Controversial Issues and the Rhetoric of Common Values
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Previous Research
3. Presenting the Case Studies
3.1. Values in Norwegian Education Policy
Basic schooling shall, as a whole, build upon the ethical foundational values that are anchored in Christianity. The responsibility that is laid upon school in this way makes it a duty for school to try to awaken and strengthen the pupil’s sense for values of an ethical nature. Considering their age and maturity, school must try to help them see that, in the varied circumstances of life, it should be asked what is good and evil, right and wrong. (…)The aim for school must be that foundational values such as truth, honesty, fairness, loyalty and loving-thy-neighbour really become values for the pupils, and thus decisive for their attitude to life and how they live their lives.
School shall base its practice on the values in the objectives clause of the Education Act. The objectives clause expresses values that unite the Norwegian society. These values, the foundation of our democracy, shall help us to live, learn and work together in a complex world and with an uncertain future. The core values are based on Christian and humanist heritage and traditions. They are also expressed in different religions and worldviews and are rooted in human rights.
3.2. The British Government and the Trojan Horse Affair: An Instance of the Rhetoric of Shared Values
‘The values I’m talking about—a belief in freedom, tolerance of others, accepting personal and social responsibility, respecting and upholding the rule of law—are the things we should try to live by every day. (…)And taken together, I believe this combination—our values and our respect for the history that helped deliver them and the institutions that uphold them—forms the bedrock of Britishness.’
‘The question is: should we actively promote this? I absolutely think we should. For a start, this is a matter of pride and patriotism. (…)[T]here are two other reasons why we should promote these values.The first is economic. I strongly believe our values form the foundation of our prosperity(…)The second is social. Our values have a vital role to play in uniting us.’
‘So I believe we need to be far more muscular in promoting British values and the institutions that uphold them.That’s what a genuinely liberal country does: it believes in certain values and actively promotes them. It says to its citizens: this is what defines us as a society.’
‘We are saying it isn’t enough simply to respect these values in schools—we’re saying that teachers should actively promote them. They’re not optional; they’re the core of what it is to live in Britain.’
- i.
- Essentialism. The rhetoric of shared values invites the user to see society as a bounded unit with an inner and stable essence, exaggerating internal similarity and external difference.
- ii.
- Conservatism. It becomes difficult to theorize change without pathologizing it.
- iii.
- Causal direction. When sociologists explain social cohesion as a function of shared values, there is a logical problem with the timeline because the effect comes before the cause.
- iv.
- The rhetoric of shared values misrepresents the distribution of values between and within groups. It overemphasises in-group agreement and underestimates between-group disagreement.
- v.
- It identitizes values, arguing that they should be upheld because they are ‘ours’ rather than that they are good, or right. This includes nationalising and religionising values.
- vi.
- It instrumentalizes values, arguing that we need them because of the positive side effects of social cohesion, rather than because it is good to live by them.
- vii.
- It traditionalises values, arguing that the legitimacy of a set of values arises from the past of a certain community, rather than in directing present and future action.
- viii.
- It excludes too many people. This becomes a problem if you need to invest in a particular cultural, historical or religious heritage in order to be seen as adhering to a set of values. Your opinions come to be viewed as a question of identity rather than ethics or politics. Minorities will stand at a structural disadvantage.
- i.
- Non-essentialism: Identity groups could be presented as historical and contextually shaped. Their stability is an empirical matter, influenced by power structures internal and external to the group.
- ii.
- Change-agnostic: Change or continuity are not seen as moral categories in and of themselves, but could be seen relative to achieving the values of the school.
- iii.
- Agency sensitive: Treats people and institutions as moral agents, not traditions and cultures.
- iv.
- Empirical: It does not assume that group belonging defines an individual’s values, but sees the distribution of values as an empirical question.
- v.
- Universalist: Provides arguments for the chosen values that are relevant to a universal audience, not place-specific.
- vi.
- Ethical: Provides the ethical argument for the chosen values, rather than instrumentalist side effects.
- vii.
- Political: Sees the chosen values as directing common action towards a future goal, rather than being legitimized by a common past.
- viii.
- Inclusive: The value ‘belongs’ to all who hold the value and act by it, regardless of group identity.
