Hans Dorf: The potential of citizenship education – paper presented at the conference ‘Towards
an Inclusive Society without Hatred’ in Riga, 24th October 2012.
(Slide 2)
The purpose of the present paper is to assess the potential of citizenship education in the context of
hate speech and hate crime. The paper sets out with a very short presentation of theoretical concerns
which have inspired my approach to the paper’s basic questions: what are the causes behind the
‘symptoms’ of hate speech and hate crime? And what is the potential of education with regard to diminishing the chances of their occurrence? After this, I shall briefly present the development of the
Danish political approach to the citizenship issue since 2001, characterize it by introducing to understandings of community and citizenship and comparing it to the citizenship policy of the European
Union, and finally comment on some empirical evidence, which puts the Danish citizenship policy into
an interesting light. In the final part of the paper, I shall return to the potential of education in terms of
pedagogical strategies as well as in the wider context of the educational and political system.
(Slide 3)
At the beginning of the 20th century, the American educationalist John Dewey pointed to the potential
of democracy – in society as well as in education – for overcoming barriers to the free exchange of human experience and , thus, for social learning and development. At the same time he was concerned
about the limitations to democracy set by the social class structure of modern society as well as by it
accompanying nationalism. His contemporary, the French sociologist Emilé Durkheim, voiced a related
concern by pointing to the special problem of solidarity in a modern society resting on a dynamic division of labour because of its dual demand for social and educational heterogeneity as well as a sense of
community.
Contemporary German sociologist Jürgen Habermas has discussed the ways in which economic crisis
can spill over into political governance and legitimacy crises and, eventually, into popular motivational
crisis. And the Polish-British sociologist Zygmunt Bauman have dealt with the tendency of threats and
risks of social security and political uncertainty to be mixed up with – and to be articulated as – threats
and risks to personal safety. Bauman also points to the inherent risk of developing de-humanizing social stereotypes of imagined enemies.
(Slide 4)
I assume that hate speech and hate crime is facilitated by (threats and risks of) social marginalization.
Thus, they can be expected to occur in a social environment of major social changes particularly in situations of economic and political crisis involving social inequality effects. Such situations cannot usually
be handled through education in the short run, but will have to be tackled by other types of political
action besides education – social policy, labour market policy, economic policy etc. However education
can be part of a political strategy in the sense that in the long run it may provide qualifications for future economic, political and social life.
At a personal level, marginalization will often be accompanied by social insecurity, anxiety and a sense
of humiliation, all of which may be aggravated by ignorance since persons with a low level of education
are likely to be the immediate objects of marginalization. At this level, education may play a role in
reducing insecurity and humiliation by meeting students and their situations with responsiveness and
respect as well as by actually teaching the relevant knowledge and skills by means of which they may
have a chance to better understand and, possibly, eventually change their situation.
1
The situation is aggravated, if, in a situation of economic and political crisis, social stereotypes are developed or invoked to explain the situation in terms of threatening social enemies such as minorities of
various kinds. Sometimes, the political system itself contributes to such a situation in order to stabilize
its own legitimacy. Obviously, such a situation would primarily call for a change of political rhetoric
and discourse. But education could play an additional role by counteracting potential dehumanization
of perceived social ‘enemy’ groups mainly through its own communicative practice as well as through
its potential for bringing different social groups together in common educational settings and learning
processes. I shall discuss this further using the Danish experience of citizenship development as a case.
(Slide 5)
Denmark must generally be considered a case of low levels of hate speech and hate crimes as documented by comparative social research. There are a number of historical reasons behind this fact.
Denmark has been ethnically and religiously ‘monocultural’ for a rather long time if one abstracts from
very small minorities. Like in any other society, social class divisions and class cultures have been
prevalent in its development, but around 1900, the grounds of Danish welfare state were firmly laid in
the triple sense that a general agreement on negotiating conflict terms was reached between organized labour and capital, parliamentary democracy was introduced, and a comprehensive educational
system was established within a period of less than five years. This welfare state system has made for
a high degree of social security and trust as well as economic growth and employment. From the
1960’s, the perceived ‘monocultural’ character of Danish society gradually started changing, yet, due to
the stability of its economy and welfare system, without the appearance of any major social conflicts.
