Religion and Worldviews in Education: The New Watershed [1 ed.] 9781003265696, 9781032208794, 9781032208848

Table of contents :
Cover
Half Title
Series Page
Title Page
Copyright Page
Contents
List of Figures
List of Contributors
Series Editor Foreword
Preface – Hannele Niemi
1. Religion and Worldviews in Education: The Subterranean Territory
PART I: Religions, Worldviews and Societal Landscapes: Origins and Ends, Rights and Obligations
2. Worldviews and World Government: The Civil Religion of State Religious Education
3. Losing (One’s) Religion? Pragmatist Reflections on Pluralism, Secularism, and Worldview Education
4. Education on Religion and Worldviews: Perspectives to Child’s Right to Religion
5. Globalised Religion(s) and Worldviews in Education
6. Global Education Policy on Religion and Education: UNESCO
PART II: Thinking Through Religion and Worldviews Policy in Education: Philosophical and Practical Problematics
7. Rewriting the Historical Narrative of Post-Confessional English Religious Education
8. Critical Religious Education and Worldview Theory
9. Worldviews in Flux – Comparing Separative and Integrative Contexts of Worldview Learning
10. Theologies, Religion and Literacy: Towards Socially Sustainable Religious Education?
11. ‘And Our Little Ones Shall Dwell’: Is There Space for Religion in Finnish Early Childhood Education and Care?
PART III: Religions, Worldviews, Education: Pedagogy and Practice
12. Academic and Moral Obligations in Teachers’ Work and Teacher Education
13. Inclusive Education from the Perspective of Teachers’ Professional Ethics: The Case of Finnish Teachers
14. Worldview Transformation in and through Education: Mapping the Nexus of Climate Education and Worldview Education
15. Teaching Climate Issues in Finnish Upper Secondary School Science Subjects
16. Religion, Worldviews, and Integrated Instruction: How Do Finnish Class Teachers Define the Purpose of Religious Education and Ethics?
17. Watershed Revisited
Index

Citation preview

Routledge Research in Religion and Education

RELIGION AND WORLDVIEWS IN EDUCATION THE NEW WATERSHED Edited by Liam Gearon, Arniika Kuusisto, Saila Poulter, Auli Toom and Martin Ubani

Religion and Worldviews in Education

This timely book offers a critically important contribution to debates around the meeting place of religious and secular worldviews in education. Edited by five leading figures in the field, and drawing on expert international scholarship and research, the book provides cutting-edge analysis that bridges the religious and secular in global educational contexts. Considering the role of the United Nations, UNESCO, OECD and PISA in varied international contexts, the book draws on critical analysis of primary empirical research and secondary critique to offer a coherent blend of theoretically complex yet practical analysis of policy implementation. Throughout this accessible and logically structured volume, the authors assert that the meeting place of religious and secular worldviews is one of the most important and pressing issues for religion in education. As a field-defining work of research into education, religion and worldviews, the book will be essential reading for scholars, researchers and postgraduate students in the fields of religious education, religious studies, philosophy of education and international education. Liam Gearon is Senior Research Fellow at Harris Manchester College and Associate Professor at the Department of Education, University of Oxford. A philosopher and theorist of education, Liam Gearon is a specialist in critical, historical and contemporary analyses of education in multidisciplinary contexts. Concurrently Conjoint Professor at the University of Newcastle, New South Wales, he was formerly Adjunct Professor at the Australian Catholic University and also previously Professor of Education at the University of Roehampton and Research Professor at the Faculty of Education, University of Plymouth. With a published doctorate in English Literature, he is the author or editor of over 30 books and over 70 articles and book chapters. Arniika Kuusisto, PhD, is Professor of Early Childhood Education at the Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Helsinki, and Honorary Research Fellow at the Department of Education, University of Oxford. Her research focuses on the agentic construction of values and worldviews along individual life trajectories from early childhood to teacher professionalism, as

well as young children’s existential resilience. At present, she leads the Academy of Finland funded (2018–2023; grant 315860) ‘Growing up radical? The role of educational institutions in guiding young people’s worldview construction’ research project. Saila Poulter, PhD, is Senior University Lecturer in Religious Education at the Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Helsinki. She has the title of Docent in education at the University of Jyväskylä. Her research interests concern religious and worldview education, teacher professionalism, and citizenship education. Poulter’s current research is on diversity of worldviews in early childhood education and care, children’s grief in institutional contexts and performative religious education. Auli Toom, PhD, Full Professor of Higher Education, works as Director of the Helsinki University Centre for University Teaching and Learning (HYPE) and Vice-Dean for research at the Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Helsinki. Dr Toom is a member of the Finnish Academy of Science and Letters. Her research interests include teacher knowing, agency and teacher education as well as teaching and learning in higher education. She leads and co-leads several research projects on these themes and supervises PhD students. She serves on editorial boards in different journals and has acted as a reviewer for many scientific journals, conferences and international research programs. Her research articles have appeared in several scientific journals and edited books. She also works as an expert in many international research and development projects. Martin Ubani (PhD, MTheol) is a Professor of Religious Education at the University of Eastern Finland. His research interests focus on religion in public education. He serves on several editorial boards of scientific journals. He also serves currently in the evaluation council of the Finnish Education and Evaluation Centre. He is a research fellow at Van Leer Institute Jerusalem.

Routledge Research in Religion and Education Series Editor Michael D. Waggoner, University of Northern Iowa, USA

18. Islamic Religious Education in Europe A Comparative Study Edited by Leni Franken and Bill Gent 19. Teaching Religious Literacy to Combat Religious Bullying Insights from North American Secondary Schools W. Y. Alice Chan 20. Law, Education, and the Place of Religion in Public Schools International Perspectives Edited by Charles J. Russo 21. Engaging with Vocation on Campus Supporting Students’ Vocational Discernment through Curricular and Co-Curricular Approaches Edited by Karen Lovett and Stephen Wilhoit 22. Equipping Educators to Teach Religious Literacy Lessons from a Teacher Education Program in the American South Emile Lester and W. Y. Alice Chan 23. Conceptualising Religion and Worldviews for the School Opportunities, Challenges, and Complexities of a Transition from Religious Education in England and Beyond Kevin O’Grady 24. Inclusion and Sexuality in Catholic Higher Education Possibilities for Institutional Change Mark A. Levand 25. Religion and Worldviews in Education The New Watershed Edited By Liam Gearon, Arniika Kuusisto, Saila Poulter, Auli Toom and Martin Ubani

Religion and Worldviews in Education The New Watershed

Edited by Liam Gearon, Arniika Kuusisto, Saila Poulter, Auli Toom and Martin Ubani

First published 2024 by Routledge 4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2024 selection and editorial matter, Liam Gearon, Arniika Kuusisto, Saila Poulter, Auli Toom and Martin Ubani; individual chapters, the contributors The right of Liam Gearon, Arniika Kuusisto, Saila Poulter, Auli Toom and Martin Ubani to be identified as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Gearon, Liam, editor. | Kuusisto, Arniika, editor. | Poulter, Saila, editor. | Toom, Auli, editor. | Ubani, Martin, editor. Title: Religion and worldviews in education : the new watershed / edited by Liam Gearon, Arniika Kuusisto, Saila Poulter, Auli Toom, and Martin Ubani. Description: Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY : Routledge, 2023. | Series: Routledge research in religion and education | Includes bibliographical references and index. | Identifiers: LCCN 2023006393 (print) | LCCN 2023006394 (ebook) | ISBN 9781032208794 (hardback) | ISBN 9781032208848 (paperback) | ISBN 9781003265696 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Religious education. | Church and education. | Religion and state. | Education and state Classification: LCC LC331 .R43 2023 (print) | LCC LC331 (ebook) | DDC 379.2/8--dc23/eng/20230407 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2023006393 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2023006394 ISBN: 978-1-032-20879-4 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-032-20884-8 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-003-26569-6 (ebk) DOI: 10.4324/9781003265696 Typeset in Galliard by KnowledgeWorks Global Ltd.

Contents

List of Figures List of Contributors Series Editor Foreword Preface – Hannele Niemi 1 Religion and Worldviews in Education: The Subterranean Territory

x xi xvi xix

1

LIAM GEARON, ARNIIKA KUUSISTO, SAILA POULTER, AULI TOOM AND MARTIN UBANI

PART I

Religions, Worldviews and Societal Landscapes: Origins and Ends, Rights and Obligations15 2 Worldviews and World Government: The Civil Religion of State Religious Education

17

LIAM GEARON

3 Losing (One’s) Religion? Pragmatist Reflections on Pluralism, Secularism, and Worldview Education

36

SAMI PIHLSTRÖM

4 Education on Religion and Worldviews: Perspectives to Child’s Right to Religion

48

FRIEDRICH SCHWEITZER

5 Globalised Religion(s) and Worldviews in Education HENRIK SIMOJOKI

59

viii Contents 6 Global Education Policy on Religion and Education: UNESCO

71

GEIR SKEIE

PART II

Thinking Through Religion and Worldviews Policy in Education: Philosophical and Practical Problematics91 7 Rewriting the Historical Narrative of Post-Confessional English Religious Education

93

L. PHILIP BARNES

8 Critical Religious Education and Worldview Theory

107

ANDREW WRIGHT AND ELINA WRIGHT

9 Worldviews in Flux – Comparing Separative and Integrative Contexts of Worldview Learning

120

VESA ÅHS AND MARJAANA KAVONIUS

10 Theologies, Religion and Literacy: Towards Socially Sustainable Religious Education?

134

MARTIN UBANI

11 ‘And Our Little Ones Shall Dwell’: Is There Space for Religion in Finnish Early Childhood Education and Care?

149

SAILA POULTER AND ARNIIKA KUUSISTO

PART III

Religions, Worldviews, Education: Pedagogy and Practice165 12 Academic and Moral Obligations in Teachers’ Work and Teacher Education

167

AULI TOOM AND JUKKA HUSU

13 Inclusive Education from the Perspective of Teachers’ Professional Ethics: The Case of Finnish Teachers

182

KIRSI TIRRI AND ELINA KUUSISTO

14 Worldview Transformation in and through Education: Mapping the Nexus of Climate Education and Worldview Education INKERI RISSANEN, ESSI AARNIO-LINNANVUORI, AND ANETTE MANSIKKA-AHO

194

Contents ix 15 Teaching Climate Issues in Finnish Upper Secondary School Science Subjects

207

JARI LAVONEN AND KALLE JUUTI

16 Religion, Worldviews, and Integrated Instruction: How Do Finnish Class Teachers Define the Purpose of Religious Education and Ethics?

221

KAISA VIINIKKA, TUULI LIPIÄINEN, AND MARTIN UBANI

17 Watershed Revisited

236

MARTIN UBANI, AULI TOOM, SAILA POULTER, ARNIIKA KUUSISTO, AND LIAM GEARON

Index241

Figures

10.1 Transformations and politics for sustainability and development (Scoones 2006, p. 304) 137 16.1 Forms of instruction and teachers’ practical perceptions of their purposes 231

Contributors

Essi Aarnio-Linnanvuori is a university lecturer at Tampere University and an experienced environmental and climate change education expert. In her research, her long-term interest is to develop environmental education that is interdisciplinary, holistic and considerate of identity, values and worldview of the learner. She has more than 20 years of experience as an environmental education instructor in different organizations, including several NGOs. Aarnio-Linnanvuori works as a postdoctoral researcher in the European project CCC-CATAPULT. L. Philip Barnes is Emeritus Reader in Religious and Theological Education at King’s College London and Visiting Scholar in the School of History, Anthropology, Philosophy and Politics at Queen’s University Belfast. His book, Crisis, Controversy and the Future of Religious Education (2020), continues his genealogical analysis and critical account of the nature of postconfessional British religious education, which began with Education, Religion and Diversity: Developing a New Model of Religious Education (2014). He also recently edited Religion and Worldviews: The Triumph of the Secular in Religious Education (2023) and explored a range of issues relevant to religious education in articles and essays. Liam Gearon is Senior Research Fellow at Harris Manchester College and Associate Professor at the Department of Education, University of Oxford. A philosopher and theorist of education, Liam Gearon is a specialist in critical, historical and contemporary analyses of education in multidisciplinary contexts. Concurrently Conjoint Professor at the University of Newcastle, New South Wales, he was formerly Adjunct Professor at the Australian Catholic University and also previously Professor of Education at the University of Roehampton and Research Professor at the Faculty of Education, University of Plymouth. With a published doctorate in English Literature, he is the author or editor of over 30 books and over 70 articles and book chapters. Jukka Husu, PhD, is Professor of Teacher Education and Dean in the Faculty of Education at the University of Turku. His research focuses on teachers’ pedagogical knowledge, reflection and moral issues in teaching. Together

xii Contributors with D. Jean Clandinin, Prof. Husu has edited The SAGE Handbook of Research on Teacher Education (2017). Kalle Juuti is Professor of Digital Learning at schools at the University of Helsinki. He is Director of the Doctoral Programme of School, Education, Society and Culture (SEDUCE). He is a member of the University of Helsinki Teachers’ academy. He teaches general and adult education study track courses on learning and instruction. His research interests focus on digital aspects of teaching and learning, engagement in learning, science and sustainability education and professional learning. Marjaana Kavonius (PhD, ThM) works as a university lecturer and teacher trainer in the Faculty of Educational Sciences at the University of Helsinki. Her research interests include worldview education, pupils’ experiences of education, diversity in educational contexts and teachers’ awareness of religions and other worldviews. Arniika Kuusisto (PhD, Docent) is Professor of Early Childhood Education at the Faculty of Education, University of Helsinki, and Professor of Child and Youth Studies at the Department of Child and Youth Studies, Stockholm University, as well as Honorary Research Fellow at the Department of Education, University of Oxford. Her research focuses on the agentic construction of values and worldviews along individual life trajectories. At present, she is the PI for the Academy of Finland funded (2018–2023; grant 315860) ‘Growing up radical? The role of educational institutions in guiding young people’s worldview construction’ research project. Elina Kuusisto is a University Lecturer (diversity and inclusive education) at the Faculty of Education and Culture, Tampere University, Finland. She holds the title of Docent (Associate Professor) at the University of Helsinki, Finland. She worked as Associate Professor at the University of Humanistic Studies, The Netherlands during 2018–2019 and she was Coordinator of EARLI (European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction) Special Interest Group 19 Religions and Worldviews in Education from 2015 to 2019. Her academic writings deal with teachers’ professional ethics and school pedagogy, with a special interest in purpose in life, moral sensitivities and a growth mindset. Jari Lavonen, PhD, is Professor of Physics and Chemistry Education at the University of Helsinki, Finland. He is currently Director of the National Teacher Education Forum and Chair of the Finnish Matriculation Examination Board. He has been researching both science and technology and teacher education for the last 34 years. His publications include 160 refereed scientific papers in journals and books and 160 books on education for science teachers and science education. Tuuli Lipiäinen, Med, is Lecturer at The Normal Lyceum of Helsinki and Doctoral Researcher at the University of Helsinki in the Faculty of

Contributors xiii Educational Sciences. Her research interests include worldviews, and religious and worldview education. Anette Mansikka-aho is a doctoral researcher (MEd) in the Faculty of Education and Culture at Tampere University, Finland. Her main research interests are in the field of environmental education, especially in climate education. Currently she researches young people’s climate agency in the European project CCC-CATAPULT. Sami Pihlström is Professor of Philosophy of Religion at the University of Helsinki, Finland. He is also the President of the Philosophical Society of Finland and Vice-President of Institut International de Philosophie. His recent monographs include Pragmatist Truth in the Post-Truth Age: Sincerity, Normativity, and Humanism (2021), Toward a Pragmatist Philosophy of the Humanities (2022) and Humanism, Antitheodicism, and the Critique of Meaning in Pragmatist Philosophy of Religion (forthcoming 2023). Saila Poulter, PhD, is Senior University Lecturer in Religious Education at the Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Helsinki. She has the title of Docent in Education at the University of Jyväskylä. Her research interests concern religious and worldview education, teacher professionalism and citizenship education. Poulter’s current research is on diversity of worldviews in early childhood education and care, children’s grief in institutional contexts and performative religious education. Inkeri Rissanen is Lecturer of Multicultural Education at Tampere University, Faculty of Education and Culture, and a docent of school pedagogy at the University of Helsinki. Her research interests in the areas of intercultural and worldview education include intercultural professionalism of teachers, religion in public education and growth mindset pedagogy. Currently Rissanen leads a Finnish sub-project on a European Consortium CCC-CATAPULT (Challenging the Climate Crisis: Children’s Agency to Tackle Policy Underpinned by Learning for Transformation) researching young people, climate agency and climate education. Friedrich Schweitzer holds a doctorate in education/social science and an honorary doctorate in theology. He held professorships in Protestant religious education and practical theology at the universities of Mainz and Tübingen where he now works as a senior professor. His current research projects refer to kindergartens as well as to schools and RE in school, but he has also conducted major projects on non-formal religious education (confirmation work in different European countries). Interreligious education has been one of his main interests for many years as well. At present, this interest has taken the form of cooperation with the new Tübingen Center of Islamic Theology. He has also been interested in questions of methodology. One of his latest publications is on international knowledge transfer in religious education (2021).

xiv Contributors Henrik Simojoki is Full Professor of Practical Theology and Religious Education at the Faculty of Theology at Humboldt University of Berlin, Germany. His research focuses on religious education in global society, professionalisation of RE teachers, international comparative research, history of religious education and confirmation work. Geir Skeie is Professor of religious education and UNESCO Chair in Diversity, inclusion and education at the University of Stavanger. He also is Science Ombud with attention towards scientific integrity. He has been Professor at Stockholm University and guest professor at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. His research has focused on diversity and religion in education with both empirical and theoretical contributions. This includes a focus on inclusion, human rights and impartiality in religious education. Skeie has mainly used qualitative methods and document studies including action research, but even some quantitative work. He has been a leading researcher in several national and international research projects with a strong network nationally and internationally and he was the leader of the working group writing the new Norwegian curriculum for religious education in 2020. Kirsi Tirri is Professor of Education at the Faculty of Educational Sciences at the University of Helsinki and Visiting Professor at St. John’s University, New York, USA. Tirri was Professor of Religious Education at the Faculty of Theology at the University of Helsinki from 2002 to 2010. Professor Tirri was President of ECHA (European Council for High Ability) from 2008 to 2012 and President of the Finnish Academy of Science and Letters in 2016–2017. Her research interests include school pedagogy, moral and religious education, gifted education, teacher education and cross-cultural studies. She has published 14 monographs and numerous journal articles related to these fields. Auli Toom, PhD, Full Professor of Higher Education, works as Director of the Helsinki University Centre for University Teaching and Learning (HYPE) and Vice-Dean for research at the Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Helsinki. Dr Toom is a member of the Finnish Academy of Science and Letters. Her research interests include teacher knowing, agency and teacher education as well as teaching and learning in higher education. She leads and co-leads several research projects on these themes and supervises PhD students. She serves on editorial boards in different journals and has acted as a reviewer for many scientific journals, conferences and international research programs. Her research articles have appeared in several scientific journals and edited books. She also works as an expert in many international research and development projects. Martin Ubani (PhD, MTheol) is a Professor of Religious Education at the University of Eastern Finland. His research interests focus on religion in public education. He serves on several editorial boards of scientific journals.

Contributors xv He also serves currently in the evaluation council of the Finnish Education and Evaluation Centre. He is a research fellow at Van Leer Institute Jerusalem. Kaisa Viinikka (PhD, ThM, MSSc) is a university lecturer at the School of Applied Educational Science and Teacher Education and the School of Theology at the University of Eastern Finland. Her research interests are focused on religious education, teacher education and professionalism. Andrew Wright is Visiting Professor at Bishop Grosseteste University, in Lincoln, United Kingdom. He has previously worked as Professor of Religious and Theological Education at King’s College, London and University College London. Having retired from full-time work, he now works part-time at the World Religions and Education Research Unit (WRERU) at Bishop Grosseteste University (BGU) and Lincoln School of Theology. Andrew is an author of numerous academic publications. He has taught religious, theological and worldview education for many years. Elina Wright is Visiting Senior Fellow at Bishop Grosseteste University, in Lincoln, United Kingdom. She has previously worked as a teacher and researcher in religious and theological education at the University of Helsinki, King’s College London, and Regent’s Park College, University of Oxford. She currently leads Postgraduate Certificate in Education (PGCE) course in secondary RE and conducts research at the World Religions and Education Research Unit (WRERU), both at Bishop Grosseteste University (BGU). Vesa Åhs (PhD, ThM) is a teacher and teacher trainer at a University of Helsinki teacher training school. His current research interests include co-teaching, worldview education in integrative settings, the concept of worldview in educational contexts and pragmatism as a philosophical framework for educational research and teacher training.

