In Europe, interculturalism rather than multiculturalism is increasingly considered as the key strategy to manage social and cultural diversity related to migration. While it does not deny the importance of cultural diversity, interculturalism nevertheless focuses on social cohesion and shared values. In that regard, the 2008 Council of Europe’s White Paper on Intercultural Dialogue has emphasized two instruments: civic/citizenship education programmes and the introduction of teaching about religions characterized by a non-denominational and plural approach to religious knowledge. Have these pushes been sufficient to bring about some convergence in areas that are traditionally a manifestation of national constitutional identities? This edited book tries to give an answer by considering some national experiences and drawing some comparative remarks.
Davide Strazzari is associate professor at the Department of Sociology and social research of the University of Trento
Rossella Bottoni and Cinzia Piciocchi are associate professors at the Faculty of Law of the University of Trento
From Law, religious teaching and civic/citizenship education in topage day’s Europe: some introductory comparative remarks on the shift from multiculturalism to interculturalism (pagg. 1-46)
Interculturalism has been addressed by the Council of Europe (CoE) as an alternative to both assimilationism and multiculturalism. While multiculturalism is blamed for emphasizing the cultural identity of social groups, somehow crystallizing their characteristics, interculturalism is based on a different understanding: it favours mutual dialogue, and it considers that the cultural identity of an individual is not the same as that of the social/cultural group to which they are assumed to belong.
While it does not deny the importance of cultural diversity, interculturalism nevertheless focuses on social cohesion and shared values. In that regard, the 2008 CoE’s White Paper on Intercultural Dialogue has emphasized two instruments: civic/citizenship education programmes and the introduction of teaching about religions characterized by a non-denominational and plural approach to religious knowledge. “Teaching about religions” aims to provide objective and impartial knowledge about all the world’s religions and beliefs, allowing individuals to understand religions and avoid prejudice. Since it is not based on the confessional tenets of a specific religion and it aims to promote factual knowledge about religions, it is not considered a form of indoctrination and thus can be provided in a compulsory way without granting exemptions on freedom of conscience grounds.
Have these pushes been sufficient to bring about some convergence in areas that are traditionally a manifestation of national constitutional identities?This edited book, which originated from a conference held at Trento University and organised within the activities of the UNITE (UNIversal design for education: legal perspective for a new conception of inTErcultural education) PRIN 2022 research project, try to give an answer. The book, methodologically, is based on a legal comparative analysis in some cases with historical, sociological and political insights, in line with the scientific background of the Authors.
[...]
The “teaching about religions” model is not in itself a CoE proposal. Rather, this approach to religious education (RE) in public school has its roots in some Nordic countries with a Protestant background which have developed it since the 1970s. This approach is in stark contrast with the teaching “into” or “of” religion model, mainly followed in public school by Catholic and/or Orthodox majority countries. Here, denominations authorise religious teachers and retain control over teaching programmes and textbooks. While this model initially provided RE only in relation to the majority religion, in some countries, such as Belgium, Austria, Spain, and Romania, the confessional model is open to other recognised or registered religious minorities, albeit subject to a minimal number of requests. Since teaching into religion is confessional in nature, exemptions on conscientious grounds are granted. On the contrary, RE according to the “teaching about religions” is compulsory for all.The distinction between “teaching about religions” and teaching “into” or “of” religion is not a clear one, as national experiences may provide a combination of both elements.
The introduction of “teaching about religions” is supported by those who highlight that this model could offer a solution both to the increasing religious illiteracy of the young generations who, due to secularization, may opt not to have traditional confessional religious instruction at all, and to the rising demand of new religious minorities, as a result of immigration, to have RE at school. As a matter of fact, the denominational model of RE could not be extended to cover any religious group or confession, and in any event, this would not offer a feasible path to atheist or rationalist people who under art. 9 of the ECHR are granted a right to opt out of RE whenever this is not taught in a non-objective, impartial and pluralist manner, according to ECtHR case law.