(Slide 6)
From the beginning of the present millennium, however, some changes can be noticed. Firstly, it has
become apparent that the previous success of the educational in terms of providing an avenue of social
mobility seems to have come to a halt. The proportion of young people which does not achieve any
post-compulsory education (around one fifth of an age cohort) is not decreasing, and new low education and low employment segments are added to the former ones. Secondly, new discourses of social
threats and risks have occurred along with the intensification of economic globalization (and political
internationalization). Occurrences of heterogeneous phenomena such as 9/11, multicultural immigration, economic crisis, suburban riots (mainly outside Denmark) and religious fundamentalism have
merged into an image mingling issues of safety with insecurity and uncertainty issues. Thirdly, cultural,
religious and nationalist interpretations of the causes of this new social reality have become part of
mainstream social and political discourse. This is partly due to the specific parliamentary situation in
Denmark from 2001 to 2011 in which the government majority was based on the seats of the national
chauvinist ‘Danish People’s Party’.
(Slide 7 and 8)
It is interesting to note that while one aspect of Danish educational policy has had global economic
competitiveness and competence development for a ‘knowledge’ society as its main focus, another
aspect of Danish educational policy has been on ‘value politics’, social cohesion and citizenship. The
two policy aspects have been, on the whole, notably dissociated from each other in contrast to the educational discourse at the EU level (see below).
A main focus of the ‘value politics’ has been the preservation of national culture and identity. Whereas
in the government working program of 2003 class conflict and even class society was declared to have
been ‘dissolved’, from the end of 2004 protection of ‘Danish democracy’ and ‘Danish culture’ against
2
extremism and radicalization as particularly embodied by ‘citizens with immigrant background’ was
put at the forefront of citizenship policy in the ‘Action plan to prevent Extremism and Radicalization
among youths’ from 2007, through which a wide variety of citizenship initiatives were funded. In 2007,
also, a new teacher education subject with the indicative title of Knowledge of Christian religion, life
enlightenment and citizenship was introduced. Preceding these initiatives, the occurrence of the ‘Mohammed drawings’ in a leading newspaper in 2005 had stirred up sentiments of cultural confrontation
in its alleged attempt to test the ‘freedom of speech’. The government working program of 2010 further escalated the ‘them-and-us’ rhetoric as demonstrated in the following excerpt:
‘We have done away with the idea that all values are equally good. The Danes wish respect for Danish
culture and the principles that Danish society are built on. Gone is the lax and indulgent indifference.’
It is tempting to conclude that ethnic and religious hate speech in this period has mainly been on the
part of political discourse paving the way for the latent extremism of ‘them-and-us’.
(Slide 9, 10 and 11)
In 2011, there was a change of government in Denmark. It is too early to assess the real effects of this,
but certainly the citizenship discourse as indicated in the new government working program changed
perceptively. Two excerpts deserve highlighting:
‘The Danish society is based on the idea that all human beings are equal as well as different (…) Diversity
engenders new ideas and new solutions.’
‘Education is a fundamental preparation for participating as a critical and active citizen in a vital democracy in a global world. (…)Therefore, children and youths must become involved according to their growing abilities to form opinions on decisions concerning their educational institutions.’
I think it is fair to say that the new political discourse on citizenship and democracy is more in line
with the EU- policy on active citizenship than the former. From the 1990’s, the EU commission has had
a double focus on the relationship between the challenges of economic competitiveness, competences
and employability and the challenges of social inclusion and active citizenship in a socially heterogeneous and polarized as well as multicultural society. This can be substantiated in the Commission publications, ‘Growth, competitiveness and employment. The challenge and ways forward into the 21st century’ (1993), Teaching and learning: towards the learning society (1995) – speaking of a risk of a rift in
society between those who know and those who don’t – in ‘Learning for active citizenship. A significant
challenge in building a Europe of knowledge’ (1998) as well as in the 2012 working program, ‘Europe
for citizens’.
(Slide 13)
To sum up the difference between the previous and the present Danish conception of community and
citizenship, one may say that the former is based on the (rather dubious) assumption that the population of Denmark share a common culture and identity meriting protection (ethnos-position), whereas
the latter is based on the assumption of cultural differences, but common democratic challenges (demos-position). The latter position also stresses the assumption that effective citizenship is based not
only on legal and political rights and obligations, but also on social (including educational) resources,
active participation and cultural rights, even if preserving culture cannot be a privileged goal of democracy. It is easy to see, I think, that the cultural and the democratic conceptions of citizenship have
thoroughly different implications for education, and not least education of marginalized groups. But
3
before turning to citizenship education, I will refer to a few empirical facts about the social distribution
of citizenship resources.