Series Editor Foreword

The opening years of the 21st century brought increased attention to religion as an important dimension of culture and politics. The dramatic multipronged attacks of September 11, 2001, came as a jolting reminder of the potential for violent action that can have bases in religious motivations. Over the same period, we came to see an increase in religiously motivated activity in politics. In the United States, we see this in the evolution from the Moral Majority movement that emerged as a force in the late 1970s as the beginning of the New Religious Right. On further reflection, however, we can see the involvement of religion extending much further back as a fundamental part of our social organization rather than a new or emerging phenomenon. We need only recall the religious wars of early modern Europe through to the contentious development of US church and state relations as evidence of the longstanding role religion has played as a source of competing values and beliefs. There has been a significant upturn in research and scholarship across many disciplines relative to the study of religion in recent decades. This is particularly the case in the area of the interplay of education and religion. While religious education – study toward formation in a particular faith tradition – has been with us for millennia, religion education – study about religion as an academic subject apart from theology – is more recent. Whereas theology departments proceeded from religious assumptions aiming to promulgate a faith tradition, the religious studies field emerged as a discipline that sought to bring a more objective social scientific approach to the study of religion. The origins of this approach date back to the European research centres that influenced US scholars beginning in the 18th century. The formalization of this trend, however, is a fairly recent phenomenon as illustrated by the 1949 formation of the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion with its scholarly journal and the creation of religious studies departments across the United States in the wake of the US Supreme Court decision in 1963 that allowed, even encouraged, teaching about religion (rather than for) in public education institutions. That same year, the American Academy of Religion was born out of a group of scholars that had since 1909 been meeting under the various names related to biblical study.

Series Editor Foreword xvii It is out of this relatively recent increase in scholarly attention to religion and education that this book series arose. Routledge Publishers have long been an important presence in the respective fields of religion and of education. It seemed like a natural step to introduce a book series focused particularly on Research in Religion and Education. My appreciation extends to Max Novick for guiding this series into being in 2011 and now to Alice Salt and Sophie Ganesh for continuing Routledge’s oversight. In this 26th volume in this series, editors Liam Gearon, Arniika Kuusisto, Sailia Poulter, Auli Toom and Martin Ubani bring us Religion and Worldviews in Education: The New Watershed. In three parts and 17 chapters from a range of scholars, they make the case for recognizing a New Watershed in education regarding belief and non-belief that incorporates and transcends the study of religious education. The secularization thesis introduced in 1967 by sociologist Peter Berger in The Sacred Canopy – that modernity would displace religion – had been, by the turn of the 21st century, disputed and pronounced dead by many including Rodney Stark and later even Berger himself. Charles Taylor’s 2007 magisterial tome, A Secular Age, recognized an emerging landscape of belief and non-belief in which Christianity and religion generally no longer enjoyed a privileged position but were ideologies now on equal footing with others. It is in this context that the authors lay out their arguments for the watershed and its implications that extend beyond RE to social policy on a global scale. The book takes an international view and draws upon years of work by the United Nations, particularly UNESCO, to underpin the need for and importance of employing a worldview approach. The authors also take as a more recent point of departure the Final Report of UK’s 2018 Commission on Religious Education, Religion and Worldviews: The Way Forward. The report defines worldview as a “translation of the German Weltanschauung, which literally means ‘a view of the world:’ A worldview is a person’s way of understanding, experiencing and responding to the world. It can be described as a philosophy of life or an approach to life. This includes how a person understands the nature of reality and their own place in the world. A person’s worldview is likely to influence and be influenced by their beliefs, values, behaviors, experiences, identities and commitments. We use the term ‘institutional worldview’ to describe organized worldviews shared among particular groups and sometimes embedded in institutions. These include\what we describe as religions as well as non-religious worldviews such as Humanism, Secularism or Atheism. We use the term ‘personal worldview’ for an individual’s own way of understanding and living in the world, which may or may not draw from one, or many, institutional worldviews. (CoRE, 2018)

xviii  Series Editor Foreword The commission cites the development of a child’s ‘personal worldview’ as a central educational task and the book draws upon the 1989 UN Declaration or the Right of the Child to bolster this aim. Religions and Worldviews in Education: The New Watershed is the second in the Routledge Research on Religion and Education series to address worldview and religious education in the wake of the 2018 CORE report. Kevin O’Grady’s 2022 Conceptualizing Religion and Worldviews for the School: Opportunities, Challenges, and Complexities of a Transition from Religious Education in England and Beyond focused on current debates surrounding the transition from the teaching of religious education (RE) to the more holistic subject of Religion and Worldviews (R&W) in England and posits criteria for the best practice among educators in varied settings and in a broader international context. These two books are important companion volumes in understanding and negotiating the new terrain represented in the religions and worldviews approach. Michael D. Waggoner Series Editor Routledge Research in Religion & Education Reference CoRE, Comission on Religious Education (2018) Religion and Worldviews: The Way Forward. A National Plan for RE. The Final Report. https://www.religiouseduca tioncouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Final-Report-of-the-Commis sion-on-RE.pdf

Preface

We are living in a world full of complexities, inequalities and tremendous challenges, particularly climate change and the loss of biodiversity. Deepening social inequalities between people, violence, wars and hate are making the world unsafe and even dangerous. UNESCO (The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) requires everyone to work for a better world. UNESCO also places education in a special role and sees education as a cornerstone for change. Many scientific and societal efforts are needed to solve problems, but education lays the foundation for these activities. UNESCO released the report Reimaging Our Futures Together in late 2021 and demanded high-quality education for all children to make the future more equal and provide the competencies needed for a better future. However, education is not only about learning specific content and subject matter. Education should evolve from a common vision of a joint future and have a strong value basis. UNESCO calls for respect for human rights and believes that pedagogy in schools should be organized around the principles of cooperation and collaboration. The urgent task of schools is to foster the intellectual, social and moral capacities of students to work together and transform the world with empathy and compassion. Unlearning must also be done, including the unlearning of bias, prejudice and divisiveness. Additionally, the spread of misinformation should be countered through scientific, digital and humanistic literacies that develop the ability to distinguish falsehoods from truth. In educational content, methods and policy, we should promote active citizenship and democratic participation. The same message UNESCO (2006, 2015) has set for intercultural education that is framed within a human rights perspective as expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948): education shall be directed to the full development of human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial and religious groups and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace. The new book Religion and Worldviews in Education: The New Watershed is dedicated in honour of Professor Arto Kallioniemi. He has extensive expertise in developing religious education and worldview education in schools. Professor Kallioniemi’s perspective is wide and inclusive. His aim is to provide

xx Preface students with a comprehensive picture of what happens in our global world and to lead them with the knowledge and values of social justice, democracy and active citizenship. Human rights are core in all his research, teaching and societal contributions. Professor Kallioniemi was appointed 2018–2021 UNESCO Chair on Values, Dialogue, and Human Rights, and this status was renewed for 2022–2026. As the Chair, Professor Kallioniemi has promoted a culture of peace by teaching and researching intercultural and worldview dialogue and encouraging young people and students to build communities that share values and practices of mutual respect and tolerance, while seeking peace, non-violence, and reconciliation in society. Professor Kallioniemi is also vice dean of international affairs at the Faculty of Educational Sciences, promoting societal interaction and equality. The new book’s theme fits extremely well with Professor Kallioniemi’s interest areas in which worldview education has been a central theme in his latest projects, discussions and studies with his colleagues, doctoral students and postdoctoral researchers. Global discussions surrounding religious and worldview education are actively ongoing. What kind of role do they play in future schools? How does religion and worldview education prepare a new generation for a world that urgently needs solidarity and interconnectedness? Does religious and worldview education connect or divide people? How can young people have religious, cultural and philosophical literacies that open their eyes to dialogue and solidarity? The new book focuses on the relationships of religions, worldviews and society and what role they play in education policy and curriculum design. The work also reflects on worldview education from philosophical and practical perspectives, focusing on what kind of pedagogy and practice is needed in worldview education. I congratulate the editors and authors for a valuable and comprehensive book on worldview education. I also sincerely congratulate Professor Kallioniemi, my dear student, on his 60th birthday. The book is dedicated in his honor. In Helsinki. November 7, 2022

Hannele Niemi PhD, Professor UNESCO Chair on Educational Ecosystems for Equity and Quality of Learning Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Helsinki

References UNESCO (2006). UNESCO guidelines on intercultural education. Paris: the United Nations Educational. UNESCO (2015). Rethinking education. Towards a global common good? Paris: the United Nations Educational. UNESCO (2021). Reimagining our futures together. A new social contract for education. Report from the International Commission on the Futures of Education. Paris: the United Nations Educational.

1

Religion and Worldviews in Education The Subterranean Territory Liam Gearon, Arniika Kuusisto, Saila Poulter, Auli Toom and Martin Ubani

Introduction The meeting place of religious and secular worldviews is one of the most important and pressing issues for religion in education. Over only the past few decades, there have been major developments in national and international educational and social policy. In terms of policy, one of the key origins for the specific inclusion of “worldviews” into the political and educational lexicon can be seen as deriving from the United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, passed on 25 November 1981. If this foundationally outlined human rights regarding the freedom of religion, its usage of the simple two words ‘or belief’ was the landmark acknowledgement (during the late Cold War) of the importance of secular as well as religious belief. The continued global importance of this inclusive stance is ever more present today, not only in Western liberal democracies but also in the Far East, critically in countries with significant proportions of the world’s population, particularly China and India. The move in education – and in the fields of philosophy, religious studies and theology – to accommodate this diversity and hold it in plural tension is now, in a contemporary context, acute and pressing, with deep level societal impacts. In this context, religion in education has taken on an ever-intensifying multiplicity of cultural, social and political agendas. National and international education policy has in response sought to incorporate new models of teaching, learning and teacher training to accommodate major changes in the demographic of local and national populations in the light of international legislation (Berglund, Shanneik, & Bocking, 2016; Davis & Miroshnikova, 2017). Particularly pertinent have been models which encourage the facilitation of cohesive systems of societal values through educational institutions (Kuusisto & Gearon, 2017). These values and the educational systems which inform and in practical terms enshrine them are invariably guided by human rights norms presented by the United Nations and developed through intergovernmental bodies such as UNESCO (for instance, Gearon, 2011; UNESCO/Ade-Ajayi et al., 6) for implementation in schools, further education and university teacher training DOI: 10.4324/9781003265696-1

2  Liam Gearon et al. programmes worldwide. The most notable shift is towards ever more inclusive models of religion in education which reflect therefore the shared values of citizens and their human rights. The shift towards increasingly politicised agendas for religious education is not without contestation (Lewin, 2017). The ever more prominent security dimensions of such are even more contested (Gearon, 2013, 2018, 2019). The ever-present problem remains, however, a matter of policy and pedagogic practicality – an inclusive educational model which serves to incorporate diverse and often diametrically opposed values and worldviews is far from an academic abstraction. Despite accommodations and attempts at reconciliations, such differences between religious and secular have defined the intellectual and political movements of modern history (Arthur, Gearon, & Sears, 2010; Cornelio, Gauthier, Martikainen, & Woodhead, 2020; Gearon and Prud’homme, 2018; Scott & Cavanaugh, 2004; Woodhead, Partridge, & Kawanami, 2016). At the extreme, such divergencies around worldview, in the broadest sense, have been at the heart of the rise, fall and continued problematics of totalitarianism across the twentieth century and into the twenty-first (Friedrich & Brzezinski, 1967; Gearon, 2010, 2021; Talmon, 1961). Thus, most recently, we see intensified global moves to incorporate inclusive models of educational provisions in policy systems with worldwide influence and impact. Human rights values are very much to the fore here, with these seen, through the endorsements of the United Nations, as a values orientation of primacy, with corresponding educational efforts at addressing the urgency of plurality and difference by integrating such ‘universal’ values with an often divergent cultural and religious understanding of the world. Such moves are prominently evidenced by the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) and the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). The OECD/PISA initiatives are significant moves to supplement emphases on educational achievement with the scales of ‘global competence’ (OECD/PISA, 2018), defined as ‘… the capacity to examine local, global and intercultural issues, to understand and appreciate the perspectives and world views of others, to engage in open, appropriate and effective interactions with people from different cultures, and to act for collective well-being and sustainable development’ (OECD/PISA, 2018). One of the most dramatic developments, in only the past few years, are moves to attain state religious education a terminological adaptation from religious to ‘worldviews’ education, for instance, in the latest renewal of the Finnish National Curriculum for ECEC (2018), in an attempt to reach wider inclusivity in regard to non-religious outlooks to life. The worldviews watershed: Philosophical origins The academic literature specific to a worldview in the historical-philosophical analysis is often abstruse and involved scholarly discussions about the differences between, for instance, Kant’s Weltanschauung and Humboldt’s

Religion and Worldviews in Education 3 Weltansicht; the former more conceptual, ideological, philosophical, and the latter being defined more geo-spatially as a linguistic entity of cultural identity shared by national communities of native speakers and multiple attempted historical-philosophical syntheses (Makkreel & Rodi, 1989). Abstract as this lineage is, it has become – conceptually, methodologically and theoretically – indispensable for contemporary religious education, and the critical elements in all of this are the increasing applications of the notion of worldview to the study of religion itself. Taliaferro (2019) shows how this inclusion of worldview marks a new inclusiveness in the philosophy of religion: ‘Philosophy of religion also includes the investigation and assessment of worldviews (such as secular naturalism) that are alternatives to religious worldviews’. Evidence of this worldview shift, of similar relevance, is demonstrated by Droogers and van Harskamp’s (2019) edited collection, From Religious Studies to Worldview Studies. Itself part of an importantly innovative series, Methods for the Study of Religious Change, the editors fashion an approach which no longer sees pertinence in using ‘Christianity as its measure, still frames the world through the model of five world religions, still largely avoids analysis of key issues around power, poverty, violence, pollution, science, and social conflict, and still looks to highlight differences rather than commonalities’ (Droogers & van Harskamp, 2019). Methods for the Study of Religious Change, by contrast, ‘aims to redefine the study of religion as the study of worldviews, of ideas which are active in shaping the world’, arguing ‘that the study of religion should focus on people’s worldview-making capacities and should contribute to the critical analysis of global problems and the promotion of cultural and spiritual respect across religions’ (Droogers & van Harskamp, 2019). In sum, as per Mascolo’s (2014) definition of ‘worldview’: ‘A worldview consists of a comprehensive set of philosophical presuppositions, beliefs, and values about the nature of physical and social world’. Here, A worldview consists of a generic set of presuppositions and about the fundamental nature of the physical and social world. At its most basic level, a worldview serves as a kind of organizing structure. The concept of worldview is founded on the epistemological principle that observation of the physical and social world is a mediated rather than direct process. From this view, understanding does not occur by fixing the spotlight of attention onto a pre-structured reality. Instead, observation proceeds as the active process of interpreting and organizing the world in terms of some sort of already existing system or conceptual framework. Without such existing frameworks, observation is simply unintelligible. (Mascolo, 2014) Such inclusivity is mirrored in the contemporary interface of psychology and the study of religion. Taves, Asprem and Ihm’s (2018) ‘Psychology, Meaning Making and the Study of Worldviews: Beyond Religion and

4  Liam Gearon et al. Non-Religion’ aims to ‘get beyond the solely negative identities signalled by atheism and agnosticism’ by conceptualising ‘an object of study that includes religions and non-religions’. They ‘advocate a shift from “religions” to “worldviews” and define worldviews in terms of the human ability to ask and reflect on “big questions” (… e.g., what exists? how should we live?)’. Here, from a ‘worldview’ perspective, ‘atheism, agnosticism, and theism are competing claims about one feature of reality and can be combined with various answers to the BQs [Big Questions] to generate a wide range of worldviews’. The intention of the authors is here to ‘lay a foundation for the multidisciplinary study of worldviews that includes psychology and other sciences’ grounded in human beings’ ‘evolved world-making capacities’. Taves et al.’s (2018) naturalistic premises are self-evident in their argument that ‘the language of enacted and articulated worldviews (for humans) and worldmaking and ways of life (for humans and other animals) is appropriate at the level of persons or organisms and the language of sense making, schemas, and meaning frameworks is appropriate at the cognitive level (for humans and other animals)’. With all the marking of what has come to be called a ‘posthuman’ philosophy (here, just as the Enlightenment shifted worldview from God to humanity, posthumanism oriented human beings as one element of the natural world): ‘Viewing the meaning making processes that enable humans to generate worldviews from an evolutionary perspective allows us to raise new questions for psychology with particular relevance for the study of nonreligious worldviews’ (Taves et al., 2018). All this, as they write, ‘presupposes a critical realist ontology, which embeds constructivism within a naturalistic perspective, and enables a variety of accounts of why things are the way they are that can be grounded (at least distally) in evolutionary theory’ (Taves, 2018). Taves’ (2018) ‘From religious studies to worldview studies’ elaborates these matters further for the study of religion to redefine the latter as a form of ‘goal directed action’, one ‘defined in terms of big questions, in order to offer an even-handed basis for comparing religious and nonreligious worldviews’. Perhaps ironically, this move cannot be attained without some form of epistemological power shift, one which relegates religion to a subservient position in the pantheon of worldviews, in disciplinary terms a shift which ‘locates Religious Studies as a subset of Worldview Studies’. Gadamer’s (2004) distinction between the regulatory laws characteristic of the natural sciences and the messier assemblage of knowledge in the human sciences: ‘… the specific problem that the human sciences present to thought is that one has not rightly grasped their nature if one measures them by the yardstick of a progressive knowledge of regularity’ (Gadamer, 2004, p. 4). Here, for Gadamer, the ‘sociohistorical world’ shares the same physical environment, the physical world of the natural sciences, but its methodological approach and interpretive frames are of necessity different, forwarding an ideal ‘to understand the phenomenon itself in its unique and historical concreteness’ (Gadamer, 2004, p. 4). Gadamer’s Truth and Method is important, too, here in elaborating how for such reasons the social sciences bear as much if

Religion and Worldviews in Education 5 not more resemblance in approach to aesthetics than to the natural sciences. Religions and worldviews in education, in their epistemological orientations, are similarly, and ambiguously, positioned, rooted in a philosophy, and the humanities, religious and worldviews education are permeated, too, with numerous theoretical and methodological orientations from the social and psychological sciences (Gearon, 2015). The worldviews watershed Policy origins

In the UK, the Final Report of the Commission on Religious Education, Religion and Worldviews: the way forward. A national plan for RE, offers a ‘national entitlement’ which ‘reflects a new and inclusive vision for the subject, fully embracing the diversity and richness of religious and non-religious worldviews’. The Commission’s evidence base of 3000 submissions and consultations with ‘a wide-range of concerned parties including pupils, teachers, lecturers, advisers, parents and faith and belief communities’ defines ‘worldview’ precisely as ‘a translation of the German Weltanschauung’, which literally means ‘a view of the world’: A worldview is a person’s way of understanding, experiencing and responding to the world. It can be described as a philosophy of life or an approach to life. This includes how a person understands the nature of reality and their own place in the world. A person’s worldview is likely to influence and be influenced by their beliefs, values, behaviours, experiences, identities and commitments. We use the term ‘institutional worldview’ to describe organised worldviews shared among particular groups and sometimes embedded in institutions. These include what we describe as religions as well as non-religious worldviews such as Humanism, Secularism or Atheism. We use the term ‘personal worldview’ for an individual’s own way of understanding and living in the world, which may or may not draw from one, or many, institutional worldviews. (CoRE, 2018) Educationally, the Commission authors suggest, it ‘is one of the core tasks of education to enable each pupil to understand, reflect on and develop their own personal worldview’. The dynamic interaction of cultural, social and political factors is ‘a wholeschool responsibility’ of which ‘the explicit, academic study of worldviews is an essential part’: Through understanding how worldviews are formed and expressed at both individual and communal levels, the ways in which they have changed over time, and their influence on the actions of individuals,

