a term to denote education about religions, taught in such a way that it provides young people with sensitively-taught, accurate information and some understanding of religious language. This form of religious education is considered suitable for children and young people from any religious or non-religious background, and is sometimes referred to as inclusive religious education (e.g. Jackson 2019).

Each basic usage has variants. For example, some forms of the ‘nurturing’ variety of religious education, are outward-looking, and take close consideration of religious diversity within society. This form of religious nurture is compatible with some varieties of education about religions. Others have a narrower focus, aiming solely to induct young people into a particular faith, and sometimes avoiding knowledge of, or encounters with, other faiths and worldviews.

Religious education, understood as ‘education about religions’, also has its variants. There are those who, for academic and/or political reasons, would confine such religious education to the objective study of religions. In particular contexts, terms such as ‘religion education’ and ‘integrative religious education’ have been used to indicate scientific objectivity. Others, in addition to providing information and relevant skills, would give opportunities for young people to engage with the material they have studied, and to discuss their responses to what they have learned with classmates, arguing that the provision of opportunities for personal reflection is consistent with an impartial approach (Jackson and Everington 2017). For example, the present author’s interpretive approach (Jackson 2016a, 2004, 2016b; 2019) discusses issues of representing religions and religious activity, and considers the hermeneutical relationship between individuals, various types of groups to which they belong and the generic religion or religious tradition. It helps students, whatever their background, to interpret the meanings of those who express religious language or perform religious actions such as rituals. Interpretation also involves considering the relationship of individuals, groups and the generic religions to which they relate. However, unlike the purely ‘learning about’ type of religious education, this approach also includes a reflexive element. Reflexivity covers various aspects of the relationship between the experience of students and of those whose way of life they are attempting to interpret. These include: learners re-assessing their own preconceptions, derived from their own tradition or worldview – termed edification (Jackson 1997, 130–1; 2004, 88, 2016b; 2019); making a distanced critique of material studied, discussing their reflections with peers and the teacher, and conducting retrospective reviews of study methods. This reflexive element can also be incorporated into studies of non-religious worldviews, such as secular humanism. It has been argued that such forms of religious education are intrinsically worthwhile, as a component of a broad, liberal education, and also instrumentally worthwhile in contributing to the personal development of students, and to their social development as citizens of democratic societies (Jackson 2015; 2019).

Culture

If we look historically at the term ‘culture’, then, in the fifteenth century, we find it referring to tending crops or managing animals in farming. During the next two centuries, it is sometimes used analogically to refer to the human mind while, during the eighteenth century, ‘culture’ becomes associated with the arts and scholarship. At about the same time, influenced by the philosopher Johann Gottfried Herder, the notion of distinct cultures appeared, a view developed in the Romantic Movement. A culture, in this sense, was regarded as the collective ‘heritage’ of the national group, itself identified with a particular ethnic group.

This closed view of cultures appeared in early social anthropology, though not so much with strongly nationalistic overtones. For example, Herder’s work influenced Franz Boas, and others in the USA taking a cultural relativist view of social anthropology. For Ruth Benedict, a former student of Boas, each culture was considered to be distinct, by analogy with types of living organism. For Benedict, cultures either survived or died out, with no possibility of the formation of new cultural syntheses through cultural interaction (Benedict 1935). The idea of uniform, bounded cultures has been maintained in the rhetoric of the political right in various European countries.

At the other extreme there are postmodernist deconstructions of the idea of ‘a culture’, with any idea of continuous tradition being regarded as an imposed ‘metanarrative’. From this position, the way of life someone adopts is entirely matter of personal choice, with the role of education being to filter out accounts of traditional forms of authority to allow children to construct their own personal narratives and faith positions (eg Erricker and Erricker 2000).

In between the two poles are intermediary stances, emphasising the changing and contested nature of cultures over time, and recognising the ‘situatedness’ of young people, within families and communities of various kinds, for example. These views of culture emphasise internal (sometimes inter-generational) conflict or negotiation in creating cultural change (eg Clifford 1986). They also point to the role of the observer in constructing ‘cultures’. On this view, as with biographies, single, definitive accounts are not possible (Jackson 1997).