(Slide 12)
Just before the change of government in 2011, the previous government issued a report on citizenship
in Denmark. The report characteristically compared citizenship attitudes of ethnic Danes and immigrants. It was found that the two groups more or less shared citizenship values (virtues), interest in
politics and trust in institutions. However, immigrants participate less in conventional political activity
as well as in organized civic activity, and they perceive less recognition from their social environment
for their potential contribution to society. As an interesting detail, a considerable part of ethnic difference can be attributed to social, educational and religious differences, low status, less educated and
religious segments being less inclined to active citizenship participation (Christians as well as Muslims). The report thus doesn’t document any threats to Danish values on the part of ethnic minorities.
However, it must be declared a well documented truth that differences in social and educational resources continue to play an important role in the unequal distribution of active participation in social
and political life. Thus, the marginalized social groups most in need of articulating their (unfulfilled)
hopes and interests are the least likely to do so. On this note I will return to the potential of education.
(Slide 14 and 15)
The potential of education to diminish the risk of hate speech and hate crimes must be split up in a
number of possibilities. Compulsory school citizenship education is one obvious answer. After the Second World War, the focus on democratic education gained impetus in the Danish educational debate,
and in 1975 it was written into the general goal of compulsory education. It was the understanding of
the 1975 and subsequent school reforms that in order to prepare for participation in a democratic
society everyday school life itself must possess the qualities of democracy. This has been taken to
mean, first of all, that school (including instructional) interaction and communication must be based
on an open climate of freedom of opinion and speech. The educational content dimension of education
for (or about) democratic citizenship has mainly been the responsibility of the subject of social studies,
although until recently it has not been described in a very explicit manner. The procedural skills aspect
has mainly been left to ‘pupil’s councils’ as a sort of training ground for selected or elected pupils. I
think that this practice can very well be improved upon, and in my view the following aspects should
be considered – especially if pupils belonging to marginalized or less resourceful social groups are to
be considered:
First, differences not only in ability but also in social resources and experiences, cultural backgrounds
and communication cultures have to be understood, taken seriously and handled accordingly as a general feature in all educational and school life situations.
Secondly, and as a consequence, a civilized, respectful and to some extent formalized social etiquette
and framework for communication must be established and guaranteed to safeguard freedom of
thought, opinion and speech in school life in general and not just in citizenship education. This is necessary in order to provide the social security required to bring less privileged individuals into the educational communication process.
Thirdly, knowledge and skills of democratic institutions, processes and channels of participation must
be given serious attention. This must be matched by historical consciousness of the development of
society, its social groups, their situations, interests and conflicts, as well as the contemporary social
and political issues to be dealt with by democratic societies.
4
Fourthly, teachers should obviously be role models engaged in democracy themselves.
Finally, citizenship education demands practical experience. Pupils’ councils may serve a function,
especially if all kinds of pupils are equally involved. However, I think it is crucial for pupils’ experience
of community and democratic citizenship that they are offered real opportunities to work together on
issues and their solution in order to achieve confidence that things can be changed and influence obtained through democratic and civilized action. Working together in a common practice is equally important as a means of bridging social and cultural differences among pupils. The classroom and school
life can be organized to allow such formalized or informal processes of real participation.
(Slide 14 and 16)
Particularly for this reason, comprehensive schooling for the children of all social and cultural groups
is beneficial to improving social understanding, tolerance and solidarity. And since education, employment, social inclusion and democratic participation are all positively linked, the amount and quality of education in general is crucial in preventing hateful varieties of ‘unconventional’ social and political action. This demands an educational system with open access to ensure that no (underprivileged)
individual is excluded for structural (or economical) reasons.
However, there is a limit to what can be obtained through education in terms of reducing ignorance
and increasing understanding if the ambition to develop inclusive citizenship and prevent dehumanizing hateful action is not supported politically by other initiatives, programmes and policies
which can contribute to changing underlying social inequality, insecurity and humiliation. And the
educational effects of political discourse (as channelled through mass media) on the civilized standards of the public – for better or worse – cannot be compensated entirely through education.
Contact:
Associate professor Hans Dorf,
Department of Education,
Aarhus University
Tuborgvej 164
2400 Copenhagen NV
Denmark
e-mail: hado@dpu.dk
5