4. Discussion and Conclusions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Anker, Trine, and Marie von der Lippe. 2016. Læreres Håndering Av Kontroversielle Spørsmål i Skolens Religions-Og Livssynsundervisning. Prismet 67: 261–72. [Google Scholar]
- Arao, Brian, and Kristi Clemens. 2013. From Safe Spaces to Brave Spaces. In The Art of Effective Facilitation. Edited by Lisa Landreman. Sterling: Stylus Publishing. [Google Scholar]
- Arthur, James. 2015. Extremism and Neo-Liberal Education Policy: A Contextual Critique of the Trojan Horse Affair in Birmingham Schools. British Journal of Educational Studies 63: 311–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Avest, Ina ter. 2020. The Power of a Controversial Issue; The Developmental Power of “Disruptive Moments” for Both—Teachers and Students. Religions 11: 272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Awan, Imran. 2014. Operation “Trojan Horse”: Islamophobia or Extremism? Political Insight 5: 38–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bamber, Philip, Andrea Bullivant, Alison Clark, and David Lundie. 2018. Educating Global Britain: Perils and Possibilities Promoting “national” Values through Critical Global Citizenship Education. British Journal of Education Studies 66: 433–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barrett, Betty. 2010. Is “Safety” Dangerous? The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Baumann, Gerd. 1996. Contesting Culture: Discourses of Identity in Multi-Ethnic London. London: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Beckford, James. 2003. Social Theory and Religion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Beckford, James. 2015. ‘Community’ in the Sociology of Religion. Social Compass 62: 225–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boostrom, Robert. 1998. “Safe Spaces”: Reflections on an Educational Metaphor. Journal of Curriculum Studies 30: 397–408. [Google Scholar]
- Bronk, Richard, and Wade Jacoby. 2020. The Epistemics of Populism and Politics of Uncertainty. LSE Europe in Questions Discussion Paper Session 152/2020. Available online: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/103492/ (accessed on 14 July 2020).
- Brubaker, Rogers. 2017. Between Nationalism and Civilizationism: The European Populist Moment in Comparative Perspective. Ethnic and Racial Studies 40: 1191–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Byrkjeflot, Haldor. 2010. Omdømmehåndtering—Drivkrefter, Kritikk Og Paradokser. Scandinavian Journal of Public Administration 14: 3–24. [Google Scholar]
- Callan, Eamonn. 2006. Love, Idolatory and Patriotism. Social Theory and Practice 32: 515–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Callan, Eamonn. 2016. Education in Safe and Unsafe Spaces. Philosophical Inquiry in Education 24: 64–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cameron, David. 2014. British Values Aren’t Optional, They’re Vital. That’s Why I Will Promote Them in EVERY School: As Row Rages over “Trojan Horse” Takeover of Our Classrooms, the Prime Minister Delivers This Uncompromising Pledge…. Daily Mail, June 15. [Google Scholar]
- Clarke, Peter. 2014. Report in Allegations Concerning Birmingham Schools Arising Frmo the ’Trojan Horse’letter. London: House of Commons. [Google Scholar]
- Cobbah, Josiah. 1987. African Values and the Human Rights Debate: An African Perspective. Human Rights Quarterly 9: 309–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cvijic, Srdjan, and Lorenzo Zucca. 2004. Does the European Constitution Need Christian Values? Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 24: 309–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Department for Education. 2014. Promoting Fundamental British Values as Part of SMSC in Schools. London: Department for Education. [Google Scholar]
- Durkheim, Emile, and Joseph Swain. 2008. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. Mineola: Dover Publications, Inc. [Google Scholar]
- Education Act. 2014. Ministry of Education and Research. Available online: https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dokumenter/education-act/id213315/ (accessed on 22 September 2020).