This last view often emphasises human agency in making and describing culture. Instead of having a distinct and fixed cultural identity, individuals and groups identify with elements of culture, or synthesise new culture through bringing different elements together. The emphasis is on people engaging with culture, drawing on different cultural resources (e.g. Jackson 2004). The emphasis in identity formation is less on descent and inheritance, and more on a series of identifications through dialogue and communication with others.

The research of the German-Dutch scholar Gerd Baumann illustrates how both inflexible and highly flexible approaches to nationality, ethnicity, religion and their relationship can be found in examples of cultural discourse in everyday life (Baumann 1999). In various situations, there are those whose interests might be to present a particular relationship between a fixed view of culture (or cultures) and reified views of nationality, ethnicity and religion. Thus, for example, British national identity is often described by the political far right as if it were some kind of fixed entity, with its own distinct culture, related to a closed view of ethnicity (usually with ‘Britishness’ being associated with being white), and religion (Christianity in very particular forms). Such closed views provide simplistic criteria for judging whether someone is ‘truly’ British. Similarly, both outsiders and insiders might use terminology such as ‘the Hindu community’ or ‘Asian culture’, when it suits their purposes. Gerd Baumann calls this tendency to reify, whether by extremist groups, politicians, the media or cultural communities, ‘dominant discourse’. ‘Demotic discourse’, however, is Baumann’s term for the language of culture making, and is used, for example, when people from various different backgrounds interact together in approaching topics of common interest. Baumann’s conclusion is that ‘culture’ can be seen as both a possession of an ethnic or religious ‘community’, and also as a dynamic process relying on personal agency, in which, for example, community boundaries may be re-negotiated (Baumann 1996). He reminds us that ‘…a multicultural society is not a patchwork of 5 or 10 fixed cultural identities, but an elastic web of crosscutting and always mutually situational identifications’ (Baumann 1999, 118). As Baumann also puts it, ‘Culture…is not so much a photocopy machine but a concert or indeed a historically improvised jam session. It only exists in the act of being performed, and it can never stand still or repeat itself without changing its meaning’ (Baumann 1999, 26). This second view of culture – culture as process – was, for example, absent from British multicultural education of the 1970s, and from much religious education in that period.

Intercultural education

In exploring different meanings of ‘intercultural education’, the (mainly earlier) debates about ‘multiculturalism’ and ‘multicultural education’ need to be re-visited. The term ‘multiculturalism’ has been open to a range of interpretations, the meaning varying according to context, time and the type of discourse in which it appears (e.g. academic, educational, political and media discourse, or a combination of these). The term ‘multicultural’ has been superseded in many educational contexts, partly because, in political and media discourse, it became associated with simplistic accounts of discrete, bounded cultures, perceived as rivals to national cultures – Baumann’s ‘dominant discourse’.

However, the term ‘multicultural’ has continued to be used in some academic discussion in sophisticated ways. For example, Steven Vertovec argues that the nature of multiculturalism in the United Kingdom in the first decade of the 21^st century was rather different from that of the 1970s and 1980s because of a shift to what he calls ‘super-diversity’ (Vertovec 2006). This is expressed through the changing nature of migration that has been shaped by a complex interplay of factors, such as country of origin, migration pattern, access to employment and transnationalism. The social anthropologist, Gunther Dietz (now working in Mexico), uses both the terms ‘multicultural’ and ‘intercultural’ in descriptive and normative forms. Just as there is a distinction between plurality as a descriptive concept and pluralism as a normative concept (Skeie 1995), Dietz distinguishes between multiculturality and multiculturalism, and between interculturality and interculturalism. Multiculturality describes cultural, religious and/or linguistic diversity, while interculturality describes ethnic, interreligious and/or interlingual relations. Multiculturalism denotes normative positions on the recognition of difference, while interculturalism denotes normative positions on intercultural relations or co-existence in diversity (Dietz 2009).