6  Liam Gearon et al. groups and institutions, young people come to a more refined understanding of their own worldview – whatever this happens to be – as well as those of others. (CoRE, 2018) Such an approach is interdisciplinary – as with studies such as Taves et al. (2018) – where Studying religious and non-religious worldviews gives young people the opportunity to develop the knowledge, understanding and motivation they need to engage with important aspects of human experience including the religious, spiritual, cultural and moral. It provides an insight into the sciences, the arts, literature, history and contemporary local and global social and political issues. (CoRE, 2018) Such moves are also strongly evident across a number of disciplines that directly impact religion in education. These refinements in nomenclature are more than linguistic. They are fundamentally epistemological. They will also dramatically alter the pedagogical landscape of religion in education. These developments also set high demands for teachers and teacher education. They call for holistic understanding and expertise in providing inclusive education for all pupils. This is a matter critically important, too, for future teachers and thus also for university teacher education and training. Teachers need capabilities for building and sustaining the environment in which pupils’ holistic growth and learning are supported. The volume aims not simply to engage in the pedagogical and policy developments in religions and worldviews but problematize their conceptual foundations and the practicalities of implementation. Religion and worldviews in education: The new watershed Religion and Worldviews in Education: The New Watershed aims here to offer a critically important contribution to a debate of genuinely global significance, one whose ramifications extend across formal educational settings in the public policy of societies worldwide. Edited and authored by some of the leading figures in the field, and drawing on expert international scholarship and research, Religion and Worldviews in Education: The New Watershed provides a cutting-edge analysis of these developments in global societal and educational policy. In particular, the chapters on the role of UNESCO, OECD/PISA and the United Nations system more generally show, unambiguously, that these considerations are of import to the global south as much as to the global north. The foreword above by the UNESCO Chair on Educational Ecosystems for Equity and Quality of Learning, Hannele Niemi, frames the worldwide

Religion and Worldviews in Education 7 significance of this policy move to religion and worldviews – what we define as a ‘new watershed’. The volume hereafter is divided into three main sections. Part I contextualises core frameworks for understanding the issues at hand under the heading ‘Religions, Worldviews and Societal Landscapes: Origins and Ends, Rights and Obligations’. Here, Liam Gearon’s ‘Freedom of “Religion or Belief”: The Origins of ‘Worldview’ Policy in the United Nations’ delineates the philosophical and political background to the contemporary scene where we see religion and worldviews at close pedagogical quarters. This chapter details the specific geopolitical origins of the notion of ‘worldview’ in the United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, passed on November 25, 1981. Here, if this foundationally outlined human rights regarding the freedom of religion, its usage of the simple two words ‘or belief’ was the landmark acknowledgement (during the late Cold War) of the importance of secular as well as religious belief. The chapter shows that the geopolitical significance of this divide is as critical today as it was during the Cold War. In ‘Losing (One’s) Religion? Pragmatist reflections on pluralism, secularism, and worldview education’, Sami Pihlström provides an intellectually powerful assessment of broad political-philosophical and societal context. The chapter examines the philosophical significance of the loss of religious faith using a number of distinctions. Through the pragmatist philosophy of religion, these reasons of loss can be identified as something that need to be taken seriously also in religious and worldview education. The chapter is fundamentally opposed to apologetics of any kind, whether pro-religious or anti-religious. Rather, in a pluralistic spirit, the author hopes to defend a pragmatist way of examining both religious faith and the loss of religious faith as personal traits of one’s individual existence that need to be analysed from a standpoint incorporating epistemic or intellectual as well as ethical and – possibly – irreducibly religious or theological dimensions. Friedrich Schweitzer’s ‘Education on religions and worldviews: Perspectives to child’s right to religion’ explores, with his renowned expertise in this area, the issues around religion and human rights with a specific focus on the politically now designated rights of the child. Thus, continuing the geopolitical and educational interrelated theme, this chapter elaborates on the significance within the United Nations system of the UN’s landmark (1989) Convention on the Rights of the Child. Schweitzer’s long experience of research and notable track record of international publications on children’s rights in education provides an important foundation to the spheres of politics and pedagogy in unifying differences within the classroom and beyond. Henrik Simojoki’s chapter ‘Globalised religion(s) and worldviews in education’ describes the interplay of globalisation and religion through the perspectives offered by the complementary theories by Roland Robertson and Peter Beyer. In the chapter, Simojoki distinguishes between three interdependent

8  Liam Gearon et al. tasks of religious education: (a) telic education in the context of a globalised world, (b) ecumenical education in the context of globalised Christianity and (c) interreligious education in the context of globalised religions. According to Simojoki, each of these tasks corresponds with a specific contextual dimension of globalised religion in contemporary world society. The chapter ends with a discussion on the potential of postcolonial approaches for an appropriate representation of global religion, both in religious education pedagogy and education more generally. Geir Skeie’s ‘Global education policy on religion and education: UNESCO’ is written from the perspective of a UNESCO Chair. He notes that the ‘challenge from the editors of this volume was to address and discuss some aspects of religion in education that are relevant in the light of “global education policy”, with a particular interest in the role of United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)’. Skeie has here approached this by focusing on two overarching questions, also encompassing some aspects of the ongoing debate about worldviews in education. Namely, ‘How can we understand the place of religion and worldviews in the global education policy of UNESCO?’ and ‘Which challenges and opportunities does this raise for the discussion about religion and worldviews among educators on a national level?’ Skeie’s chapter marks a useful transition point from the first section of the volume into the second. Part II explores national and international perspectives through a political-pedagogical lens under the heading ‘Thinking through Religion and Worldviews Policy in Education: Philosophical and Practical Problematics’. Here, looking at the British context, Philip Barnes’s ‘A conundrum for religious educators: personal worldviews or hermeneutics’ provides a trenchant critique of the notion of worldview as a ‘paradigm’. Passionately engaged, his chapter opens with a challenge: ‘Much has been written on CoRE’s proposed worldview paradigm, both “for” and “against”—one of the most serious issues is that the worldview approach is not grounded in a research project or can claim empirical research to support its conclusions. Criticisms are already well focused in a growing body of scholarly literature and there isn’t any need to rehearse them here … What has been overlooked by critics, however, is the interpretation of the post-confessional history of English religious education offered by Cooling and set out in the publications of the Worldview Project.’ His chapter takes the reader through these complexities. Since each national educational history has its own contours, Barnes here offers all educators much on which to reflect far beyond the United Kingdom. For, as he argues, ‘A new paradigm presupposes an old paradigm that needs to be replaced; Cooling and supporters of CoRE refer to this as “the world religions paradigm”, which is believed to have dominated English religious education for the last 50 years … Is this a credible reading of the history of religious education in England? What is the nature of the “world religions paradigm” that is to be replaced and what is the evidence that it dominated theory and practice for the last 50 years?’

Religion and Worldviews in Education 9 Elina Wright and Andrew Wright’s ‘Critical religious education and worldview theory’ explores the concepts of ‘worldview’ and ‘worldview education’ in religious education in public education. The theoretically substantial chapter shows how some of the questions in the current debates have already been looked at in literature and theory-development before. The chapter by Wright and Wright begins with a discussion on notable developments in the UK that are relevant across Europe and beyond. After a description of the current use of the concepts in focus, the chapter moves to discuss the potential contribution of Critical Religious Education theory to the current academic conversation on worldviews in education. The chapter introduces Critical Religious Education and worldview theory, and the relationship between the two. The authors end with a summary of the ways in which Critical Religious Education can contribute to the conversation on worldviews in religious education. Against the rapid change in the Finnish worldview context, the following chapter ‘Worldviews in flux – comparing separative and integrative contexts of worldview learning’ by Vesa Åhs and Marjaana Kavonius discusses the need for reconceptualising religious and worldview education in relation to pupils and their personal worldview construction. The authors find it urgent to establish new ways of communication across preset worldview boundaries, at the same time acknowledging the need for preparing pupils with adequate knowledge and skills on religions and worldviews. The chapter delves into a deeper pedagogical mandate for worldview education: in order to teach pupils how to react humanely to different sources of meaning in an ever more plural society, we need to anchor worldviews into the lived experience of individuals and place the personal worldview development at the centre of worldview education. Martin Ubani’s ‘Theologies, religion and literacy: Towards socially sustainable religious education’ discusses the question of the place of religious literacy in the socially sustainable development framework. The chapter maintains that religious literacy as a critical skill is essential for promoting socially sustainable development that not only acknowledges the role of religion in, for instance, society and culture as such, but also involves the knowledge, skills and attitudes related to religion in public exchange. Based on the literature, the chapter argues that the spreading of literacy in societies has included aspects related to, on the one hand, worldview and value development and, on the other hand, individual social empowerment and grander sociocultural change. Ubani envisions that for those reasons, these aspects should also present standards for religious literacy today. Finally, the chapter concludes with implications for religious education in public education. In their chapter ‘“And our little ones shall dwell”: Is there space for religion in Finnish early childhood education and care?’, Saila Poulter and Arniika Kuusisto investigate the contested ‘space’ for religions in early childhood education. For them, the concept of space is a pedagogical metaphor and concrete method to make religion understood by young children in the increasingly

10  Liam Gearon et al. secular societal educational contexts. As the authors challenge the indirect and distant ways of approaching religions, they argue for performative pedagogical approaches with direct encounters and participatory spaces for children. The authors hold that the pedagogical visions in religious and worldview education should stem from a holistic understanding and knowledge of how young children learn. As a particular perspective, religious spaces can offer a concrete means to approach spiritual and experiential dimensions of religion in a meaningful way. The final section in the volume has an eye to the realities of teaching and learning. Part III analyses pedagogy in practice under the heading ‘Religions, Worldviews, Education: Pedagogy and Practice’. Here, we find many applications of theory and practice in particular to the Finnish context, with a strong relatedness to beyond. Auli Toom and Jukka Husu’s chapter ‘Academic and moral obligations in teacher’s work and teacher education’ elaborates the characteristics of teacher’s work, including the academic and moral capabilities needed in it, as well as how they could be cultivated in teacher education. Toom and Husu discuss how essentially it is at the core of a teacher’s work to be able to educate pupils with diverse worldviews. They emphasise that the moral aspects of teacher’s work tend to remain implicit and unplanned in teacher education, and thus, why they would necessitate much more attention. Toom and Husu point out that it is especially important that teachers gain more capabilities for educating pupils with diverse worldviews. Hence, they conclude that the support to these skills is needed in both the pre- and in-service teacher education and in local communities connected to the schools. Kirsi Tirri and Elina Kuusisto’s ‘Inclusive education from the perspective of teachers’ professional ethics – the case of Finnish teachers’ concludes with a suitably inclusive agenda of relevance to all teachers and learners. The chapter investigates teachers’ ethics in Finland with a specific focus on inclusive education and the current ethical challenges in instruction. In the chapter, Tirri and Kuusisto discuss the topic from both national and international perspectives, with a view to the implications for teachers’ work. The chapter describes first how the value base for teachers’ ethics in Finland is derived from the Comenius oath and the ethical codes for teachers devised initially a few decades ago. Furthermore, Tirri and Kuusisto explain how the Finnish educational system is based on the conceptions of inclusion, equality and equity. The authors identify ethical sensitivity as an important skill for teachers, as they aim to treat each student equally and promote social justice in their work. Notably, the chapter makes some suggestions for teacher education in order for the teachers to be better equipped for promoting inclusion, equality and equity in public education. Inkeri Rissanen, Essi Aarnio-Linnanvuori and Anette Mansikka-Aho’s chapter ‘Worldview transformation in and through education: Mapping the nexus of climate education and worldview education’ contextualises the educational discussion of the ecological crises, which increasingly stresses the

Religion and Worldviews in Education 11 necessity to promote worldview transformation in the heart of educational policy and practice. The authors argue that the pressing problems of humanity push educators to recognize and re-evaluate the roots and ideals of liberal educational neutrality and the ideals of impartiality. Basing their views on empirical research, the authors hold that the implicit beliefs regarding the changeable, historical and cultural nature of values and worldviews are the key enablers of individuals’ worldview transformation. That is a challenging but urgent call for holistic climate change education. Jari Lavonen and Kalle Juuti, with the chapter entitled ‘Teaching climate issues in Finnish upper secondary school science subjects’, argue for the necessity of climate issues to be discussed in the broader framework of worldviews and education. In their chapter, Lavonen and Juuti present an analysis of the Finnish upper secondary education curriculum and present the ways in which climate issues are elaborated there. The authors show how climate change and its mitigation are also emphasised as a part of students’ transversal competence descriptions in the upper secondary curriculum. Lavonen and Juuti concretise the pedagogical challenges regarding teaching climate issues and present project-based learning as one possible pedagogical solution. Kaisa Viinikka, Tuuli Lipiäinen and Martin Ubani’s ‘Religion, worldviews and integrated instruction: How do Finnish class teachers define the purpose of religious education and ethics?’ is an empirical chapter. The chapter describes a study of 20 Finnish class teachers and their perceptions on the purpose of religious education and ethics instruction in public education. These perceptions are then discussed in the light of a timely discussion related to the Finnish basic education: integrated instruction. The results illustrate that what the teachers highlight as the main purposes of religious education and ethics instruction are: 1) moral and/or ethical education, 2) general knowledge education and 3) instrumental education. Integrated teaching was lauded for promoting dialogue, tolerance and peace. Integrated and hybrid instruction was considered suitable for learning about moral and ethical issues, increasing general knowledge and preventing radicalisation. However, the chapter also shows that class teachers do not perceive learning about one’s own religion as a purpose of religious education. The chapter concludes with suggestions for teacher education. The topic ‘Religion and Worldviews in Education: The New Watershed’ finds its context in the the complexities, fluidities and uncertainties of the twenty-first century we are currently witnessing and living. The context of education is society and human life, and the vision of education is hope: if education is to be relevant, it has to be rooted in the present realities and concerns of our lives. Furthermore, if it aims to produce a change for the better, it needs to be embedded in a belief in that such change is possible, that our actions matter, and that the change is worth our effort. Furthermore, there needs to be a willingness and commitment to ‘good’ that permeates not just educational efforts but its supportive structures, involving policies and professionals alike.

12  Liam Gearon et al. This volume is dedicated to, with wishes to commemorate the life of 60 years and the academic career, Professor Arto Kallioniemi, the UNESCO Chair of Values, Dialogue and Human Rights at the University of Helsinki. With the volume, colleagues and scholars from various universities and countries, many of whom have collaborated with professor Kallioniemi already for decades, want to congratulate professor Kallioniemi. The volume celebrates Kallioniemi’s work through bringing together the authors’ expertise and research perspectives into discussing the themes that have been at the heart of Professor Kallioniemi’s work throughout his career. It is our hope that these very themes are also integral today, globally and locally, in developing better and increasingly sustainable learning conditions for children, youth and adults of today and tomorrow – learning conditions that are rooted in reality, that are committed to “good” – and with a vision of hope. References Arthur, J., Gearon, L., & Sears, A. (2010). Education, politics and religion: Reconciling the civil and the sacred in education. London and New York: Routledge. Berglund, J., Shanneik, Y., & Bocking, B. (Eds.). (2016). Religious education in a global-local world. Berlin: Springer. CoRE (2018). Religion and worldviews. London: Commission on Religious Education. Retrieved from https://www.commissiononre.org.uk/final-report-religion-andworldviews-the-way-forward-a-national-plan-for-re/ Cornelio, J., Gauthier, F., Martikainen, T., & Woodhead, L. (Eds.). (2020). Routledge international handbook of religion in global society. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Davis, D., & Miroshnikova, E. (Eds.). (2017). The Routledge international handbook of religious education. London: Routledge. Droogers, A., & van Harskamp, A. (Eds.). (2019). From religious studies to worldview studies. Sheffield: Equinox. Friedrich, C. J., & Brzezinski, Z. (1967). Totalitarian dictatorship and autocracy. New York, NY: Praeger. Gadamer, H. G. (2004). Truth and method. London: Continuum. Gearon, L. (2010). ‘The totalitarian imagination: Religion, politics and Education’. In M. De Souza, G. Durka, K. Engebretson, & L Gearon (Eds.), International handbook of inter-religious education (pp. 933–947). New York, NY: Springer. Gearon, L. (2011). ‘From Universal Declaration to World Programme: 1948-2008: 60 Years of Human Rights Education’. Contemporary Issues in Human Rights Education (pp. 39–104). Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/ images/0021/002108/210895e.pdf Gearon, L. (2013). ‘The Counter Terrorist Classroom: Religion, Education, and Security’. Religious Education, 108(2), 129–147. Gearon, L. (2015). On holy ground: The theory and practice of religious education. London and New York: Routledge. Gearon, L. (2018). ‘Paradigm shift in religious education: A reply to Jackson, or why religious education goes to war’. Journal of Beliefs and Values, 38(3), 358–378. Gearon, L. (2019). ‘The politicisation and securitisation of religion in education: A response to a rejoinder’. In M. L. Pirner, J. Lahnemann, W. Haussmann, & S. Schwarz (Eds.), Public theology perspectives on religion and education (pp. 211–227). New York, NY: Routledge.

Religion and Worldviews in Education 13 Gearon, L. (2021). ‘The totalitarian imagination revisited: State religious education at the ‘worldviews’ watershed’. In Z. Gross (Ed.), Reimagining the landscape of religious education: Challenges and opportunities. New York, NY: Springer. Gearon, L. and Prud’homme, J. (2018). State Religious Education and the state of the Religious Life. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock. Kuusisto, A., & Gearon, L. (Eds.). (2017). Value learning trajectories: Theory, method, context. Münster: Waxmann. Makkreel, R., & Rodi, F. (Eds.) (1989). Wilhelm Dilthey: Selected works, Volume I: Introduction to the human sciences. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Lewin, D. (2017). ‘Who’s afraid of secularisation? Reframing the debate between Gearon and Jackson’. British Journal of Educational Studies, 65(5), 445–460. Mascolo, M. (2014). ‘Worldview’. Encyclopedia of critical psychology. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5583-7_480. OECD/PISA (2018). Global competence framework. Retrieved from https://www. oecd.org/pisa/Handbook-PISA-2018-Global-Competence.pdf Scott, P., & Cavanaugh, W. T. (Eds.). (2004). The Blackwell companion of political theology. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Taliaferro, C. (2019). ‘Philosophy of religion’. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford. edu/entries/philosophy-religion/ Talmon, J. L. (1961). History of totalitarian democracy. London: Mercury Books. Taves, A. (2018). ‘From religious studies to worldview studies’. Religion, 50(1), 137–147. Taves, A., Asprem, E., & Ihm, E. D. (2018). ‘Psychology, meaning making, and the study of worldviews: Beyond religion and non-religion’. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 18, 207–217. UNESCO/Ade-Ajayi, J., Bouma, G., El Kashef, A. O., Gearon, L., Gundara, J., Jeitani, C., … Soudein, C. (2006). UNESCO guidelines on intercultural education. Paris: UNESCO, Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/ pf0000147878. (Cited OECD PISA Global Competence Framework (2018), https://www.oecd.org/pisa/Handbook-PISA-2018-Global-Competence.pdf.) Woodhead, L., Partridge, C., & Kawanami, H. (Eds.). (2016). Religions in the modern world: Traditions and transformations. London: Routledge.