Moreover, denominational RE teaching implies an institutionalisation of the relevant religious groups and a capacity to enter into agreement with public institutions that are often lacking in relation to Islam as well as other new religious minorities.
Finally, teaching religion to pupils separately, according to the religion they belong to, does not favour reciprocal knowledge; it fosters a sense of diversity and, because of this, it undermines social cohesion.
However, the introduction of teaching about religions, especially if this is conceived as an alternative – rather than complementary – to the more traditional denominational courses, presents critical profiles.
First, teaching about religions may lead, according to some, to an excessive relativisation and ultimately trivialisation of religion and it would indirectly promote agnosticism. It would fail to provide answers to the more intimate dimension of the individual and to the search for an ultimate meaning of life experiences that religion is all about.Second, since the CoE White Paper explicitly refers to the issue of Islamic radicalisation, it raises the question of whether promoting this form of RE conceals a bias towards Islam: introducing teaching about religions compulsory for all would be a way to avoid the possible introduction of confessional Islamic RE, which is seen as potentially and inherently problematic with the values of the liberal-democratic legal tradition.
Regulating RE at school is a complex issue. National public authorities must provide knowledge and form new generations. At the same time, to provide social cohesion, they need to transmit elements of national identity, which in turn may comprehend cultural aspects of a given religion or, on the contrary, a neutral conception of state-religion relations, as in the French case. However, other aspects need to be considered in any regulatory choice concerning RE: the right of parents to ensure their children an education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions; the need of the child to develop critical thinking, free of excessive conditioning; the right of religious communities to profess their freedom of religion, which includes teaching their confessional tenets; and the freedom of school institutions to provide educational solutions they deem to fit with their potential users.
Thus, RE at school is the result of a complex balancing and each national regulatory choice reflects different understandings and justifications of RE. Moreover, the way national experience includes (religious) private school in their national education system is also relevant.
As a result, the edited volume highlights that no single European model of RE seems to exist at present. Citizenship education courses seem to offer a vade mecum of what a responsible citizen should be, without a real awareness of dialogue can be fostered among communities – and in religious communities in particular.The decision to include RE in the school curriculum and the way this is imparted can respond to different social needs and goals. Each national experience recognises one purpose as prevailing over others.
“Teaching about religions” – when effectively implemented and if it does not actually hide a bias towards the national historical religion, as appears in the case of the Nordic countries – certainly meets the goal to promote general knowledge about religion as a social product. However, the challenge is to go beyond that to find ways of teaching that also favour empathy and reciprocal commitment, at the same time respecting non-believers or unconcerned students’ freedom of conscience. The involvement of the latter is in line with the very purpose of intercultural education, namely, to be addressed to all and favour real understanding of the other’s perspective. No uniform solution can easily be envisaged and in those countries that traditionally rely on denominational RE it is desirable that a combination of “teaching about” and “teaching of” religions will be offered.
At present, one can observe at best a tendency to partially adapt the original national RE models in order to meet interculturalism’s goals and respond to the new emerging social needs, namely: increased religious diversity in society, the need for social cohesion, and young religious illiteracy. This is done by strengthening interreligious competencies (in Flanders, Austria, and Germany), by introducing loose forms of the knowledge about religions teaching module, compulsory for all (in the Belgian French-speaking community) or at least for those opting out of denominational teaching (in Spain). A different approach seems to emerge in the UK and the Netherlands characterised by a favour for bottom-up approaches and a variety of solutions that ensures centrality to parental self-determination. Public funding, here, did not imply excessive conditioning on private schools, unlike in other national areas, and effectively favoured a plurality of supply.
[...]
Finally, intercultural education is above all about developing participative learning techniques. Irrespective of major national policy reforms, there is a chance for teachers and school institutions to take advantage of educational moments, including the teaching of civic education or managing of cultural diversity at school, as a way to develop learning opportunities about religious diversity and to avoid the risk of turning intercultural education into a discrete or mild form of assimilationism.
Libro pubblicato in open access con licenza CC-BY-NC-ND 3.0 Italia scaricabile dall'archivio IRIS.