- Elton-Chalcraft, Sally, Vini Lander, Lynn Revell, Diane Warner, and Linda Whitworth. 2016. To Promote, or Not to Promote Fundamental British Values? Teacher’s Standards, Diversity and Teacher Education. British Educational Research Journal 43: 29–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ezzati, Rojan Tordhol. 2020. Value-Talk after Terrorism: Articulating a United ‘we’and a Divided ‘us’. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Falkenberg, Geir. 2007. Verdier Og Sosiale Normer i Store Norske Virksomheter: Viktige Kulturbærere Eller Fordekt PR? Oslo: FAFO, Volume 8. [Google Scholar]
- Farrell, Francis. 2016. “Why All of a Sudden Do We Need to Teach Fundamental British Values?” A Critical Investigation of Religious Education Student Teacher Positioning within a Policy Discourse of Discipline and Control. Journal of Education for Teaching 42: 280–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Flensner, Karin, and Marie von der Lippe. 2019. Being Safe from What and Safe from Whom? A Critical Discussion of the Conceptual Metaphor of ‘safe Space’. Intercultural Education 30: 275–88. [Google Scholar]
- Franken, Leni, and François Levrau. 2020. Rejecting “Controversial” Issues in Education: A Case Study of Ultra-Orthodox Jewish Schools in Belgium. Religions 11: 214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hand, Michael. 2008. What Should We Teach as Controversial? A Defense of the Epistemic Criterion. Educational Theory 58: 213–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hand, Michael. 2011. Patriotism in Schools. Impact 19: 1–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holley, Lynn, and Sue Steiner. 2005. Safe Space: Student Perspectives on Classroom Environment. Journal of Social Work Education 41: 49–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holmwood, John. 2018. Countering Extremism in British Schools?: The Truth about the Birmingham Trojan Horse AffairCountering Extremism in British Schools?: The Truth about the Birmingham Trojan Horse Affair/. Countering Extremism in British Schools?: The Truth about the Birmingham Trojan Horse Affair. Bristol: Policy Press. [Google Scholar]
- Huntington, Samuel. 1996. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. New York: Simon & Schuster. [Google Scholar]
- Iversen, Lars Laird. 2012. Learning to Be Norwegian. A Case Study of Identity Management in Religious Education in Norway. Religious Diversity and Education in Europe. Münster: Waxmann Verlag. [Google Scholar]
- Iversen, Lars Laird. 2013. Can You Be a Muslim and Not Believe in God?: How Fluid or Solid Are Religions?: Introducing Viscosity to the Interpretive Approach. In Religion in Education. New York: Routledge, pp. 167–81. [Google Scholar]
- Iversen, Lars Laird. 2014. Uenighetsfellesskap. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. [Google Scholar]
- Iversen, Lars Laird. 2018. From Safe Spaces to Communities of Disagreement. British Journal of Religious Education 41: 315–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jackson, Robert. 2014. Signposts. Policy and Practice for Teaching about Religions and Non-Religious World Views in Intercultural Education. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing. [Google Scholar]
- van Kessel, Stijn. 2016. Using Faith to Exclude. The Role of Religion in Dutch Populism. In Saving the People. How Populists Hijack Religion. Edited by Nadia Marzouki and Olivier Roy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Kirke- og undervisningsdepartementet. 1974. Mønsterplan for Grunnskolen. Oslo: Kirke- og undervisningsdepartementet. [Google Scholar]
- Lander, Vini. 2016. Introduction to Fundamental British Values. Journal of Education for Teaching 42: 274–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- von der Lippe, Marie. 2019. Teaching Controversial Issues in RE: The Case of Ritual Circumcision. British Journal of Religious Education. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lockley-Scott, Anna. 2019a. Closing down the Discussion: Is a Classroom a Conducive Space for Religion Related Dialog? A United Kingdom Based Case Stud. Religion & Education 46: 40–58. [Google Scholar]
- Lockley-Scott, Anna. 2019b. Towards a Critique of Fundamental British Values: The Case of the Classroom. Journal of Beliefs & Values 40: 354–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lukes, Steven. 1975. Political Ritual and Social Integration. Sociology 9: 289–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marzouki, Nadia, Duncan MacDonnell, and Olivier Roy, eds. 2016. Saving the People: How Populists Hijack Religoin. London: Hurst Publisher. [Google Scholar]
- Meer, Nasar. 2013. Racialization and Religion: Race, Culture and Difference in the Study of Antisemitism and Islamophobia. Ethnic and Racial Studies 36: 385–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meer, Nasar, and Tariq Modood. 2012. For “Jewish” Read “Muslim”? Islamophobia as a Form of Racialisation of Ethno-Religious Groups in Britain Today. Islamophobia Studies Journal 1: 34–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mepschen, Paul, and Jan Willem Duyvendak. 2012. European Sexual Nationalisms: The Culturalization of Citizenship and the Sexual Politics of Belonging and Exclusion. Perspectives on Europe 42: 70–76. [Google Scholar]
- Modood, Tariq. 2019. A Multicultural Nationalism? The Brown Journal of World Affairs 25: 233–46. [Google Scholar]
- Nussbaum, Martha. 1994. Patriotism and Cosmopolitanism. In The Cosmopolitanism Reader. Edited by Garrett Wallace Brown and David Held. Cambridge: Polity Press. [Google Scholar]
- Nussbaum, Martha. 2011. Teaching Patriotism: Love and Critical Freedom. University of Chicago Law School. Available online: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1289&context=public_law_and_legal_theory (accessed on 24 September 2020).