The discourses of political policy and the popular media have been the dominant influences on the use of the term ‘multicultural’. A crude view of multiculturalism, which portrays cultures as separate and bounded entities, has become increasingly common in political discourse. For example, the former UK Prime Minister, David Cameron, in a speech in Munich on 5 February 2011, argued that the ‘doctrine of state multiculturalism’ has encouraged a form of cultural apartheid, and that there had been no countervailing vision of the British society with strong shared values (discussed in Jackson 2011). Similar views were articulated by politicians from the political right, and by right-wing newspapers during the 2016 Brexit campaign, with extreme views being expressed by the far right United Kingdom Independence Party (Jackson 2016c, 2016d and 2016e). This ‘dominant discourse’ representation of multiculturalism has been influential and is one reason why some writers now use ‘intercultural’ rather than terms such as ‘critical multiculturalism’ (May 1999) or ‘reflexive multiculturalism’ (Rattansi 1999), which were coined to indicate a flexible and nuanced approach to cultural diversity.

The term ‘intercultural education’ became established in the early 1980s. For example, in 1982, the idea for the creation of the International Association for Intercultural Education (IAIE) was discussed at a conference in the Netherlands, and in 1984 the IAIE was officially established in London. In 1993, the European Journal of Intercultural Studies became the IAIE’s official journal, changing its name to Intercultural Education in 2000, since many articles were submitted from outside Europe. The use of the term ‘intercultural’ has also been prominent in the Council of Europe, especially through its educational work. References to the term ‘intercultural’ were to be found in Council of Europe documents in the early 1980s. For example, Resolution 807 (1983) on European co-operation in the field of education alludes to ‘intercultural understanding’ (Council of Europe 1983), while a 1984 Recommendation mentions the ‘intercultural dimension’ and the ‘intercultural approach’ (Council of Europe 1984). Recommendation 1093 (1989) on the education of migrants’ children refers directly to ‘intercultural education’ (Council of Europe 1989). By 2002, the term ‘intercultural dialogue’ was being used in the Council of Europe, for example, in discussions of education for democratic citizenship, which was regarded as ‘a factor for social cohesion, mutual understanding, intercultural and inter-religious dialogue’ (Council of Europe 2002). The usage is close to that of Dietz (2009), with an emphasis on relations between different individuals and groups. As Micheline Rey, puts it:

Regardless of the context in which it is used, the word ‘intercultural’, precisely because it contains the prefix ‘inter’, necessarily implies: interaction, exchange, desegregation, reciprocity, interdependence and solidarity. As it also contains the word ‘culture’, it further denotes in its fullest sense: recognition of the values, lifestyles and symbolic conceptions to which human beings, both as individuals and in groups, refer in their dealings with others and in their vision of the world, as well as recognition of the interactions occurring both between the multiple registers of one and the same culture and between the various cultures in space and time. (Rey 1991, 142)

Religious and intercultural education

The authors in this special issue share a view of religious education suitable for ‘inclusive’ schools. This embraces learning about religions (or religions and non-religious worldviews, such as secular humanism), together with a reflexive element in which learners are encouraged to reflect on their own preconceptions, derived from their own ‘home’ traditions, in the light of their new knowledge and understanding, and also have opportunities for critical discussion of their learning with peers and teachers. This form of religious education is suitable in schools where students may be from any religious or non-religious background, and is considered to be compatible with more open and outward-looking forms of faith-based education. The authors share a view of intercultural education combining elements of multiculturality and interculturality as discussed by Dietz (2009), including studies fostering understanding of cultural diversity, together with activities promoting dialogue and discussion on cultural and religious issues in classrooms. We share Baumann’s view that ‘culture’ can be seen as both a possession of an ethnic or religious ‘community’ and as a dynamic process relying on personal agency (Baumann 1996).

Our view accepts the right of individuals to hold the religious or philosophical stance of their choice or inheritance (what John Rawls’ calls ‘comprehensive liberalism’ (1993)). In the context of ‘inclusive’ schools, it also respects young people’s right to their own positions on religion, while expecting all participants to recognise the right of others to express their views, and to interact with one-another civilly, despite disagreements (Rawls’ ‘political liberalism’ (1993)). There needs to be an underlying commitment to freedom of religion or belief, as expressed, for example, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Religious education and intercultural education are seen as complementary, with elements of religious education forming an important component of intercultural education.