Part I

Religions, Worldviews and Societal Landscapes: Origins and Ends, Rights and Obligations

2

Worldviews and World Government The Civil Religion of State Religious Education Liam Gearon

Introduction Tracing the notion of worldview to a specific conjunction of intellectual milieu in the eighteenth-century European Enlightenment and politically revolutionary movements in the same century, two pivotal figures here are Immanuel Kant and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. From the former, we derive the German Weltanschauung origins of today’s usage of worldview; from the latter, we derive a decisive conceptualisation of civil religion. Here the intellectual and political influences, it is argued, are far from restricted to the century in which they originated. Current moves to develop a religion and worldview curriculum are further evidence of a historically progressive synthesis of philosophical ideas and political ideology just as entangled now as they were at their emergence in modernity. This chapter illustrates the nature of these entanglements and exposes the historically rooted foundations for the contemporary civil religion of secular, state education. ‘Worldviews’ and the critique of religion Immanuel Kant, having established through his three Critiques – of reason, of morality, and of aesthetic judgement – the foundations of Enlightenment thought, in 1784 provides an accessible summation of the intellectual movement he had done so much to define: Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-imposed nonage. Nonage is the inability to use one’s own understanding without another’s guidance. This nonage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one’s own mind without another’s guidance. Dare to know! … ‘Have the courage to use your own understanding’, is therefore the motto of the enlightenment. (Kant, 1784, p. 1) The authority rested in a ‘book’, to which he will next refer is the Bible, and the ‘pastor’ will stand for all religious authority. In the critique of religious DOI: 10.4324/9781003265696-3

18  Liam Gearon authority based on revelation, or received insight delivered over the centuries of Christian tradition which had formed Europe as politically as it had intellectually, he is as plain as he is harsh: Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why such a large part of mankind gladly remain minors all their lives, long after nature has freed them from external guidance. They are the reasons why it is so easy for others to set themselves up as guardians. It is so comfortable to be a minor. If I have a book that thinks for me, a pastor who acts as my conscience … then I have no need to exert myself … these guardians make their domestic cattle stupid and carefully prevent the docile creatures from taking a single step without the leading-strings to which they have fastened them. Then they show them the danger that would threaten them if they should try to walk by themselves. (Kant, 1784, p. 1) The dangers are, however, to Kant, not so great, for, ‘after stumbling a few times’, those so enmeshed in their intellectual captivity ‘would, at last, learn to walk’. Herein are the bases for all notions of autonomy which permeate modern secular education systems and their curricula. Kant’s optimism was therefore well-placed when he looks to the future: ‘It is more nearly possible, however, for the public to enlighten itself; indeed, if it is only given freedom, enlightenment is almost inevitable’ (Kant, 1784, p. 1). Rationalistic individual autonomy, therefore, imbues the Weltanschauung which Kant had permeates his critiques (Guyer & Wood, 1992); or, as Rohlf (2020) has it, Kantian judgement unifies all ‘into a single, teleological worldview that assigns preeminent value to human autonomy’: ‘… scientific knowledge, morality, and religious belief are mutually consistent and secure because they all rest on the same foundation of human autonomy, which is also the final end of nature according to the teleological worldview of reflecting judgment that Kant introduces to unify the theoretical and practical parts of his philosophical system’ (Rohlf, 2020). If Kant had not extensively used the term Weltanschauung, it is the holistic, integrative and unifying systematic outlook of his philosophy which will provide the aesthetic, epistemological, existential, moral and ontological grounds for those definitions which will follow (Kroner, 1956). It will span the rationalism of Enlightenment rationalism as much as it will embody the artistic and emotional responses of Romanticism, such as Simmel’s comparison of two towering figures, the philosopher and the poet – Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) and Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749–1835) – to reconstruct a modern history of Weltanschauung (Simmel, 2007). The dates are important, and in that period is seemingly urgent need to reconstruct the meaning for a world which these and like figures of Enlightenment and Romanticism had attempted (in so little time) to reduce the cultural inheritance of Christianity to intellectual rubble and ruin.

Worldviews and World Government 19 This did not mean in academic terms, however, that the study of religion was of no further interest. In the nineteenth century, Marx’s century, the new disciplines were rigorously aligned as frameworks for interpretation. We can take now a little overlooked figure of Max Müller and his Gifford lectures. Friedrich Max Müller (1823–1900), the Sanskrit scholar and philologist, was a pioneer in the fields of Vedic studies, comparative philosophy, comparative mythology and comparative religion. In 1873 he published Introduction to the Science of Religion. In 1878 Müller inaugurated the annual Hibbert lectures on the science of religion at Westminster Abbey, and he was invited to deliver the Gifford Lectures in Natural Theology at the University of Glasgow. The Gifford Lecture series are themselves a case in point, being established by a generous endowment which is still alive today, to study ‘natural religion’, that is, like Kant, to explore the rational possibilities of interpretation of this phenomenon without recourse to the transcendent. Thus, at Glasgow in 1888, Müller began a series of lectures on ‘natural religion’. An audience of 1,400 attended his first lecture, an audience as diverse as it was distinguished, professors, leaders of the Christian churches and public intellectuals of that time. Müller gave an unsurpassed four courses, totalling 62 lectures, between 1888 and 1892 (Gifford, 2023). Another famous instance of such Gifford lectures is of course William James, whose Varieties of Religious Experience remains a foundation stone for the psychology of religion. For this intellectual trajectory, we may look to Daniel L. Pals’ (2020) Ten Theories of Religion as a summation of how the influential figures of anthropology, social anthropology, psychology, economic and political theory conceptualised variant critiques of religion as the epistemological foundations of their respective disciplines. In the list are the anthropologists Tylor and Frazer counted as one theoretical frame: E. B. Tylor (1832–1917); J. G. Frazer (1854–1941); Sigmund Freud (1856–1939); Emile Durkheim (1858–1917); Karl Marx (1818–1883); Max Weber (1864–1920); William James (1842–1910); Mircea Eliade (1907–1986); E. E. Evans Pritchard (1902–1973); and Clifford Geertz (1926–2006). The formulation of interpretive frames of religious and secular beliefs and values thus permeates these post-Enlightenment centuries. Kant’s tacit Weltanschauung underlaid it all and remains today an important intellectual canvas, a backdrop, which signifies now as it epitomised then the rise of rational critique, one dismissive of received revelation. As today, it was an interpretative frame which took many forms, where the Enlightenment prism refracted the light of reason to illuminate a post-religious view of the world in which we live. It would remain so in Kant’s successor Georg F. W. Hegel (1770–1831). Here the light of reason was seen as the guiding principle of human history itself. Hegel’s 1807 The Phenomenology of Spirit, thus, sought to provide a reconstructed meaning for a world that had been denuded of its revealed sources (Hegel, 2019). Houlgate’s (2012) assessment shows the manifold influences of Hegel’s thinking on figures as diverse as Friedrich Feuerbach (1806–1880), Karl Marx (1818–1883) and Martin Heidegger (1889–1976).

20  Liam Gearon As for much of modern philosophy – see, for instance, Richard Kearney’s (1984) landmark Movements in European Philosophy – Weltanschauung itself is here given a linguistic turn in the polymath Alexander von Humboldt’s Weltansicht (Gundersen, 2002). James W. Underhill’s (2009) monograph Humboldt, Worldview and Language provides amongst the most thorough analyses of the origins of such a critique. Here, human language as the foundational expression of meaning and the conundrum of different forms of linguistic expression (languages) are to the fore. So Humboldt asserts the importance of language, understanding human language, in the search for understanding worldview. In terms of interpretation and meaning-making, however, if linguistic ability is a human universal, this very universality (the human ability to use language to express meaning) is also made more complex by the cultural specificity of human languages. We need to understand the cultural context to understand the nuanced use of language. The early and later Wittgenstein are in a sense illustrative of this conundrum and problematic. Thus, in the Tractatus, Wittgenstein emphasises the universality of linguistics by asserting a propositional logic for language – an argument cannot deviate between cultures – but in the posthumous Philosophical Investigations, we see the much-vaunted notion of ‘language games’, wherein the cultural context, the specificity of use, is necessary to understand the way in which language constructs meaning. Yet another German, the philosopher Wilhelm Dilthey, revived the term, with the sixth volume of his collected works showing his systematic historicalphilosophical analysis of worldview was in essence the culmination of his contribution to philosophy. Makkreel (2020; also Makkreel & Rodi, 2019) provides an authoritative critical overview of Dilthey’s efforts, building still on Kant, to distinguish between the natural sciences and arts, humanities and social sciences: ‘Dilthey’s aim was to expand Kant’s primarily nature-oriented Critique of Pure Reason into a Critique of Historical Reason that can also do justice to the social and cultural dimensions of human experience’. The influence of such thinking is perhaps most importantly manifest in Hans-Georg Gadamer’s (2004) masterpiece Truth and Method. The entirety of the Enlightenment and the academic disciplines would thereof have their epistemological foundations in the critique of religious, and specifically Christian authority. Thus, within a half-century of the Enlightenment’s zenith, Karl Marx, in his ‘Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right’, could declare: ‘For Germany, the criticism of religion has been essentially completed, and the criticism of religion is the prerequisite of all criticism’ (Marx, 1844). The view of the world, a ‘worldview’, or Weltanschauung, is naturally different from that which preceded it, wherein the tenets of the Christian faith, Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox had for well over a millennium not only shaped European political and intellectual life imbued with the principles of religion but also helped define nation states and the cultural life of the continent itself. From the eighteenth century onwards, though, through political, and revolutionary, means, Europe would now largely be defined by a countering of these ideas and freed

Worldviews and World Government 21 from that cultural inheritance which had, to its collective view, most supposedly restricted its thought and hampered its progress. A century and a half later, however, we should recall, as Wyschogrod (1990) does, that it is the very intellectual and geophysical space, that of the German Enlightenment itself, which will produce on this very same soil the phenomenon of ‘man-made mass death’, the death camps, Nazism. Thus if we see that (again, Kearney, 1984) much modern philosophy asserts a critique of Enlightenment reason through a critique of language (the inability of language to be as precise as reason asserts), it is the moral critique which is here more powerfully visceral. In On Holy Ground (Gearon, 2015; cf. Gearon, 2014), I elaborated how these movements are foundationally rooted in a challenge of received religious authority. I thus systematically showed how this foundational critique of religion not only formed the academic disciplines and the entire intellectual milieu of the centuries that followed – across philosophy; theology; the social sciences; psychology; phenomenology; political thought; and even aesthetics – but how these diverse critical influences have today variously permeated state religious education worldwide. The principal thesis is a simple one: where religious education is separated from the religious life, it, by necessity, requires alternative grounds to define its aims and purposes. Those grounds from which state religious education now sources its epistemological foundations are a disparate grouping of secular philosophies and worldviews, which I elsewhere delineated in alternative terms as ‘the paradigms of contemporary religious education’ (Gearon, 2013, 2017; cf. Jackson, 2015; Lewin, 2017). There have been a range of these alternative, secular frameworks. As my former tutor Professor Ninian Smart would have it, religion was a phenomenon of unifying characteristics or ‘dimensions’: ritual, experiential, mythological, doctrinal, ethical, institutional, material. Ninian Smart is here important in the bridge between the disparate post-Enlightenment critiques of religion and contemporary education since his phenomenological model – where, in a plural religious societal context, students ‘bracket’ their own particular faith or other perspectives in order to see the religious traditions as they see themselves – exerted a profound influence not only on university study of religion but across schools, initially in the UK, and then worldwide (Davis & Miroshnikova, 2017). One of the common points highlighted, even at the time I was being taught by Smart in the late Cold War, now over 40 years ago, was that these dimensions could as easily be applied to the systematic systems of, for instance, atheistic Communism. Indeed, at this very time, in the early 1980s, the United Nations was thinking very much along similar lines in drafting a new declaration, the ‘Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief’, of 25 November 1981. Here, the simple usage of three words – ‘religion or belief’ – was a landmark acknowledgement (during the late Cold War) of the politically integrative importance of secular and atheistic as well as religious belief. The drive towards such inclusivity was inherent of course in the United Nations’ very origins borne by a world divided by war, and whose foundation Schlesinger

22  Liam Gearon (2003) defined in religious secularity as ‘an act of Creation’. Only months before 9/11, the United Nations Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Religion or Belief would still be espousing the need for tolerance (Amor, 2001). This political inclusivity has been progressively advanced in the decades which have followed. It is a political inclusivity which is distinctively epistemological, reflecting the differing (simplistically ‘religious’ and ‘secular’) ways in which people of the world understand the world. These developments have been reflected, too, in the Academy. If belatedly, the nominally inclusive notion of ‘worldview’ (which, remember, has its origins of a religion-excluding rationalism) has been increasingly applied to the study of religion itself. Taliaferro (2019) illustrates this in relation to the very conceptualisation of religion: ‘Philosophy of religion also includes the investigation and assessment of worldviews (such as secular naturalism) that are alternatives to religious worldviews’. Droogers and van Harskamp’s (2020) From Religious Studies to Worldview Studies demonstrates, or at least argues for, a broader shift. There is something of an epistemological power game going on here, arguably, which is at least true to the religion-excluding rationalism of Weltanschauung. In the landmark series Methods for the Study of Religious Change, the series editors fashion an approach which no longer sees pertinence in using ‘Christianity as its measure, still frames the world through the model of five world religions, still largely avoids analysis of key issues around power, poverty, violence, pollution, science, and social conflict, and still looks to highlight differences rather than commonalities’ (Droogers and van Harskamp, 2020).  There is much validity in this perspective – the Enlightenment critique of religion, being European, is fundamentally in its time and place concerned with a critique of Christianity. Methods for the Study of Religious Change thus wishes to reorient the field, aiming ‘to redefine the study of religion as the study of worldviews, of ideas which are active in shaping the world’, arguing ‘that the study of religion should focus on people’s worldview-making capacities and should contribute to the critical analysis of global problems and the promotion of cultural and spiritual respect across religions’ (Droogers and van Harskamp, 2020). Mascolo (2014) here provides the definition of ‘worldview’ itself: ‘A worldview consists of a comprehensive set of philosophical presuppositions, beliefs, and values about the nature of physical and social world’: A worldview consists of a generic set of presuppositions and about the fundamental nature of the physical and social world. At its most basic level, a worldview serves as a kind of organizing structure. The concept of worldview is founded on the epistemological principle that observation of the physical and social world is a mediated rather than direct process. From this view, understanding does not occur by fixing the spotlight of attention onto a pre-structured reality. Instead, observation proceeds as the active process of interpreting and organizing the world in terms of some sort of already existing system or conceptual framework. Without such existing frameworks, observation is simply unintelligible. (Mascolo, 2014)

Worldviews and World Government 23 The shift is evident, too, in specific disciplines for the study of religion, such as that of psychology. Taves, Asprem, and Ihm’s (2018) ‘Psychology, Meaning Making and the Study of Worldviews: Beyond Religion and Non-Religion’ therefore argues for the need to ‘get beyond the solely negative identities signalled by atheism and agnosticism’ by conceptualising ‘an object of study that includes religions and non-religions’. They ‘advocate a shift from “religions” to “worldviews” and define worldviews in terms of the human ability to ask and reflect on “big questions” (… e.g., what exists? how should we live?)’. Here, from a ‘worldview’ perspective, ‘atheism, agnosticism, and theism are competing claims about one feature of reality and can be combined with various answers to the BQs [Big Questions] to generate a wide range of worldviews’. The intention of the authors is here to ‘lay a foundation for the multidisciplinary study of worldviews that includes psychology and other sciences’ grounded in human beings’ ‘evolved world-making capacities’. This nomenclature reflects as much a cultural and epistemological as a linguistic movement. So, as Taves’ (2020) ‘From religious studies to worldview studies’ makes explicit, this is (or is intended to be) a field ‘defined in terms of big questions, in order to offer an even-handed basis for comparing religious and nonreligious worldviews’. This necessitates some form of epistemological power shift, here religion, in Taves’ terms of relegated to a new conceptual hierarchy, one which ‘locates Religious Studies as a subset of Worldview Studies’. Worldview and the civil religion of world government Just in the modern era – as highlighted with the UN’s 1981 ‘Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of  Intolerance  and of  Discrimination  Based on Religion or Belief’ – the epistemological trajectories of Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment rationality were deeply entangled, inextricably, with the turbulent political movements of the eighteenth century. Rousseau’s (2014) 1762 Social Contract here formed an evident intellectual backdrop to the Revolutions of that century, the American and the French; the latter being, as the Marxist historian Hobsbawm intimates, the model of all subsequent revolutions. (For sight of the documents of these pivotal events, the primary documents are always worth revisiting, and for which purpose – see Yale, 2021.) Book IV of the Social Contract ‘treats further of political laws and sets forth the means of strengthening the Constitution of the State’. In the penultimate chapter of the volume, Rousseau treats ‘civil religion’. So, just as Enlightenment philosophy, and all the academic disciplines which follow from it, are sourced in their epistemological foundations in a critique of religion, so too the political movements are centred on the questions of religion in relation to the state (Gearon and Prud’homm, 2018). With a view to the democratic (social governance) equality by which these politics are determined, Rousseau jointly denigrates the political heritage of Catholic and Protestant Christianity: … the religion of man or Christianity – not the Christianity of to-day, but that of the Gospel, which is entirely different. By means of this holy,

24  Liam Gearon sublime, and real religion all men, being children of one God, recognise one another as brothers, and the society that unites them is not dissolved even at death. But this religion, having no particular relation to the body politic, leaves the laws in possession of the force they have in themselves without making any addition to it; and thus one of the great bonds that unite society considered in severalty fails to operate. Nay, more, so far from binding the hearts of the citizens to the State, it has the effect of taking them away from all earthly things. I know of nothing more contrary to the social spirit. (Rousseau, 2014, np) And the problematics of Church and State he simplistically but trenchantly outlines as follows: It was in these circumstances that Jesus came to set up on earth a spiritual kingdom, which, by separating the theological from the political system, made the State no longer one, and brought about the internal divisions which have never ceased to trouble Christian peoples. As the new idea of a kingdom of the other world could never have occurred to pagans, they always looked on the Christians as really rebels, who, while feigning to submit, were only waiting for the chance to make themselves independent and their masters, and to usurp by guile the authority they pretended in their weakness to respect. This was the cause of the persecutions. What the pagans had feared took place. Then everything changed its aspect: the humble Christians changed their language, and soon this so-called kingdom of the other world turned, under a visible leader, into the most violent of earthly despotisms. (Rousseau, 2014, np) And he is critical, then, of the political systems which emerged: However, as there have always been a prince and civil laws, this double power and conflict of jurisdiction have made all good polity impossible in Christian States; and men have never succeeded in finding out whether they were bound to obey the master or the priest. (Rousseau, 2014, np) For Rousseau, the new ‘civil religion’ will retain some deistic traits, its one moral orientation is a ‘negative dogma’ ‘I confine to one, intolerance, which is a part of the cults we have rejected’. Rousseau goes on to suggest that the view that religions themselves, particularly Christianity, can be characterised by tolerance is mistaken: Those who distinguish civil from theological intolerance are, to my mind, mistaken. The two forms are inseparable. It is impossible to live at peace

Worldviews and World Government 25 with those we regard as damned; to love them would be to hate God who punishes them: we positively must either reclaim or torment them. Wherever theological intolerance is admitted, it must inevitably have some civil effect; and as soon as it has such an effect, the Sovereign is no longer Sovereign even in the temporal sphere: thenceforth priests are the real masters, and kings only their ministers. Now that there is and can be no longer an exclusive national religion, tolerance should be given to all religions that tolerate others, so long as their dogmas contain nothing contrary to the duties of citizenship. But whoever dares to say: Outside the Church is no salvation, ought to be driven from the State … (Rousseau, 2014, np) In advocating ‘civil religion’, religion, so far as the term is to persist, is to do so in terms of its social usefulness. This ‘civil religion’ is stripped, like Kant’s ‘religion of humanity’ of the transcendent. Rousseau’s ‘one law’ of ‘tolerance’ is thus, to some sense, a contradiction, or at least a delineation of the limits of such. We cannot thus tolerate the intolerable. And for Rousseau, traditional Christianity is such. As I have previously shown, these approaches have been appropriate across the continent of Europe (Gearon, 2012). Rousseau, too, in this respect of the intolerable, has a view to the transnational features and international sphere of this intended civil religion. In practical terms, however, the persistence of religion self-evidently remains, and far beyond Europe, a political problem resolved by modern notions of pluralistic acceptance. This is a reworking of Rousseau’s notions of tolerance, milder certainly, and accepting of the tension – if we see Rawls’ The Law of Peoples (2001) – between the notion of States and nations and the identity which suffuse, and is intertwined with, the culture formations and orientations of ‘peoples’, including those who may not hold, may oppose, the liberal principles Rawls espouses. Published in the first year of the new millennium, such debates, and tensions, will come even more to the political fore after the events of 11th September 2001. In this context, the persistence of religion in such forms, and others, provided for theorists of secularisation an intellectual puzzle as accentuated as it would be a matter for politicians a matter of practical governance. See, for instance, the United Nations’ formation of the Alliance of Civilizations (AoC, 2023), formed in the aftermath of the Madrid bombings and other instances of international terrorism. The AoC wasnominally a riposte to the work by the late Harvard Professor Samuel Huntington’s (1995) Clash of Civilizations. It is why UNESCO’s perpetual mission has been cultural (UNESCO/Ade-Ajayi et al., 2007), and now today the OECD/PISA (2018) have renewed a focus on cultural difference and dissonance in the global assessment of educational systems across nation states. For the Enlightenment heartlands of Europe, in the originating impetus of the French Revolution, freedoms for religion were within an intolerant anticlerical vein (Réville, 1905). And they would be mirrored in countries like Spain in the 1930s. Indeed, Sánchez (1987) would define the Spanish Civil