- O’Grady, Kevin, and Robert Jackson. 2019. A Touchy Subject’: Teaching and Learning about Difference in the Religious Education Classroom. Journal of Beliefs & Values. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Osbeck, Christina, Karin Sporre, and Geir Skeie. 2017. The RE Classroom as a Safe Public Space. Criical Perspectives on Dialogue, Demands for Respect and Nuanced Religious Education. In Location, Space and Place in Religious Education. Edited by Martin Rothgangel, Kerstin von Brõmssen, Hans-Günter Heimbrock and Geir Skeie. Münster: Waxmann Verlag. [Google Scholar]
- Panjwani, Farid. 2016. Towards an Overlapping Consensus: Muslim Teachers’ Views on Fundamental British Values. Journal of Education for Teaching 42: 329–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parekh, Bikhu. 2000. The Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain. London: Profile Books. [Google Scholar]
- Parsons, Talcot. 1973. The American University. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Phillips, Whitney, and Ryan M. Milner. 2020. You Are Here: A Field Guide for Navigating Polarized Speech, Conspiracy Theories, and Our Polluted Media Landscape. Cambridge: MIT Press, Available online: https://you-are-here.pubpub.org/ (accessed on 24 July 2020).
- Rangnes, Toril Eskeland, and Bodil Ravneberg. 2019. Lærerstudenters Refleksjoner Om Risikofylte Temaer. In Demokratisk Danning i Skolen. Tverrfaglige Empiriske Studier. Edited by Toril Eskeland Rangnes and Kjersti Rongen Breivega. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. [Google Scholar]
- Redmond, Melissa. 2010. Safe Space Oddity: Revisiting Critical Pedagogy. Journal of Teaching in Social Work 30: 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Revell, Lynn, and Hazel Bryan. 2016. Calibrating Fundamental British Values: How Head Teachers Are Approaching Appraisal in the Light of the Teachers’ Standards 2012, Prevent and the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act, 2015. Journal of Education for Teaching 42: 341–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Richardson, Robin. 2016. British Values and British Identity: Muddles, Mixtures, and Ways Ahead. London Review of Education 13: 37–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sætra, Emil. 2019. Teaching Controversial Issues: A Pragmatic View of the Criterion Debate. Journal of Philosophy of Education 53: 323–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sætra, Emil. 2020. Discussing Controversial Issues in the Classroom: Elements of Good Practice. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sen, Amartya. 2006. Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny. London: Allan Lane. [Google Scholar]
- Sinclair, Stefanie. 2018. Discourses of Extremism and British Values: The Politics of the Trojan Horse. Implicit Religion 21: 339–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- The Local. 2016. Muslims Call for Norway Minister to Resign after Pork Post. October 20. Available online: https://www.thelocal.no/20161020/muslims-call-for-norway-minister-to-resign-after-pork-post (accessed on 24 September 2020).
- Toft, Audun. 2020. When Terror Strikes: The 2015 Paris Attacks in Religious Education Classrooms in Norway. Religions 11: 208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Utdanningsdirektoratet. 2017. Core Values of the Education and Training. Utdanningsdirektoratet. Available online: https://www.udir.no/lk20/overordnet-del/opplaringens-verdigrunnlag/?lang=eng (accessed on 14 July 2020).
- Williams, Melissa. 2003. Citizenship as Identity, Citizenship as Shared Fate, and the Functions of Multicultural Education. In Education and Citizenship in Liberal-Democratic Societies. Teaching for Cosmopolitan Values and Collective Identities. Edited by Kevin McDonough and Walter Feinberg. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 208–47. [Google Scholar]
- Woolley, Richard. 2020. Tackling Controversial Issues in Primary Education: Perceptions and Experiences of Student Teachers. Religions 11: 184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2020 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Iversen, L.L. Controversial Issues and the Rhetoric of Common Values. Religions 2020, 11, 528. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel11100528
Iversen LL. Controversial Issues and the Rhetoric of Common Values. Religions. 2020; 11(10):528. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel11100528
Chicago/Turabian StyleIversen, Lars Laird. 2020. "Controversial Issues and the Rhetoric of Common Values" Religions 11, no. 10: 528. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel11100528