Since 2002, the Council of Europe has incorporated studies of religions into its work on intercultural education and intercultural dialogue. My and Kevin O’Grady’s opening article in this issue, summarises and discusses the Council of Europe’s work in this field. This includes a Recommendation on this topic from the Committee of Ministers to the ministries of education in the member states. An analysis of questionnaire returns from the ministries, identifying potential issues in applying policy based on the Recommendation in their own countries, revealed some common issues which are discussed in a Council of Europe publication Signposts: Policy and Practice for Teaching about Religions and Non-Religious Worldviews in Intercultural Education (Jackson 2014). The opening article also includes an account of the development, at the European Wergeland Centre, of a teacher training module based on Signposts.

The rest of the articles address some of the issues identified by member states in questionnaire returns, reported and discussed in Signposts, relating them to new research in the relevant fields being conducted by the contributors in Norway, Sweden and England.

Setting the scene for the rest of this special issue, Geir Skeie and Øystein Lund-Johannessen offer a detailed discussion of the relationship between religious education and intercultural education.

Next, Karin Kittelmann-Flensner and Marie von de Lippe draw upon their own research, conducted in Sweden and Norway, in a discussion of issues in establishing the classroom as a ‘safe space’ for teaching and learning about religions (or religions and other worldviews) in an intercultural context.⁴ Karin Kittelmann-Flensner’s research contributes to a research project, Global conflicts with local consequences – learning and arguing about Middle Eastern conflicts in Swedish classrooms, funded by the Swedish Research Council.

Oddrun Bråten and Judith Everington follow, and address issues relating to the integration of religious education and worldviews education in an intercultural context, with illustrations from their own research findings from Norway and England.

Utilising their own separate research studies in Sweden and Norway, Thérèse Halvarsson Britton and Camilla Stabel Jørgensen consider issues for ‘inclusive’ schools and teachers of religious education, in making links with religious (and other worldview) communities, for educational purposes.

Finally, Jenny Berglund and Bill Gent draw upon their joint research in England and Sweden to discuss another issue in the relationship between religious communities and inclusive schools. They consider the experience of young Muslims who attend both a ‘confessional’ Islamic school and a non-confessional, state funded school which provides ‘inclusive’ religious education. Rather than finding conflict in the experience of the young people, they provide various examples of the complementary nature of the two processes. Jenny Berglund’s research project: Experiences of Islamic and Secular Education in Sweden and Britain, is funded by the Swedish Research Council and Marie Sklodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA).

Studies from members of the Signposts International Research Network will continue, but we hope that the articles published in the present issue will contribute constructively to discussions about the relationship of religious education and intercultural education.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Robert Jackson

Robert Jackson is Emeritus Professor and Founding Director of Warwick Religions and Education Research Unit at the University of Warwick, UK, and Visiting Professor in the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences Education at Stockholm University. In 2013, he received the William Rainey Harper Award for ‘outstanding contribution across disciplines and fields of service to religion and education’ from the Religious Education Association (USA). In 2017, he received honorary doctorates from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, and the Norwegian School of Theology, Oslo, for his contributions to international religious education research. Since 2002, he has contributed to the Council of Europe’s work on the religious dimension of intercultural education, and from 2008 to work in this field at the European Wergeland Centre, Oslo. His latest book Religious Education for Plural Societies (2019) is published by Routledge.

Notes

1. Earlier versions of the papers were presented in a symposium at the International Seminar on Religious Education and Values, held in Nuremburg, Germany in July 2018.

2. Signposts is available as a free PDF download, and so far has been translated from English into Arabic, Dutch, French, German, Greek, Italian, Norwegian, Romanian, Russian, Spanish, Swedish and Ukrainian. Download from: www.theewc.org/Content/Library/COE-Steering-documents/Recommendations/Signposts-Policy-and-practice-for-teaching-about-religions-and-non-religious-world-views-in-intercultural-education.

3. The Council of Europe is a European human rights institution, based in Strasbourg, France, currently with 47 member states. https://www.coe.int/en/web/about-us/who-we-are.

4. See also articles by Vikdahl and Skeie, Lockley-Scott, and Jackson in the special issue of Religion & Education on ‘Possibilities and Limitations of Religion-Related Dialogue in Schools in Europe’ guest-edited by Wolfram Weisse, 46, issue 1, 2019.