26  Liam Gearon War as ‘a religious tragedy’. The religiously oppressive nature of such would also be prominent in many subsequent Marxist-inspired revolutions (in China, in Mexico, in Russia). If freedoms of religion were, however, to be permitted in modern Europe, in America and globally, the frame, through nation states adhering to liberal and pluralist democratic principles, would become, particularly through the overarching frames of the United Nations (formed from the political principles of the same eighteenth-century revolutions), secular. The secular state would be the guardian of the religious state, and, as I have elsewhere argued, arguably, guardians, too, of the state of religious life (Gearon, 2018). There is retained here, in the Enlightenment heartlands, however, at least a tacit marginalisation of Christianity of which Rousseau might well approve. When the European Constitution was formulated, the Enlightenment principles of reason and technocratic rationalism in governance were predominated. There is no recognition of the Christian heritage, as the Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, then Pope Benedict XVI, had lamented in discussing Europe as a ‘crisis of cultures’. The tensions between the rationality of Enlightenment and revelation of Christianity are, as we see in Cardinal Ratzinger’s dialogue with Jurgen Habermas, not entirely opposed, there are pressing needs for accommodation, but the two are, in Europe at least, part of the ‘dialectics of secularization’ (Ratzinger & Habermas, 2007). Added to this is the increasing cultural diversity of the continent, the argument being that Europe is now a more diverse populace and that to highlight one tradition over another, even in historical terms, would detract from the very inclusivity of Europe’s political principles of pluralism and tolerance. Weltanschauung’s emergence, seen in holistic terms, thus needs to be delineated not simply by intellectual shifts of the philosophical Enlightenment but by political revolutions of the same era. Indeed, many of the philosophical freedoms – particularly to critique religion – were themselves facilitated by political events which enshrined in new constitutions the rights of citizens. Civil and political rights were unarguably thus as equally framed by philosophical freedoms as by the liberties engendered by political revolution. Maintaining these new systems of thought and governance was at the core as educational as it was institutionally or politically systemic. The contemporary civil religion of secular state religious education State religious education in the twenty-first century thus finds itself as an integral part of a complex continuum, one of deep-seated intellectual and political roots, but one that can be defined as a ‘worldviews watershed’ (Gearon, Kuusisto, Poulter, Toom, & Ubani, 2022). It is local and national but it is increasingly global (see Berglund, Shanneik, & Bocking, 2016). In simple terms, the word ‘worldviews’ is now increasingly surfacing in the policy documentation of religious education, certainly in the UK. This is a terminological shift, a

Worldviews and World Government 27 suggested move to change the subject name from religious education (and there have been already multiple variants on this over the past several decades) to ‘religion and worldviews’ education. Noting the prior sketch of the aetiology of ‘worldviews’ in western European intellectual and political history, we can at the very least argue that the development represents more than a linguistic turn. The nomenclature is as political as it is epistemological. It is evident from a brisk highlighting of key passages in a high-profile 2018 UK publication, the Final Report of the Commission on Religious Education, Religion and Worldviews: the way forward. A national plan for RE. The proposals therein advocate a ‘national entitlement’ for the subject, one that ‘reflects a new and inclusive vision for the subject, fully embracing the diversity and richness of religious and non-religious worldviews’. The Commission drew on a wide-ranging evidence base for its conclusions, including ‘a wide-range of concerned parties including pupils, teachers, lecturers, advisers, parents and faith and belief communities’. And in the Commission Report, ‘worldview’ is quite explicitly identified with the precise intellectual (though not political) heritage, as ‘a translation of the German Weltanschauung, which literally means a view of the world’. As a policy document, however, it fairly much leaves things at that, a passing reference to Weltanschauung, without an attempt to put the term’s emergence into a philosophical or political context. The Report’s authors expand on the theme in practical terms: A worldview is a person’s way of understanding, experiencing and responding to the world. It can be described as a philosophy of life or an approach to life. This includes how a person understands the nature of reality and their own place in the world. A person’s worldview is likely to influence and be influenced by their beliefs, values, behaviours, experiences, identities and commitments. We use the term ‘institutional worldview’ to describe organised worldviews shared among particular groups and sometimes embedded in institutions. These include what we describe as religions as well as non-religious worldviews such as Humanism, Secularism or Atheism. We use the term ‘personal worldview’ for an individual’s own way of understanding and living in the world, which may or may not draw from one, or many, institutional worldviews. (CoRE, 2018, p. 4) This, the Commission argues, is at the heart of what education itself is for: it ‘is one of the core tasks of education to enable each pupil to understand, reflect on and develop their own personal worldview’. In practical terms, the management of diversity in its sociocultural, ethnic, religious, and other senses is here deemed ‘a whole-school responsibility’ but it is one which is undergirded by ‘the explicit, academic study of worldviews’: Through understanding how worldviews are formed and expressed at both individual and communal levels, the ways in which they have

28  Liam Gearon changed over time, and their influence on the actions of individuals, groups and institutions, young people come to a more refined understanding of their own worldview – whatever this happens to be – as well as those of others. (CoRE, 2018, p. 5) In academic terms, the interdisciplinary requirements are evident (and this mirrors developments in the history of the study of religions): Studying religious and non-religious worldviews gives young people the opportunity to develop the knowledge, understanding and motivation they need to engage with important aspects of human experience including the religious, spiritual, cultural and moral. It provides an insight into the sciences, the arts, literature, history and contemporary local and global social and political issues. (CoRE, 2018, p. 5) Above all, however, as in the intellectual-political debates in figures such as Ratzinger and Habermas (2007), the rise of secularism and secular humanism as a defined (and self-defining) stance has become a conflictual positionality: Non-religious worldviews have also become increasingly salient in Britain and Western Europe. According to the most recent British Social Attitudes survey, over 50% of adults identify as not belonging to a religion, with 41% identifying as Christian. The proportion of adults identifying as not belonging to a religion has increased from 31% in 1983 and has remained fairly stable around 50% since 2009. While some of these individuals may identify with non-religious worldviews such as Humanism, many have looser patterns of identification or do not identify with any institutional worldviews (CoRE, 2018, p. 5) It will be interesting to read and compare the statistics from the UK’s forthcoming Census. The Commission has found some additional support, with a 2020 Theos report, Worldviews in Religious Education (Cooling, Bowie, & Panjwani, 2020), reiterating the Commission’s conclusions. Again, without tracing in too much depth the aetiology of Weltanschauung, the authors assert that this new nomenclature will be ‘a way of reinvigorating the subject by reframing it with a focus on “worldviews”’ and that a ‘world religions’ approach ‘is no longer fit for purpose’. What is required is a ‘different way of framing how that content is introduced’: The world religions paradigm has served well for many years – but it needs retiring. It is no longer fit for purpose in four important respects.

Worldviews and World Government 29 First, it focuses too much on a narrow spectrum of institutional religious worldviews rather than developing a broader understanding of the role of both organised and personal worldviews in human life. It therefore finds itself forced into an ever-expanding content base that becomes unmanageable as it seeks to accommodate growing diversity. Second, it perpetuates the struggle between the religious and non-religious communities that jostle to get their version of a worldview onto the curriculum. It does not focus enough on the educational needs of the pupils. Third, it does not engage adequately with the real religion and belief landscape, both in the wider world and amongst the pupils that it should be serving. Fourth, it has never resolved the conundrum as to how to manage the relationship between the knowledge learnt and the pupils’ development, despite decades of using the slogan ‘learning about and learning from religion(s)’. (Cooling et al. 2020, p. 109) As part of the Postgraduate Certificate in Education, I was outlining some of these historical-philosophical and policy developments, of particular pertinence to these students as new entrants into the teaching profession. One of my specialist students in religious education, with a strong background in politics and philosophy, asked in this regard an insightful question: ‘Who is behind all of this?’ This question should certainly make one think. It is clear at least for the United Kingdom that the Commission for Religious Education is ‘behind all of this’ but we might look, too, to its funders, and as with all movements in policy, we have its supporters and detractors. The supporters have elaborated theirs most clearly in the Theos report; the detractors are variously assembled in this important collection of writings. More broadly, for myself, it raises an important prompt for us to think about the trajectories of political and philosophical history I have attempted to sketch out. We can here note that the movement of ideas shifts, has shifted, political history, just as political history has shifted ideas. How this relates to current worldview policy developments, particularly in religious education, at least indicates a drift towards a secular orientation. This is apparent at the very least when we look at the aetiology of the word ‘worldview’ itself, an orientation elaborated from the origins of antagonism to religion – and the Christian religion in particular, Protestant and Catholic – is used now in today’s policy to incorporate not only the traditions which it opposed (the traditional beliefs and practices, the lived faith of Christianity, rooted in the knowledge of God’s Revelation, often demeaned in the Enlightenment tradition to the knowledge of ‘the transcendent’) but also all religious traditions. It allocates religious traditions and their secular disavowal (‘religion or belief’) to the same epistemological, moral, ontological and existential ground based on the notions of equality derived from the universality of human rights. This is done in the name of equality and inclusivity. A drive of modern civic history intertwined with education (Heater, 2004), it is a move as legal and political (vis-à-vis the

30  Liam Gearon United Nations and the legal appropriations of such initiatives by its component nation states) as it is epistemological, moral, ontological and existential. For the practicalities of teaching and learning, we can define a three–stage development: firstly, the perceived lack of inclusivity in a state religious education which focused on Christianity (for post-Reformation England, this could never in itself be unproblematic); secondly, the marked shift, from the 1970s onwards towards a phenomenological inclusivity of ‘world religions’ (the editor of this volume has been amongst the most astute critics of the problematics of phenomenological neutrality); and thirdly, where we are today, with the nascent move towards a ‘religion or belief’ inclusivity, which is called ‘worldviews’. Conclusion We might well tend, or be inclined, to be measured here in our assessments. The inclusivity of worldviews is an initiative not yet enshrined in any legislative context in the United Kingdom at least. Despite its origins in a secularity antagonistically sceptical of Christian religious belief and practice, the worldviews perspective reflects present-day plurality in which – as the CoRE and Theos authors recognise – such traditional religious belief and practice hardly can be said to define the cultural life of the nation state, and certainly not the international world order. There is an intended benevolence here, too, the authorial intentions of these reports (‘Who is behind all this?’) to include all, particularly in teaching and learning contexts which are diverse in secular and cultural make-up. Yet such authors are merely part of a now centuries-long, post-Enlightenment swathe of those for whom the religious life is of no epistemological, moral, ontological and existential relevance. Barring, that is, its relevance for studying the persistence of religious belief and practice amongst those for whom it remains of epistemological, moral, ontological, and existential relevance. The puzzle for the secularist is in this persistence of religious belief and practice. Seemingly taking heart from the apparent decline in such religious belief and practice amongst the young (in the UK context at least), the worldviews conundrum is a practical solution for teaching and learning, particularly in religious education. This, though, is in itself hardly unproblematic. In other works, I have at length elaborated on the requirements of a religious education separated from the religious life to elaborate alternate grounds and, as a consequence, the necessity of seeking secular sources for grounding the teaching and learning in religion (Gearon, 2015); on the secularising impact of political agendas dominating religious education (Gearon, 2012, 2013), of the impact of state religious education on the state of the religious life (Gearon & Prud’homme, 2018). So, though one might be inclined to be measured, the implications of such shifts, here to ‘worldviews’, can have impacts which are profound in their contributions to furthering a decline in religious belief and practice.

Worldviews and World Government 31 Yet even in what we may call the natural political order, the secular orientation and trajectory of modern history, there are immense dangers, too, in an inclusivity which can, by deliberation or default, become totalising, conforming through political means legislation for the epistemological, moral, ontological and existential. It is what John Milbank (2006) had once called the ‘secular policing the sublime’. It is plainly evidenced in the history of the twentieth century more than any century of human history, a century dominated by secular, often avowedly atheistic worldviews, a manifestly totalitarian political order defined by genocide (Power, 2010). Modern history from the Enlightenment to the ‘war on terror’ is itself a battle between the oppositions of religion and secularity (Burleigh, 2006, 2007), a war in which religion countered the expectations of secularisation theory in the face even of systematic opposition from totalitarian governance (Casanova, 1994), and which, post-9/11, spawned new literature on religion and politics (Davis, Milbank, & Zizek, 2005; De Vries & Sullivan, 2006; Scott & Cavanaugh, 2004). The blood-ridden backdrop of the twentieth century, which forged our twenty-first, is always the secular anti-religious frame of totalitarianism. It is from this contextual history – fire and ashes - that arises the United Nations. This is the world the United Nations itself would have to come to terms with and which would frame the intended inclusivity of its universal human rights (De Forest, 2004; Gearon, 2003, 2016). The core literature of totalitarianism, ultimately aimed at world governance, I have discussed extensively in many writings, often in conjunction with the broader frame of political influence on religious education, its politicisation and its securitisation (Gearon, 2010a, 2010b, 2012, 2013, 2019a, 2019b, 2020a, 2020b, 2021a, 2021b; Gearon & Prud’homme, 2018; Gearon, Kuusisto, & Musaio, 2019). And always do I keep returning to these core texts of apocalyptic warning: in aftermath of the Second World War was Karl Popper’s 1946 The Open Society and Its Enemies (Popper, 2015), a too little read or understood text challenging the nascent issues of controlled societies from Plato’s time to Popper’s Marxist-ascendant present; from the early 1950s is Hannah Arendt’s (2004) The Origins of Totalitarianism, a book tracing these origins in western colonialism and anti-Semitism; the lesser known J. L. Talmon’s (1961) History of Totalitarian Democracy, where the murderous atheistic regimes of the twentieth century are traced in origin to the equality, liberty and fraternity of the eighteenth-century French Revolution, its precedence in other delineations of French anti-clericalism (again, Réville, 1905), mirrored, too, in Spain (Preston, 2015); Isaiah Berlin’s ‘Two Concepts of Liberty’ (Berlin, 1958), which warns more than any of this works, and most concisely, of the dangers of a ‘positive liberty’ wherein those who think they know best impose their ideas on the rest. There is, too, the wider literature on totalitarianism: Friedrich and Brzezinski’s (1967) Totalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy; Roberts’ (2006) The Totalitarian Experiment in Twentieth Century Europe: Understanding the Poverty of Great Politics; Schapiro’s (1972) Totalitarianism; and Isaac’s (2003)

32  Liam Gearon ‘Critics of Totalitarianism’. Between the 1920s and 1930s, Carl Schmidt’s Political Theology and Eric Voegelin’s notional framing of the ‘political religions’, of ‘modernity without restraint’ (Henningsen, 1999), had seen it all coming. Wolin’s (2008) Democracy Inc: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism was amongst to see the avowed dangers of the seeming benevolence of an all-controlling world governance today. When global governance (OECD/PISA, 2018) pivots around the measurement and control of the cultural through education, these are markings of a politics that know no limits to its prospective extension. I mark here, too, then, only some initial thoughts on this notional development of worldviews and world government, to me the continuing signs, though, of the consolidation of the contemporary civil religion of secular state religious education. References Amor, A. (2001). The role of religious education in the pursuit of tolerance and nondiscrimination. Paper presented at the United Nations International Consultative Conference on School Education in Relation with Freedom of Religion and Belief, Tolerance, and Non-Discrimination. AoC (2023). United Nations Alliance of Civilizations. Accessed 23 March 2023 at United Nations Alliance of Civilizations, UNAOC. Arendt, H. (2004). The origins of totalitarianism. New York, NY: Schocken Books. Berglund, J., Shanneik, Y., & Bocking, B. (Eds.). (2016). Religious education in a global-local world. Berlin: Springer. Burleigh, M. (2006). Earthly powers: Religion and politics in Europe from the Enlightenment to the Great War. London: Harper Perennial. Burleigh, M. (2007). Sacred causes: The clash of religion and politics from the Great War to the War on Terror. London: HarperCollins. Casanova, J. (1994). Public religions in the modern world. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press. Cooling, T., Bowie, B., & Panjwani, F. (2020). Worldviews in religious education. London: Theos. CoRE (2018). Religion and worldviews. London: Commission on Religious Education. Retrieved from https://www.commissiononre.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/ 2018/09/Final-Report-of-the Commission-on-RE.pdf Davis, C., Milbank, J., & Zizek, S. (2005). Theology and the political: The new debate. Durham: Duke University Press. Davis, D., & Miroshnikova, E. (Eds.). (2017). The Routledge international handbook of religious education. London: Routledge. De Forest, J. (2004). Editor’s review the human rights handbook: a global perspective for education by Liam Gearon. Harvard Educational Review, Fall 2004, 340–345. Retrieved from http://www.hepg.org/her/abstract/47 De Vries, H., & Sullivan, L. (2006). Political theologies: Public religions in a post-secular world. New York, NY: Fordham University Press. Droogers, A., & van Harskamp, A. (Eds.). (2020). From religious studies to worldview studies. Sheffield: Equinox. Friedrich, C. J., & Brzezinski, Z. (1967). Totalitarian dictatorship and autocracy. New York, NY: Praeger.

Worldviews and World Government 33 Gadamer, H. G. (2004). Truth and method. London: Continuum. Gearon, L. (2021a). The totalitarian imagination revisited: State religious education at the ‘Worldviews’ Watershed. In Z. Gross (Ed.), Reimagining the landscape of religious education: Challenges and opportunities. New York, NY: Springer. Gearon, L. (2021b). The global state church: The international securitization of religion in Education. In S. Holzer (Ed.), The Palgrave handbook of church and state. New York, NY: Palgrave. Gearon, L. (2020a). Lessons from dystopia: Critiquing notions of enlightenment and progress in educational reform and social in modernisation of education and social governance (pp. 166–170). Oxford Prospects and Global Development Institute Regent’s Park College, Oxford China Academy of Social Management Beijing Normal University Development. Gearon, L. (2020b). Lessons from dystopia: The security of nations and the securitized citizen. In A. Peterson, et al. (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of citizenship and education. London: Palgrave. Gearon, L. (2019a). The politicisation and securitisation of religion in education: A response to a rejoinder. In M. L. Pirner, J. Lahnemann, W. Haussmann, & S. Schwarz (Eds.), Public theology perspectives on religion and education (pp. 211–227). New York, NY: Routledge. Gearon, L. (2019b). Human rights RIP: Critique and possibilities for human rights literacies. In C. Roux, & A. Becker (Eds.), Human rights literacies: Future directions. New York, NY: Springer. Gearon, L. (2018). Paradigm shift in religious education: A reply to Jackson, or why religious education goes to war. Journal of Beliefs and Values, 38(3), 358–378. Gearon, L. (2016). Global human rights. In A. Peterson, R. Hattam, M. Zembylas, & J. Arthur (Eds.), The Palgrave international handbook of education for citizenship and social justice (pp. 205–228). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Gearon, L. (2015). On holy ground: The theory and practice of religious education. London and New York: Routledge. Gearon, L. (2014). MasterClass in religious education. London: Bloomsbury. Gearon, L. (2013). The King James Bible and the politics of religious education. Religious Education, 108(1), 9–27. Gearon, L. (2012). European religious education and European civil religion. British Journal of Educational Studies, 60(2), 151–169. Gearon, L. (2010a). Which community, whose cohesion? Community cohesion and religious education: From revolutionary democracy to liberal autocracy. In M. Grimmitt (Ed.), Religious education and social and community cohesion (pp. 106–130). Great Wakering: McCrimmons. Gearon, L. (2010b). The totalitarian imagination: Religion, politics and education. In M. De Sousa, G. Durka, K. Engebretson, & L. Gearon (Eds.), International handbook of inter-religious education (pp. 933–947). New York, NY: Springer. Gearon, L. (2003). The human rights handbook: A global perspective for education. Sterling, VA: Trentham, 181p. Gearon, L., Kuusisto, A., & Musaio, M. (2019). The origins and ends of human rights education: Enduring problematics, 1948-2018’ In L. Di Donato & E. Grimi (Eds.), Metaphysics of human Rights 1948-2018. On the occasion of the 70th anniversary of the UDHR. New York, NY: Vernon Press. Gearon, L., Kuusisto, A., Poulter, S., Toom, A., & Ubani, M. (Eds.). (2022). Religion and worldviews in education: The new watershed. London: Routledge.

34  Liam Gearon Gearon, L., & Prud’homme, J. (2018). State religious education and the state of the religious life. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock. Gifford, M. (2023). The Gifford lectures. Accessed 20 March 2023 at Friedrich Max Müller - The Gifford Lectures Gundersen, O. (2002). Humboldt: Grammatical form and “Weltansicht”. In M. Gustafsson & L. Hertzberg (Eds.), The practice of language (pp. 51–75). Amsterdam: Kluwer. Guyer, P., & Wood, A. (Eds.). (1992). The Cambridge edition of the works of Immanuel Kant. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Heater, D. (2004). Citizenship: The civic ideal in world history, politics and education. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Hegel, G. W. F. (2019). The phenomenology of spirit. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Henningsen, M. (1999). Modernity without restraint: The political religions (collected works of Eric Voegelin Volume 5). Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press. Houlgate, S. (2012). Hegel’s ‘phenomenology of spirit’: A reader’s guide. London: Bloomsbury. Huntington, S. (1995). The clash of civilizations and the remaking of the world order. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Isaac, J. C. (2003). Critics of totalitarianism. In T. Ball, & P. Bellamy (Eds.), The Cambridge history of twentieth century thought (pp. 181–201). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jackson, R. (2015). Misrepresenting religious education’s past and present in looking forward: Gearon using Kuhn’s concepts of paradigm, paradigm shift and incommensurability. Journal of Beliefs and Values, 36(1), 64–78. Kant, I. (1784). ‘An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?’ (Was ist Äufklarung?) 30 September, 1784, accessed 3 November 2021 at Kant’s essay What is Enlightenment? (mnstate.edu). Kearney, R. (1984). Richard Kearney’s (1984) movements in European philosophy. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Kroner, R. [1914] (1956). Kant’s Weltanschauung, translated by John E. Smith. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Lewin, D. (2017). Who’s afraid of secularisation? Reframing the debate between Gearon and Jackson. British Journal of Educational Studies, 65(5), 445–460. Makkreel, R. A. (2020). Wilhelm Dilthey. Retrieved November 3, 2021 from https:// plato.stanford.edu/entries/dilthey/ Makkreel, R. A., & Rodi, F. (Eds.). (2019). Wilhelm Dilthey: Selected works, ethical and world-view philosophy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Marx, K. (1844). ‘Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right’, accessed 3 November 2021 (marxists.org). Mascolo, M. (2014). ‘Worldview’. Encyclopedia of Critical Psychology. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5583-7_480. Milbank, J. (2006). Theology and social theory: Beyond secular reason (2nd ed.). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. OECD/PISA (2018). Global Competence Framework. Retrieved from https://www. oecd.org/pisa/Handbook-PISA-2018-Global-Competence.pdf Pals, D.L. (2021). Ten theories of religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Popper, K. (2015). The open society and its enemies. London: Routledge.

Worldviews and World Government 35 Power, S. (2010). A problem from hell: America and the age of genocide. London: Flamingo. Preston, J. (2015). The Spanish holocaust: Inquisition and extermination in twentiethcentury Spain. London: Harper. Ratzinger, J. C. (2005). Europe in the crisis of cultures. Communio, 32. Retrieved from theway.org.uk Ratzinger, J. C., & Habermas, J. (2007). The dialectics of secularization: On reason and religion. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. Rawls, J. (2001). The law of peoples. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press. Réville, J. (1905). Anticlericalism in France. The American Journal of Theology, IX(4), 605–620. Rohlf, M. (2020). Immanuel Kant, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, accessed 3 November 2021 (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Roberts, D. (2006). The totalitarian experiment in twentieth century Europe: Understanding the poverty of great politics. London: Routledge. Rousseau, J.-J. (2014). The social contract. Retrieved November 3, 2021 from https:// www.gutenberg.org/files/46333/46333-0.txt Sánchez, J. M. (1987). The Spanish civil war as a religious tragedy. Notre Dame: Notre Dame University Press. Schapiro, L. (1972). Totalitarianism. London: Macmillan. Schlesinger, S. C. (2003). Act of creation: The founding of the United nations. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Scott, P., & Cavanaugh, W. T. (Eds.). (2004). The Blackwell companion of political theology. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Simmel, G. (2007). Kant and Goethe: ‘On the history of the modern Weltanschauung’. Theory, Culture & Society, 24(6), 159–191. Taliaferro, C. (2019). ‘Philosophy of Religion’. Retrieved November 3, 2021 from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philosophy-religion/ Talmon, J. L. (1961). History of totalitarian democracy. London: Mercury Books. Taves, A., Asprem, E., & Ihm, E. (2018). Psychology, meaning making, and the study of worldviews: Beyond religion and non-religion. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 10(3), 207–217. https://doi.org/10.1037/rel0000201 Taves, A. (2020). ‘From religious studies to worldview studies’. Religion, 50(1), 137–147. UNESCO/Ade-Ajayi, J., Bouma, G., El Kashef, A. O., Gearon, L., Gundara, J., Jeitani, C. … Soudein, C. (2007). UNESCO guidelines on intercultural understanding. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved November 3, 2021 from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ ark:/48223/pf0000147878 Underhill, J. W. (2009). Humboldt, worldview and language. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Wolin, S. S. (2008). Democracy Inc: Managed democracy and the specter of inverted totalitarianism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Wyschogrod, E. (1990). Spirit in ashes: Hegel, Heidegger, and man-made mass death. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Yale (2021). The Avalon project: Documents in law, history, diplomacy (yale.edu)

3

Losing (One’s) Religion? Pragmatist Reflections on Pluralism, Secularism, and Worldview Education Sami Pihlström

Introduction My aim in this chapter is to investigate the complex phenomenon of losing (one’s) religious faith, both as a general philosophical topic and as something that needs to be taken seriously in “worldview education”. The issue can be introduced by quoting the title of a famous song from the early 1990s by the American rock band R.E.M., “Losing my religion”. In addition to this popular piece, the character of a religious person – for example, a clergyman – losing their faith is centrally present in, for example, well-known films directed by Ingmar Bergman, as well as in literary fiction, such as Miguel de Unamuno’s novel, Saint Emmanuel the Good, Martyr (1930), whose main character chooses not to inform his parishioners about his loss of faith in immortality in order to protect the poor people’s religious sentiments, which, for many, are their only source of hope. Historically, the problem is, presumably, as old as the concept of religious faith itself, and it is hardly surprising that it has also received interesting artistic articulations.1 In a sense, it seems obvious that one cannot lose anyone else’s religion but only one’s own – though one could in principle lose someone else’s property, or engage in actions resulting in its getting lost, and presumably in this sense one could be an active agent in a process leading to the loss of another person’s religious views, too. The deeper question I will examine is this: does a religious faith or outlook have to be, more philosophically speaking, mine in order for me to be able to lose it, and if so, in what sense exactly? That is, do I have to be genuinely religious – whatever that more specifically means – for a loss of faith to be so much as possible in my life? What, indeed, does it mean to possess or lose a religious outlook?2 Can the process be described as (primarily or even exclusively) an epistemic one, or is it (also) an irreducibly ethical one? We will investigate this set of issues, which clearly have tremendous educational significance, by first drawing some important distinctions – and then hopefully overcoming them. As will emerge in the course of the discussion, my reflections on this topic will yield an indirect argument for a pragmatist approach in the philosophy of religion (as well as, by extension, in the study of religious and worldview education) because I will suggest that it is (only) from DOI: 10.4324/9781003265696-4

Losing (One’s) Religion? 37 a pragmatist point of view that the process of losing one’s religion is comprehensively accountable as an epistemic-cum-ethical transformation of a person engaging in religious practices (or habits of action, to use one of the classical pragmatists’ favorite expressions). However, the problem of losing one’s faith has not been adequately studied in pragmatist philosophy of religion. Therefore, this chapter also hopes to expand the scope of that philosophical approach.3 It is in the pluralistic spirit of pragmatism (see also, e.g., Pihlström, 2023, chapter 3) that I am proposing to include this “negative” issue of loss on our philosophical (as well as, e.g., political and educational) agenda. The topic is educationally relevant especially because any serious (religious or secular) worldview education must, as a condition of its very possibility, be genuinely open to a plurality of possible outcomes, including the potential loss of the educated person’s earlier religious or secular worldview. Otherwise, the educational process is hardly the kind of serious personal transformation one would hope to achieve by engaging in educational activities in the first place. This also needs to be recognized when developing educational institutions enabling and supporting individuals’ personal religious and worldview-related transformations, but more specific explorations of such institutional questions must be left to specialists in education. One meta-level motivation for our topic is the fact that the philosophy of religion has too strongly focused on investigating the more “positive” question about the kinds of reasons – epistemic or non-epistemic – that we might have for holding or embracing religious beliefs. The “negative” questions concerning the giving up of, or losing, one’s religious beliefs have not received equal attention among serious philosophers of religion, even though such questions could be seen as highly relevant to the philosophy of religion, just as much as analogous negative questions are relevant, for example, in moral philosophy, where evil is arguably as important as goodness as a topic of discussion. Militant atheism – or “new atheism”, as it is generally known today – argues, apologetically, that all religious beliefs ought to be given up, or lost. A person who failed to abandon their religious beliefs would be irrational; losing one’s religious faith is something to be expected as a result of scientific education and enculturation. However, this is not the kind of sincere discussion of losing one’s religion that I am interested in. This chapter is fundamentally opposed to apologetics of any kind, whether pro-religious or anti-religious. Both religious conservatives and aggressive atheists know in advance what the correct view is; therefore, their accounts of how we ought to develop our belief systems are not genuinely educational at all, as they lack the kind of openness toward a plurality of possible outcomes that, in my view, characterizes any sincere attempt at critical and self-critical reflection on religious outlooks and worldviews.4 In a pluralistic spirit, I hope to defend a pragmatist way of examining both religious faith and the loss of religious faith as personal (albeit also irreducibly cultural) traits of one’s individual existence that need to be analyzed from a standpoint incorporating epistemic or intellectual as well as ethical

38  Sami Pihlström and – possibly – irreducibly religious or theological dimensions. We cannot really understand, philosophically, the phenomenon of losing one’s faith unless we understand what it is, or may be, for an individual to have religious faith as a central element of their practices of life, as something that thoroughly characterizes their existence and habits of action. Moreover, we can hardly understand these phenomena at all if our primary purposes are apologetic. As has sometimes been remarked, people never come as close to losing their faith as they do when desperately clinging to it – and engagement in apologetics may be seen as a form of such ultimately self-deceptive desperation. Instead of succumbing to the temptations of apologetics, we should seek a critical (and selfcritical) understanding of what it means to hold and lose religious faith, and my suggestion in this chapter is that this understanding can be best achieved by approaching these issues from a pragmatist standpoint – a standpoint that I find inherently anti-apologetic (see Pihlström, 2021, 2023). It is to this firm rejection of any apologetic attitude that a truly pluralist worldview education should, in my view, transform us all. I will first briefly introduce several important conceptual distinctions that help us, I hope, in getting a grip on the topic. I will then sketch and defend my pragmatist perspective on the issue. Individual and cultural levels Let me begin with an obvious distinction: the question of losing religion may be examined at an individual (personal) level or at a socio-cultural (collective) level. In the latter case, we can talk about, for example, the secularization processes of (particularly) Western liberal democratic societies that were once dominated by a relatively homogeneous Christian outlook or cultural hegemony but have gradually liberated themselves from such a hegemony. Secularization as a cultural and historical topic has been discussed voluminously, primarily by historians and social scientists, but also from a philosophical perspective and in close connection with the concept of disenchantment (Entzauberung) initially formulated by Max Weber (see, e.g., Joas, 2017; Taylor, 2007), and I will avoid entering that well-explored territory here.5 Rather, in the spirit of William James’ strong individualism, as expressed in his The Varieties of Religious Experience (see James, 1958 [1902]), in particular, we may find the personal, or even “existential”, level of investigation primary for our philosophical concerns here. Whether a person is able to maintain their religious faith or whether they lose it, or actively abandon it, is a matter that concerns the life of that particular person at the deepest existential level. Their entire life, or in religious terms their salvation, the fate of their soul, is at stake. However, an individual religious believer – or non-believer, for that matter – is inevitably always an individual in a social context. Jamesian individualism may go too far and be unable to take this embeddedness of individuals in societies and cultures sufficiently seriously (cf. Taylor, 2002). Yet, it should also be noted that James’ “The Will to Believe” (1979 [1897]), when explicating the

Losing (One’s) Religion? 39 criteria for a “genuine option” in one’s religious (or other existential) outlooks of life, does suggest that whether a certain kind of faith is a “live” option for a person depends on that person’s tradition, culture, and upbringing.6 Accordingly, even James may not be as naively individualist as has sometimes been supposed. For example, if I were to consider adopting a religious set of beliefs, only Christian beliefs (and perhaps more narrowly only Protestant and Lutheran ones) would be “live options” for me, given my contingent cultural and educational background. It would not be technically impossible for me to join a Muslim community, for instance, but such an option would be practically (and, again, existentially) closed and “dead” for me, given who I am. If I did embrace such an option, after all, it would, I suppose, redefine me in a manner qualitatively different from the process of self-transformation that would take place if I were to simply embrace a Christian faith. Conversely, our religious and educational backgrounds constrain the ways in which giving up a certain religious outlook is a genuine option for us in our lives. Furthermore, James’ (1975 [1907], Lecture I) notion of an individual “philosophical temperament” – for whose development we need to take full ethical and intellectual responsibility – is highly valuable when we are looking for philosophically adequate conceptual equipment for examining the problem of losing religious faith. There may be irreducible temperamental differences between individuals’ ways of responding to, for example, various crises of life that may, or may not, lead to a loss of religious belief (or to other transformations of their worldviews). Such a loss is inevitably temperament-relative, but from a Jamesian perspective, this does not mean that we would just be governed by the authority of whatever temperament we contingently have; on the contrary, crises and transformations may play a crucial role in our ongoing practice of critically developing our philosophical temperaments. Active and passive loss The second obvious distinction can be drawn between one’s actively or voluntarily giving up one’s religious faith and one’s passively or involuntarily losing it through a process that one did not intentionally initiate oneself. On the more positive side of acquiring religious (or other) faith, this would correspond to the distinction between a person’s embracing a religious outlook and their just “growing into it” through receiving a certain religious education, for example. Similarly, one may decide to reject one’s religion or one may just grow out of it through a gradual (e.g., educational) process.7 This may, however, not be as profound a distinction as it might initially seem. Omissions can be active, too. Growing out of certain activities, such as regular church attendance, may result from one’s actively deciding to engage in other activities that take the place of the former in one’s life. One may also simply continue to live a life of faith without actively or even consciously deciding to do so, or one may decide to just let such an outlook fade out from one’s life. Again, it is a matter of utmost importance in religious education,

40  Sami Pihlström and more generally worldview education, how exactly these alternatives are conceptualized, explicated, and made available (as genuine options) to the young, in particular. One has to understand what it is to live a religious life in order to be able to genuinely lose that life, either actively or passively. A certain kind of passivity in one’s loss of religion can be naturally characterized in terms of Wittgenstein-inspired philosophers’ accounts of the inseparability of religious faith and the believer’s personal and existential life. D. Z. Phillips (1993, p. 126), one of the most prominent thinkers in the Wittgensteinian tradition, describes this by using Wittgenstein’s famous concept of a picture.8 When an individual’s attention “has been won over” by, for example, a rival secular picture or mere “worldliness”, the religious picture that was previously “powerful in his life” will have “lost its grip”. Interestingly, Phillips notes that it is precisely when “the old [viz., genuinely religious] force of the picture is lost” that the picture takes a more literal – and therefore superstitious – form (ibid.). Note the passive tone of the discussion: it is the pictures themselves (which, after all, “have a life of their own”) that seem to be the agents of the process, and the believer does not “measure the pictures” but is measured by them (ibid., p. 127). This could, from a Wittgensteinian perspective, be regarded as a “grammatical” rule of understanding what religious pictures are, and what their place in a religious person’s life is. Importantly, a picture may, according to Phillips, die in a culture precisely because believing in it is not isolated from its cultural surroundings – that is, other cultural practices that believers engage in (ibid., p. 129).9 When a person has lost a certain religious picture, something has indeed died out, and nothing can as such replace the picture, precisely because the picture “is not a picturesque way of saying something else”; it “says what it says” (ibid., p. 128). While pictures and language-games are standard expressions for the processes of both embracing and losing faith in the Wittgensteinian tradition, pragmatists usually prefer to talk about practices and habits. Pragmatist philosophers of religion, in particular, should be well equipped to take seriously the view, formulated by Charles S. Peirce and William James, that our beliefs about the world, religious ones included, are quite literally habits of action.10 Losing religious belief is, then, equivalent to losing certain habits that generally characterize one’s life, which typically takes place simultaneously with one’s acquisition of new habits. This can be taken to be a process of continuous holistic development, or rather (at least attempted) amelioration, of our habits of action. Religion is hardly lost (or acquired) in order for one to live a worse life than one lived earlier; it is lost (or acquired) in order for the person to ameliorate their life. But then such transformations must also be evaluated in terms of the kinds of (actual or potential) changes in the person’s life they (may) give rise to. Such a pragmatic evaluation of how religious activities and outlooks matter to us, that is, how they make a difference (positively or negatively) in our lives, is crucial in any pragmatist philosophy of religion. Furthermore, it is important to observe that habits themselves are in a sense both active and passive. Engaging in a habit, I am not deciding over and over

Losing (One’s) Religion? 41 again to commit a certain (individual) action, but I am naturally (indeed, habitually) engaging in a series of similar, repeatable actions that form a general pattern in my life. Yet, I remain conscious of the possibility of always choosing anew, of giving my life a different shape. One of the advantages of a pragmatist analysis of our religious and doxastic lives, as well as their educational transformations, is precisely this integration of the general or habitual with the more concrete and particular, even sudden.11 Epistemic and ethical perspectives The third distinction that needs to be emphasized – and overcome – is the one between epistemic and ethical (or, more generally, ethico-existential) ways of dealing with the issue of losing one’s religion. From the perspective of mainstream analytic philosophy of religion, both hard-boiled evidentialism and reformed epistemology, associated with leading thinkers like Richard Swinburne and Alvin Plantinga, respectively, losing one’s religion – which for these theistic philosophers would be highly unfortunate and irrational – would presumably have to be primarily based on one’s finding the epistemic credentials of religious beliefs (understood as propositional beliefs) weaker than one initially found them (when still committed to those beliefs). Here religious faith is seen as a primarily epistemic matter (see, e.g., Plantinga, 2000). What it is to have religious faith is, according to most analytic philosophers of religion, to possess propositional beliefs about the ways the world is, including the belief that God exists, and on this scheme losing such beliefs is a matter of coming to maintain that they are false or at least poorly warranted, after all, that is, coming to drop them from one’s belief system (assuming that to believe something to be the case is to maintain that it is true). To understand the loss of religion as a primarily or exclusively epistemic matter is to understand having faith as a matter of believing certain propositions to be true. For example, one’s religious beliefs might be dependent on one’s having come to believe that one or another traditional demonstration of God’s existence is sound, or perhaps more generally on some other rational considerations that might have been offered in favor of theism within natural theology; when one ceases to believe so, the religious faith depending on such demonstrations will collapse, too. However, other approaches in contemporary philosophy of religion, particularly the Wittgenstein-inspired tradition developed by Phillips (1993), famously reject such a propositional and epistemic account of religious faith in the first place, finding it far too narrow to capture what is significant in religious people’s ways of thinking and living. From a Wittgensteinian perspective, a person’s losing their religious faith is not at all a matter of their ceasing to be committed to the truth of certain propositional beliefs, or their no longer maintaining that those beliefs are epistemically justified, but a change in the ways they see the world in general, a change in their entire worldviews or the defining “pictures” they employ in their world-viewing. In short, one’s

42  Sami Pihlström losing one’s faith is a fundamental change in one’s life, not merely in the propositions one contingently takes to be true (or justified to believe). In terms of Wittgenstein’s On Certainty (1969), such a transformation could be regarded as a change in the practice-embedded “hinges” that constrain and enable using language meaningfully at all and thus our engaging with the world generally. Our losing our religious belief would be a matter of our learning to look at the world differently, to start using (or, rather, presupposing) different “hinges” as guiding our ways of dealing with the world we live in, and thus to come to employ an entirely different conceptual machinery for articulating our experiences.12 Such changes could, according to Wittgensteinian philosophers, be triggered by an indefinite number of different reasons. In general, at least in typical cases they emerge as results of changes in one’s life practices, rather than changes in one’s belief systems merely. Experiences of life are said to “teach” us new ways of viewing the world, to educate us into, or out of, the use of certain concepts, for instance. Alternatively, we may say that to have a system of beliefs at all is already to have a certain (form of) life, or to be engaged in a form of life. When that life changes, the beliefs as well as the concepts we employ for expressing those beliefs change, too. The question concerning the loss of faith is, then, obviously, inseparable from the question of what it is to have faith or religious beliefs. Mere behavior is (for my purposes here) relatively uninteresting, but faith cannot be reduced to mere propositional attitudes, either. The pragmatist notion of a habit of action is crucial here enabling a sufficiently rich account of the doxastic-cum-behavioral character of both faith and its losses. Just as one can grow out of one’s habits, one can grow into new ones. From the pragmatist perspective, it is vitally important that whatever one does in developing one’s habits, one must never – to quote Peirce’s famous dictum – block the way of inquiry. Our critical transformation of our self-understanding as religious believers or as secular thinkers disengaged from religion must always be based on a serious attempt to inquire into how we (ought to) view the world and ourselves.13 Holistic pragmatism My basic proposal at this point is that when we look at the matter from the point of view of pragmatist philosophy of religion (without necessarily being committed to any particular pragmatists’, even James’, specific ideas), we can critically overcome the above-described dichotomies between the individual and the socio-cultural, the active and the passive, and the epistemic and the ethical (or ethico-existential). Moreover, we can, at the meta-level, overcome the conflict between analytic philosophy of religion, which tends to conceptualize one’s having and losing one’s faith as primarily or exclusively propositional, on the one side, and Wittgensteinian and other non-propositional accounts of (again both having and losing of) religious belief, on the other. As William James himself repeatedly emphasized (e.g., in James, 1975 [1907],

Losing (One’s) Religion? 43 Lecture I), pragmatism offers a critical middle ground in many philosophical controversies that would otherwise remain unresolved. From a pragmatist perspective, in brief, one’s losing (one’s) faith is a process that an individual inevitably goes through, by both actively deciding and being passively transformed, as a member of a culture or a society, or (in Wittgensteinian terms) a form of life – defined in a way or another by its relation to historically changing religious and non-religious outlooks – as well as a process having both epistemic and ethical elements, even to the extent that those elements are deeply entangled in the irreducibly existential process. It is a process that the person actively engages in but also something that s/he lives through. Both epistemic and ethical aspects of losing one’s faith require both activity and passivity. There is, moreover, no way of sharply separating the ethical component from the epistemic one or vice versa; in this sense, my broadly pragmatist discussion is intended as a criticism of some of the fundamental assumptions in analytic philosophy of religion in particular. At the same time, I do not agree with those radical Wittgensteinian views that would deny the legitimate presence of any epistemic element in these processes in the first place (while definitely agreeing with, for example, Phillips about the essentially non-apologetic way in which philosophy of religion ought to be pursued). The apologetic character of most contributions to analytic philosophy of religion in our times – apologetic, that is, in either a pro-religious or an anti-religious sense – leads our discussions of religion seriously astray, and especially when it comes to understanding the complex dialectics between embracing (or continuing to maintain) religious faith and losing faith, such apologetic attitude is positively harmful and ought to be abandoned by a serious thinker. A highly useful pragmatist way of considering how religion might be lost in the critical process of evaluating it with respect to one’s life, a process that is not reducible to either epistemic or ethical considerations merely, is captured by Hilary Putnam’s (1997) metaphor of a “laboratory of life”. This is the comprehensive existential and practical “laboratory” where religious beliefs are pragmatically “tested” or “experimented with”. It is not a scientific research laboratory but a complex set of practices of living and ways of viewing the world, both individually and socially.14 Yet, the pragmatic process of testing is not non-epistemic. One way of spelling out what Putnam could be taken to mean by the metaphor of the laboratory of life is by interpreting this notion in the sense of Morton White’s (2002) holistic pragmatism (see also Pihlström, 2021). Our system of beliefs, religious beliefs included, can be regarded as a complex network of both factual and normative commitments, inevitably tested as a holistic totality. Our losing religious beliefs ought to be understood as such a holistic process. On the basis of holistic pragmatism, there is no need to view the processes of acquiring and maintaining, or losing, one’s beliefs as either purely epistemic or purely non-epistemic (at least not in any narrow sense of “epistemic”). Such dichotomies are simply misleading, as is the one between factual (descriptive) and normative (prescriptive) beliefs, if construed

44  Sami Pihlström as an unbridgeable gulf among certain elements of our belief systems. These, in White’s words, constitute a “seamless web”.15 According to White, when revising our normative beliefs about what ought to be done, for instance, we may, in order to accommodate the relevant ethical elements of our experience, find it necessary to modify our factual beliefs – or vice versa. Therefore, an ethical need to adjust our beliefs to a strongly experienced need to respond to claims of injustice, for example, may legitimately yield a revision in our factual, including religious, beliefs.16 In addition to maintaining that this holistic character of belief-assessment that may lead to one’s maintaining or losing one’s religion needs to be incorporated in both religious and secular worldview education, I would be willing to go as far as to suggest that only pragmatism can adequately deal with this matter by recognizing the profound and inextricable entanglement of the individual and the cultural as well as the epistemic and the ethical levels of discussion. Only pragmatism can genuinely account for the process of losing one’s religion as a process through which an individual in a society both actively launches and passively undergoes a personal as well as cultural transformation whose epistemic and ethical (and more broadly existential) dimensions are, holistically, inseparable from each other. Furthermore, holistic pragmatism can, and should, emphasize the openness of worldview education – that is, its being “non-didactic” while being genuinely educational at the same time – due to a kind of irreducible openness in the holistic assessment process itself. No outcome is predefined in advance of careful practice-guided critical consideration; the philosophical and educational transformation one undergoes is real, yielding genuine novelties in one’s life. Concluding remarks I have argued that the process of losing one’s faith is typically, or even essentially, a process through which one’s entire way of viewing the world may be fundamentally changed. Here, as we have seen, pragmatists can accommodate important insights from the Wittgensteinian philosophy of religion. Losing one’s religion is rarely a process guided by mere theoretical argumentation, nor with the mere activity of one’s own, but something that may happen to the person. It can be a gradual change in one’s practices, for example, a piecemeal educational process within a secularization development in one’s culture, but it can also be a more rapid and sudden change, for example, in dramatic historical circumstances. A pragmatist way of dealing with the loss of faith should, moreover, make sense of the idea of adopting a critical distance to one’s own practices and one’s commitment to them from within them. A continuous self-critical examination of one’s own habits of action – and the commitment to the meta-level habit of ameliorating one’s habits, intellectual or epistemic and ethical alike – is a key element of pragmatist meliorism (as articulated by James, as well as Dewey and many later pragmatists). Arguably, for a genuine (pragmatist) religious believer, the loss of one’s faith is inevitably a very complex process because one

Losing (One’s) Religion? 45 needs to be both inside and outside – maintaining a critical distance to oneself and one’s own practices and beliefs – at the same time. This, however, need not lead to any “schizophrenic” situation or conflict within oneself as long as we keep in mind that a continuous self-critical examination is a key aspect of the pragmatist believer’s (or non-believer’s) habits all the way from the start. To be a self-critical believer is also to be an inquirer and to engage in the habit of constantly critically ameliorating one’s habits of action. The outcome of an educational process can, then, also be a genuine loss. For a secular person in our secular age, the process of seriously losing one’s religious faith – or what one might have hoped for such a faith to be, or become, in one’s life – may be the closest one gets to having a religious experience. Furthermore, as suggested in the context of holistic pragmatism, the process of losing one’s faith can be analyzed as a continuous, even lifelong, process of critical self-transformation. Pragmatist philosophy of religion (and religious education) does not promise us any easy life. Due to its pluralist and antiapologetic character, its educational relevance is striking in our increasingly polarized world. Religious education as well as worldview education in general ought to be developed in the direction of taking fundamentally seriously not only the diversity of our religious and non-religious outlooks but also the need to view others’ outlooks critically, yet in terms of acknowledgment and both intellectual and ethical curiosity. Notes 1 The argument of this chapter is more comprehensively developed in my forthcoming book (Pihlström, 2023; see especially chapter 7). It should be noted that, in addition to the loss of religious faith, it is possible to investigate the loss of one’s commitment to any serious worldview, including non-religious worldviews. On a concept of “worldview studies” wide enough to cover secular worldviews, see Stenmark (2021). My discussion, while remaining at a highly general philosophical level, finds its natural context within the Judaeo-Christian (Western) tradition; it is important to acknowledge that the question of losing one’s religion may look very different from the perspectives of other religious traditions, including Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism, among others. 2 While understanding religious belief or faith as (in a broadly pragmatist sense) habits of action (see below), I am not here interested in the loss of mere ritual behavior patterns or practices but in processes of personal transformation – often based on education – that may yield a loss of one’s sincere commitment to such practices. 3 On pragmatist philosophy of religion generally, see, for some recent contributions, for example, Zackariasson (2015, 2022) and Pihlström (2013, 2020, 2021). 4 This, of course, does not at all mean that there would not be sincere atheists with genuinely educational (and even pragmatist) purposes. For a comprehensive discussion of the varieties of atheism, see Martin (1990). 5 Note, however, that pragmatism offers important perspectives on the debate on disenchantment (and re-enchantment) as well. In addition to Joas (2017), see Pihlström (2021, chapter 4). 6 This by itself underlines the philosophical significance of religious and/or worldview education: it is due to the educational background a person contingently has that they have the live options in their weltanschaulichen decision-making that they do. For pragmatist reflections on religious education in contemporary diversified societies, see, for example, Sutinen, Kallioniemi, and Pihlström (2015).

46  Sami Pihlström 7 A background issue that would have to be settled in order to clarify this distinction is the question concerning doxastic voluntarism. Are beliefs generally under our volitional control, or are they independent of it? James’ above-cited 1897 essay, “The Will to Believe”, defends a form of voluntarism in arguing that in cases of “genuine option” unresolvable by merely intellectual means, we have a right to actively adopt a religious (or other existential) hypothesis at our personal risk, but even James does not embrace any naïve voluntarism according to which we could simply choose at our will what to believe. For some discussion, see Pihlström (2021, chapter 4). 8 According to Wittgenstein (1967), the religious person “uses a picture”, and “the whole weight may be in the picture”. One of the examples discussed by both Wittgenstein and Phillips (1993) is the “picture” of the Last Judgment which may or may not play a role in a person’s life. 9 This demonstrates how far off the mark is the claim that Phillips and other Wittgensteinian philosophers of religion would be simple-minded “language-game relativists” or fideists according to whom there is no way of criticizing religious belief from the outside. Quite the contrary: religious ways of using pictures – and ways of living and acting – are constantly in interaction with our other practices, and they may face various kinds of pressures that may lead to the erosion of our religious pictures, their losing their grip on us. Again, the educational significance of this idea is enormous. For an insightful criticism of the false accusations of Phillips as a straightforward relativist, see Koistinen (2019). 10 I will introduce the pragmatist perspective on the topic of the loss of faith in more detail in due course. 11 Referring to the pragmatist classics again, we might say that a Jamesian will-tobelieve decision (which can, in principle, be directed not only at the acquisition of a religious belief but also at a rejection of one’s religious outlook) can suddenly take place (only) against a Peircean-like generality of the habits of action defining what the genuine options of the existentially choosing individual are. For some discussion of this, see Pihlström (2021, chapter 4). 12 See Pihlström (2020, chapter 5) for my earlier attempt to compare Wittgensteinian and pragmatist accounts of the dependence of the normative structures of our meanings and beliefs on the factual environments of our (forms of) life and practices. 13 While religious practices can enhance such inquiries, they may also hinder them or even stop – due to dogmatism – any attempt at critical self-transformation. But the same is true about dogmatic atheist ideologies as well. The pragmatist philosopher of religion and religious education should take very seriously Dewey’s (1991 [1934]) distinction between historical (dogmatic, supernaturalist) religions and the (natural) religious qualities of experience. See also Sutinen et al. (2015). 14 See Zackariasson (2022) for an insightful investigation of the practice-embedded “goods” of religion (in terms of what Zackariasson calls “melioristic case studies”). 15 This can be seen as an articulation of Putnam’s idea of the fact-value entanglement (see, e.g., Putnam 2002). 16 The educational implications of this type of holism for the critical assessment of, say, conservative religious ideologies should be obvious.

References Dewey, J. (1991 [1934]). A common faith. New Haven, CT and London: Yale University Press. James, W. (1979 [1897]). The will to believe. In F. H. Burkhardt, F. Bowers, & I. K. Skrupskelis (Eds.), The will to believe and other essays in popular philosophy. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press.

Losing (One’s) Religion? 47 James, W. (1958 [1902]). The varieties of religious experience: A study in human nature. New York, NY: New American Library. James, W. (1975 [1907]). Pragmatism: A new name for some old ways of thinking (F. H. Burkhardt, F. Bowers, & I. K. Skrupskelis, Eds.). Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press. Joas, H. (2017). Die Macht des Heiligen: Eine Alternative zur Geschichte von der Entzauberung. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Koistinen, T. (2019). Contemplative philosophy and the problem of relativism. In H. Rydenfelt, M. Bergman, & H. J. Koskinen (Eds.), Limits of pragmatism and challenges of theodicy (pp. 163–173). Helsinki: The Philosophical Society of Finland. Martin, M. (1990). Atheism: A philosophical justification. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Phillips, D. Z. (1993). Wittgenstein and religion. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Pihlström, S. (2013). Pragmatic pluralism and the problem of God. New York, NY: Fordham University Press. Pihlström, S. (2020). Pragmatic realism, religious truth, and antitheodicy: On viewing the world by acknowledging the other. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press. Pihlström, S. (2021). Pragmatist truth in the post-truth age: Sincerity, normativity, and humanism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pihlström, S. (2023). Humanism, antitheodicism, and the critique of meaning in pragmatist philosophy of religion. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Plantinga, A. (2000). Warranted Christian belief. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Putnam, H. (1997). On negative theology. Faith and Philosophy, 14, 407–422. Putnam, H. (2002). The collapse of the fact/value dichotomy and other essays. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press. Stenmark, M. (2021). Worldview studies. Religious Studies, 58(3), 1–19. Sutinen, A., Kallioniemi, A., & Pihlström, S. (2015). Pedagogical transaction in religious education: Diversified society and John Dewey’s philosophy of education. Religious Education, 110, 329–348. Taylor, C. (2002). Varieties of religion today: William James revisited. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press. Taylor, C. (2007). A secular age. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press. White, M. (2002). A philosophy of culture: The scope of holistic pragmatism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Wittgenstein, L. (1967). Lectures and conversations on aesthetics, psychology, and religious belief (C. Barrett, Ed.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Wittgenstein, L. (1969). On certainty (G. E. M. Anscombe, & P. Denis, Trans.). Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Zackariasson, U. (2015). Religion. In S. Pihlström (Ed.), The Bloomsbury companion to pragmatism (pp. 228–237). London and New York: Bloomsbury. Zackariasson, U. (2022). Pragmatic philosophy of religion: Melioristic case studies. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

4

Education on Religion and Worldviews: Perspectives to Child’s Right to Religion Friedrich Schweitzer

Introduction The focus of this chapter is on a particular question, i.e., what does the turn toward worldview education mean concerning the claim that children have a right to religion and religious education? And vice versa, what does the claim that children have a right to religion and religious education mean for the attempt to replace religious education by education on religion and worldviews or, in an abbreviated manner, by worldview education? Focusing on this dual question implies that neither the reasons for children’s right to religion will be developed here in any detail nor will the attempt of replacing religious education by worldview education as set forth, for example, by the (British) Commission on Religious Education (2018), be examined (for critical discussions from my perspective, cf. Schweitzer, 2019a). Instead, after a brief summary of my understanding of children’s right to religion, the analysis will concentrate on how this right may be related to worldview education. It should be understood from the beginning that I fully share the views described in the introduction to the present volume concerning the interest in doing justice to a changing cultural and religious landscape in Europe and beyond, as well as the conviction that education must be inclusive, doing justice to the needs and rights of all children. This implies, among others, that both the multi-religious situation characteristic of more and more countries, for example, in Europe and the increasing number of children and parents without religious affiliation will be in view. The focus on children’s right to religion does not only refer to one particular religion nor does it mean that only religious children – for example, children brought up religiously or with a special interest in religious convictions and traditions – will be in view. Instead, the question will be addressed what this right means concerning all children growing up in today’s situation with its plurality of religions and worldviews. This is also the context of my own research, with kindergartens and schools in Germany (cf. Schweitzer, Wolking, & Boschki, 2020).

DOI: 10.4324/9781003265696-5

Education on Religion and Worldviews 49 Children’s right to religion – A brief summary Given the focus of this chapter, it will not be possible here to discuss different understandings of children’s right to religion or the different reasons which speak for this right in any detail (for respective accounts, see Schweitzer, 2005, 2010, 2016, 2017, 2019b). However, a brief summary of my understanding of this right is needed in order to identify the starting point of the argument concerning worldview and worldview education presented in the following. Children’s right to religion can be viewed legally in terms of children’s rights in general but it can also be understood from the perspective of education. Since children’s right to religion is often overlooked in the discussion on children’s rights today, it makes sense to make the development of children’s rights the starting point. Children’s right to religion as part of children’s rights

Concerning children’s rights, most often the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child (UN Documents, 2022b) is considered the decisive document. Yet especially concerning children’s right to religion it makes sense to follow, at least in an exemplary manner, some of the earlier developments which ultimately led to the 1989 Convention and which shed some light on this Convention concerning children’s right to religion. The first declaration on children’s rights was adopted in 1924 by the League of Nations (UN Documents, 2022a). This declaration was very brief and was limited to five points. The first point reads: The child must be given the means requisite for its normal development, both materially and spiritually. The Geneva Declaration does not refer to ‘religion’ but to ‘spirituality’ which could imply that one should speak of children’s right to spirituality instead of religion today as well. Yet the terms ‘religious’ and ‘spiritual’ and their equivalents in many other languages are hard to delineate and tend to overlap in their use. In any case, it is clear that the Geneva Declaration takes this right quite seriously by making it one of its main points and by putting it at the very beginning of the Declaration’s text. The 1924 Declaration does not explain what is required for the child’s ‘normal development, both materially and spiritually’. There also is no explicit mention of religious education. This is different from the United Nations’ ‘Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief’ from 1981 (UN Documents, 2022c) which states in Article 5.2: Every child shall enjoy the right to have access to education in the matter of religion or belief […].

50  Friedrich Schweitzer In this case, the reference to education is quite explicit: ‘education in the matter of religion or belief’. As pointed out in the introduction to this volume, the word ‘belief’ can be understood here as referring to non-religious worldviews, although the 1981 Declaration is not really clear about this. What is more important in the present context, however, is the clear reference to – in today’s terminology – (religious) ‘education’ which goes beyond the abstract formulation used in the Geneva Declaration. Of course, the reference to religious education does not necessarily mean a school subject but can also refer to other contexts outside of school, although the school subject of religious education also is not excluded by the Declaration. While the 1989 Convention takes up the reference to ‘spiritual development’ and its presuppositions in terms of ‘standard of living’ to be secured for the child, surprisingly it does not repeat the 1981 Declaration’s clear reference to ‘education in the matter of religion or belief’ – a shortcoming to be deplored from the perspective of religious education. Yet the 1989 Convention is quite clear concerning children’s freedom of religion (Article 14.1: ‘the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion’) and also concerning children’s right to education (Article 28: ‘the right of the child to education’) which may be understood to include religious education, even if there is no specific reference to it here. Children’s right to religion as an educational right

While legal developments concerning children’s rights remain important for all education, the educational justification of children’s right to religion is of even more influence, especially in the practice of education. In my own work over the last two decades concerning children’s right to religion, one particular approach concerning this justification has proven to be most convincing. This approach makes the so-called ‘big questions’ the starting point – the big questions which many children raise or which arise for adults working or living with children. Such questions go in different directions but they have in common that all of them require an answer referring to transcendence, at least potentially and again in the case of children. The five questions I want to mention here as examples cannot be fully developed in this chapter (the most extensive description of these questions is found in Schweitzer, 2019b). The first of these questions refers to death and dying. Even if the adults – parents or educators – would prefer, as is often the case today, that the children will not have to deal with this topic at an early age, this can hardly be avoided. Children come upon a dead bird on their way to kindergarten or they learn of the death of a relative of one of their friends or that a beloved relative of their own has died. Then, in many cases, they want to know what this means, ‘dying’ and ‘death’. This question can of course be answered in a purely scientific manner but it seems that many children do not find such detached answers very satisfactory. Instead, they keep asking: ‘Why do people have to die?’ and, most of all, ‘What happens to them after

Education on Religion and Worldviews 51 they die?’ Moreover, that they will ‘go to heaven’ still seems to be a common answer that children may bring home from conversations with their friends, even if their parents never wanted them to think about death in this way. In any case, it seems important for children that there is some kind of assurance concerning what comes after a person has died and that they can have trust in the world – their world – even in the face of death. There also are more explicitly religious examples to be found among children’s ‘big questions’. The most important example has to do with the word ‘God’ which children will encounter, in one way or another, in most countries around the world, even if their parents do not intend to expose them to any kind of religious language or socialization. ‘Who or what is this, God?’ they may then ask. Again, purely rational answers are possible. ‘A human imagination’, ‘A human wish that someone takes care of them’, ‘like a dream’. Yet again, many children do not seem to find such answers helpful. ‘What does God look like?’ ‘Does God ever sleep?’ ‘Can God really hear us when we pray?’ Children can raise complex questions as much as experienced theologians are able to. From an educational point of view, it can be argued that children should not be refused with their questions, even if the adults around them are not religious. They have a right to be heard with all of their questions and longings, their insecurities and fears, and to receive answers which are comforting and which may strengthen their trust in the world. It is in this sense that children’s right to religion and religious education refers to their right to be accompanied in religious or spiritual respects no less than in other respects. Yet nevertheless, sometimes the question is raised if this right would imply that children are obliged to be religious. Children’s right to religion versus the obligation to be religious The claim that children have a right to religion and religious education may be misunderstood to mean that it implies an obligation for children to be religious. Yet it is easy to see that there can be no such obligation, not for adults nor for children. The claim that children have a right to religion and religious education cannot imply any obligation of this kind because such obligations would necessarily infringe upon children’s and parents’ freedom of religion. The 1989 Convention on children’s rights clearly guarantees this freedom to children from early on, even if the respective article also refers to a balance between children’s freedom and parental guidance (Article 14.2: ‘to provide direction to the child in the exercise of his or her right in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child’). Instead of an obligation to be religious, children’s right to religion refers to children’s need for living conditions which allow them to develop ‘spiritually’ as the 1924 declaration puts it. This means that, negatively speaking, their living conditions should not be oppressive or impoverishing so that all their energy has to be spent on material survival, never leaving any room for the spiritual dimension. As is well known, this is not the case for many

52  Friedrich Schweitzer children around the world, even today. Positively speaking, children’s right to religion means that children should find, in their social and physical surroundings, helpful inspirations for thinking about themselves and the world, for example, in terms of the ‘big questions’ mentioned in the preceding section. This requirement may refer to pictures, symbols or books in kindergartens, to music and rituals children encounter at home or wherever. In any case, the world which they encounter and which adults try to offer them for exploration should contain such inspirations which give them occasion for wondering and awe. Moreover, the different religious traditions entail many inspirations that can become important as inspirations for children’s religious or spiritual development – stories, songs, prayers, etc. For educational institutions like, for example, kindergartens, this may also include making possible encounters with special religious places like churches, synagogues, mosques or temples. At the same time, this is one of the points where the question may arise if participation in such encounters should be a special offer for those children only who express a special interest in religious phenomena or if all children should be exposed to such encounters. In this respect, one might argue, on the one hand, that even a visit to a church might be experienced as a religious act that no one should be forced to commit. If this is the attitude of certain parents, it certainly deserves respect. Yet, on the other hand, one of the most fundamental tasks of education is to give children a chance to encounter reality in a broad sense, i.e., to come to know and to understand what phenomena there are to be encountered in the world around them and beyond, and to help them understand what they mean. The second argument which intentionally comes close to an obligation without, however, infringing upon children’s or parents’ freedom of religion implies two additional considerations:

• Since not all possible facets of reality can be covered by education, respec-

tive selections become inevitable. Although there may be disputes if (institutional) religion is really still important today, there can hardly be any doubt that it actually has been important to many people at all times of history and that there are strong religious influences operative in many societies today as well. • Formal education (schools, kindergartens which often are viewed as part of non-formal education) should offer opportunities for children to get to know aspects of reality which children are not likely to encounter in informal education, i.e., among others, in the family. Could this mean that offering children from non-religious homes the opportunity to encounter religious phenomena is even more important than in the case of children from religious homes? It is probably not possible to answer such questions in a non-controversial manner. Most of all, as mentioned above, there will most likely be parents opting for different stances. On the level of theory, this implies that the task

Education on Religion and Worldviews 53 cannot be to set forth an allegedly indisputable solution but to describe and discuss the different reasons behind the different stances, among others concerning children’s right to religion. This may also enable, for example, kindergarten teachers to discuss such questions with parents, showing understanding and respect for different opinions, without losing sight of what has been said above concerning the task of education to help children understand the world around them. Viewing religion as part of the social reality which children should be aware of and should be able to understand makes it clear that there may indeed be educational obligations in this respect, even if there can be no obligation to be religious oneself. The task of education to support children in their attempts of getting to know the world cannot be limited to only some parts or aspects of this world, unless encounters would be harmful to children. Religious literacy has been widely accepted as an aim of education concerning all children (see the discussion in Biesta, Aldridge, Hannam, & Whittle, 2019; Halafoff, Singleton, Bouma, & Rasmussen, 2020; Moore, 2007; Prothero, 2007). Similar arguments can be developed concerning the increasing plurality of different religions and worldviews in European countries. This plurality creates diversity but it does not speak against the need to familiarize children with the reality of different religions and worldviews as long as respective encounters are not proselytizing. One more question must be addressed in this context as well, a question referring to the meaning of children’s right to religion concerning their parents. Does this right oblige parents to make ‘education in the matter of religion or belief’, as the 1981 UN Declaration has it, accessible to their children? Would such an obligation also apply to parents who are not in favor of religion? Freedom of religion certainly does not allow for any outside interference concerning such matters within the family. Yet parents could ask themselves this question – in a manner comparable to other dimensions of human existence. Should parents who are not in favor of sports still allow their children to get involved with sports? Should parents who are not interested in music and the arts still make sure that their children have a chance to become interested in them? Such questions refer to the understanding of education in general and deserve a more detailed consideration than is possible here. It should be obvious, however, that this question refers to what can be called an ethics of education. This ethics certainly cannot be a legal matter but has more to do with personal moral standards concerning children’s rights vis-à-vis their parents as well as with ideas of a good life for one’s children. In sum, children’s right to religion does not imply any obligation to be religious, neither for children nor for parents or educators. Yet there clearly are respects in which the exposure to religious phenomena should be considered obligatory for educational institutions. Yet another question has been discussed in a number of countries: Could religious education be replaced by worldview education? Could worldview education cover children’s right to religion?

54  Friedrich Schweitzer Would worldview education do justice to children’s right to religion? The topic of worldviews and worldview education has gained importance with the growing number of people in society who are not related to any particular religious tradition or community. They may nevertheless consider themselves religious but many of them probably do not, although there is a lack of clear empirical evidence concerning this question. The different worldviews and religious convictions of the unaffiliated have not been a popular object of study. Some may adhere to a particular worldview like humanism, socialism or nationalism which also are connected to organizations or institutions like political parties or other associations devoted to the pursuit of a particular worldview. Yet, on the whole, the concept of worldview refers to a broad range of different and sometimes contradictory orientations, for example, in the case of materialist versus idealist worldviews (for discussions in the context of religious education, cf. Benoit, Hutchings, & Shillitoe, 2020; Flanagan, 2020) In German-speaking countries, the concept of worldview education does not appear to be an attractive option for historical reasons, i.e., the ideological worldview education during National Socialism and State Socialism (cf., for example, Schneider, 1995). In this case, worldview education is often understood to mean indoctrination. Given the contemporary situation, however, the distinction between religious and non-religious worldviews is of crucial importance. Concerning education, the claim following from this distinction must be that the rights of people who do not adhere to any religious worldview must be respected as much as the rights of those who hold a religious worldview. Consequently, there is not only children’s right to religion but also the right to a non-religious worldview. Freedom of religion as a basic human right applies to both being religious and to being non-religious, and consequently, education needs to be aware of such different needs as well. Sometimes it is said that everyone has a worldview and that the advantage of this concept is that both religious and non-religious worldviews equally fit into this category (cf. Commission on Religious Education (2018; for a discussion concerning children’s rights in the context of worldview education, see Salmenkivi Kasa, Putkonen, & Kallioniemi, 2022). While this view may make sense academically, it does not answer the practical question in education of how children’s right to religion could be respected if there only was worldview education. Worldview education can be purely based on non-religious worldviews. It can also be limited to a descriptive approach to teaching, i.e., to providing factual information about many different religions and worldviews, without ever touching upon existential questions of meaning and truth which, from the point of view of at least many religious educators, are at the heart of religious education (cf. the contributions in Barnes, 2023). Wherever worldview education is offered under the responsibility of the state, descriptive approaches become most likely. The state is bound to the principle of state neutrality vis-à-vis different worldviews and religions, and

Education on Religion and Worldviews 55 teachers posing existential questions in worldview education could well be considered to be in contradiction to this neutrality. For this reason, worldview education does not entail any guarantee for children’s right to religion being fulfilled. At the same time, children’s right to religion does not contradict the need for worldview education and for information about different worldviews. Instead, in analogy to the concept of religious literacy, one could also speak of worldview literacy. Worldviews are social realities as well, no less than religions. Since both religious and non-religious worldviews are social realities and are part of the reality to which education should expose children, one may even see an obligation of education to familiarize children with different worldviews. In sum, worldview education cannot replace religious education concerning children’s right to religion. Instead, there is a need for both religious education and non-religious education depending on the wishes of the respective child and the wishes of his or her parents. Moreover, all children should be supported in acquiring both religious literacy and worldview literacy. Religion and worldviews in dialogue: Versus pillarization If worldview education cannot replace religious education concerning children’s right to religion, one solution could be to offer alternative subjects in school, for example, ethics and religion. This dual model is practiced in a number of European countries and basically seems to work well, for example, in Germany (for an overview of the situation in Europe, cf. the REL-EDU series, Rothgangel, Jäggle, & Schlag, 2015 and the later volumes in the series). Yet from an educational but also from a societal point of view, separate school subjects in worldview education and religious education also have their disadvantages and weaknesses. With a term borrowed from the Dutch tradition, this could be called pillarization. The two subjects would then be taught side by side (as different pillars), maybe even at the same time of the school day but without any exchange between them. The more diverse societies become, however, the more there is a need for counteracting centrifugal tendencies in order to strengthen social cohesion. Schools, including religious education and worldview education, are therefore expected to contribute to dialogue and mutual understanding of different groups in society. Pillarized systems do not fit this need. A first step in this direction can be seen in the twofold literacy demanded above for all children, religious literacy as well as worldview literacy, independently of one’s personal faith or belief. Yet this can only be a first step as long as such literacies are acquired exclusively in separate school subjects. Another step should be to bring religions and worldviews in dialogue with each other, for example, in lessons or projects which are dedicated to exchange and to pupils exploring and learning together. Since the organization of schools differs from country to country and since there are different traditions in different countries which are hard to change,

56  Friedrich Schweitzer it does not make sense to suggest a particular model which then is recommended for all countries. In Germany, where I live and work, the tradition of the last 50 years has been to have religious education on the one hand (with several varieties, among others, for Roman Catholic, Protestant, Jewish and Muslim Religious Education) and Ethics or Practical Philosophy on the other (as mentioned above, the concept of worldview education has been abused so much in German history that no one would like to return to this idea, although worldviews are treated in ethics as well as in Religious Education in Germany). The basic division allows pupils (and parents) to make a choice between the two subjects, following their personal convictions and interests, which is in line with the argument developed in this chapter. What has not been achieved to a sufficient degree in this country, however, is to establish effective structures which also guarantee dialogue and exchange. This lack can possibly also be related to traditional understandings and attitudes which implied that you should only talk to people who share your religious or nonreligious beliefs, while others with whom this is not the case should not be talked with but should be avoided and opposed. Conclusion: Children’s right to her/his religion or worldview: Rights and needs of different children today The starting point for this chapter was the increasing diversity in society in general and the growing number of people without religious adherence in particular. The main question to be discussed then was if children’s right to religion can be upheld in such a situation. As has become clear in a number of respects, the reasons behind the claim that children have a right to religion and religious education have not disappeared in the present situation. This right is not based on a certain composition of the general population in a certain country. At the same time, however, it has also become clear that this right does not imply any obligation to be religious and that there also is a right to one’s non-religious worldview if this is one’s preference. Consequently, it makes sense to demand that both rights must be respected, in society as well as in education. When societies become more diverse, education must follow suit by becoming more diverse as well. Be it concerning religion or worldviews, it is of decisive importance that educational institutions like kindergartens and schools will not limit themselves to secular education which today often means an exclusive focus on skills important for the economy and for technological purposes. Children’s needs for dealing with experiences or questions related to spirituality or to worldviews should not be omitted or suppressed. Saying that every child’s right to her/his religion or worldview must be respected summarizes this chapter’s argument in a nutshell. Increasing diversity in society, including different religions and worldviews, should not be considered an obstacle to do justice to this right. Neither should children be forced to be religious nor to adopt a certain worldview. Yet all children have to learn

Education on Religion and Worldviews 57 to live with diversity. The main challenge for education, be it worldview education or religious education, is to support children (and youth) in their ability to live with the ambiguities this diversity entails in a dialogical manner and with peaceful attitudes to others, be they religious or non-religious. References Barnes, L. P. (Ed.) (2023). Religion and worldviews: The triumph of the secular in religious education. New York, NY: Routledge. Benoit, C., Hutchings, T., & Shillitoe, R. (2020). Worldview: A multidisciplinary report. London: Religious Education Council. Biesta, G., Aldridge, D., Hannam, P., & Whittle, S. (2019). Religious literacy: A way forward for religious education? Unpublished draft. Commission on Religious Education (2018). Final report. Religion and worldviews: The way forward. A national plan for RE. London: RE Council. Flanagan, R. (2020). Worldviews: Overarching concept, discrete body of knowledge or paradigmatic tool? Journal of Religious Education 68, 331–344. https://doi. org/10.1007/s40839-020-00113-7. Halafoff, A., Singleton, A., Bouma, G., & Rasmussen, M. L. (2020). Religious literacy of Australia’s Gen Z teens: Diversity and social inclusion. Journal of Beliefs & Values, 41, 195–213. Moore, D. L. (2007). Overcoming religious illiteracy: A cultural studies approach to the study of religion in secondary education. New York, NY: Palgrave. Prothero, S. (2007). Religious literacy: What every American needs to know – And doesn’t. New York, NY: Harper Collins. Rothgangel, M., Jäggle, M., & Schlag, T. (Eds.). (2015). Religious education at schools in Europe: Part 1: Central Europe. Vienna: V&R Unipress. Salmenkivi, E., Kasa, T., Putkonen, N. E., & Kallioniemi, A. (2022). Human rights and children’s rights in worldview education in Finland. Human Rights Education Review, 5(1), 47–69. https://doi.org/10.7577/hrer.4456 Schneider, I. K. (1995). Weltanschauliche Erziehung in der DDR. Normen — Praxis — Opposition Eine kommentierte Dokumentation. Opladen: Leske und Budrich. Schweitzer, F. (2016). The child’s right to religion. Religious education as a human right? In M. L. Pirner, J. Lähnemann, & H. Bielefeldt (Eds.), Human rights and religion in educational contexts (pp. 161–170). Cham: Springer International Publishing Switzerland. Schweitzer, F. (2005). Children’s right to religion and spirituality: Legal, educational and practical perspectives. British Journal of Religious Education, 27, 103–113. Schweitzer, F. (2010). Children’s right to religion and religious education. In K. Engebretson et al. (Eds.), International handbook of inter-religious education (Vol. II, pp. 1071–1086). Dordrecht: Springer. Schweitzer, F. (2017). Children’s right to religion in educational perspective. In A. Strhan, S. G. Parker, & S. B. Ridgely (Eds.), The Bloomsbury reader in religion and childhood (pp. 181–189). London and New York: Bloomsbury. Schweitzer, F. (2019a). Sacrificing Cinderella: Will giving up religious education help to establish a more promising successor? Journal of Beliefs and Values, 39(4), 516–522. https://doi.org/10.1080/13617672.2018.1542792 Schweitzer, F. (2019b). Das Recht des Kindes auf Religion. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus.

58  Friedrich Schweitzer Schweitzer, F., Wolking, L., & Boschki, R. (Eds.). (2020). Interkulturell-interreligiös sensible Bildung in Kindertageseinrichtungen. Ergebnisse der wissenschaftlichen Begleitung von Praxisprojekten der Stiftung Kinderland Baden-Württemberg. Münster and New York: Waxmann. UN Documents (2022a). Geneva Declaration of the Rights of the Child. Adopted September 26, 1924, League of Nations. Retrieved March 9, 2022 from http:// www.un-documents.net/gdrc1924.htm UN Documents (2022b). Convention on the Rights of the Child. Adopted November 20, 1989. Retrieved March 9, 2022 from https://www.ohchr.org/en/ instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-child UN Documents (2022c). Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief. Adopted 1981. Retrieved March 9, 2022 from https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/ declaration-elimination-all-forms-intolerance-and-discrimination

5

Globalised Religion(s) and Worldviews in Education Henrik Simojoki

The challenge: Growing up in the world (risk) society The impetus for locating religious and worldview education in a global horizon is provided by profound changes in the way children and adolescents experience the world. Unfortunately, the global condition of growing up in today’s world becomes most directly apparent when things turn difficult. German adolescents who started school in the autumn of 2009 and graduated from the upper secondary school (Gymnasium) in the spring of 2022 felt this throughout their school years:

• In their year of enrolment, they experienced the peak of the global financial

crisis that escalated after the bursting of the United State housing bubble. Soon after, the European debt crisis broke out, leading to rising instability and heated discussions throughout Europe. • In the summer of 2015, the Syrian refugee crisis led to a rapid increase in asylum migration, which triggered a polarised debate on asylum policy in many European countries. • The immeasurable risks of the ecological crisis became fully apparent to the younger generation when Swedish schoolgirl Greta Thunberg promoted a “School Strike for Climate”, sparking the global Fridays for Future movement. • In the first quarter of 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic, first identified in Wuhan, China, broke out worldwide. At a stage in life when interaction with peers is of crucial importance for developing a sense of identity, the protective measures, ranging from school closures to curfews and lockdowns, took their toll on the emotional and social well-being of many adolescents throughout the world. • In February 2022, in the middle of this class’ preparations for their final exams, the Russian army launched a large-scale attack on Ukraine, which brought immeasurable suffering to the Ukrainian population. Here, too, the effects extended far beyond the immediate conflict region: in many countries of Europe, long-cherished certainties were shattered, the economic situation clouded all over the world, and the war-induced collapse in wheat supplies exacerbated the hunger crises on the African continent. DOI: 10.4324/9781003265696-6

60  Henrik Simojoki Ulrich Beck (2009) has conceptualised the changed conditions of growing up in today’s globalised world in terms of a “world risk society”. “Henceworth”, Beck concludes, “there are no merely local occurrences. All genuine threats have become global threats. The situation of every nation, every people, every class and every individual is also the result and cause of the human situation. The key point is that henceforth concern about the whole has become a task” (Beck, 2009, p. 21). For adolescents, this mixture of globality and complexity poses a serious challenge. They often have the feeling that they no longer have any influence on the course of events under globalised conditions (Simojoki, 2014a). Thus, global complexity is not only difficult for young people to understand, but is also associated with experiences of feeling powerless. The following quote from a German youth study sums up the often perceived gap between wanting to make a difference and feeling unable to really do so: “I would like to change that there is not so much poverty in the world, but I wouldn’t know where to start” (Kunze & Zeug, 2011, p. 124). On the one hand, the quote exemplifies why in today’s world society education is not only increasingly important, but also increasingly challenging. For the adolescent interviewed, the ever-growing complexity of global problems and risks seems to go far beyond what she can grasp or influence. On the other hand, the statement shows that young people consider it unsatisfactory if education in the face of globalisation is limited to making the complexity of the world comprehensible. They also want to learn “where to start” in order to make a change. The answer: Global learning Global learning as a specific field of educational practice and theory has been established since the 1990s (for an overview, see Bourn, 2022). In Germany, Niklas Luhmann’s concept of world society often serves as a guiding framework because it helps to understand the increase in complexity associated with globalisation as an educational challenge (Scheunpflug, 2021). Luhmann basically identifies two factors that make today’s society simultaneously singular (“the”) and global (“world society”): on the one hand, the possibility of potentially world-spanning communication, and, on the other hand, the dominance of functional differentiation (Luhmann, 2012, pp. 83–99, 2013, pp. 1–166). According to his system theory of society, the social world is divided into several functionally specialised but structurally equal subsystems such as politics, law, economics, science, education, or, not to forget, religion, each of which pursues its specific purpose and operates autonomously on the basis of its own logic – and in doing so is influenced less and less by national boundaries. Seen against this background, the experience of powerlessness of today’s young people described at the beginning of this chapter is an expression of a fundamental difficulty: the more comprehensively the world society differentiates itself functionally, the more difficult it becomes to influence its course (cf. Simojoki, 2012a, pp. 268–273).

Globalised Religion(s) and Worldviews in Education 61 Such perceptions initiated a turn away from the more optimistic basic assumptions and far-reaching objectives of traditional development education to the research-supported acquisition of competencies for coping with the manifold complexities in today’s world (Bourn, 2015; Scheunpflug, 2004). This realistic turn may seem sobering at first, but it releases critical-reflexive potential that is indispensable not least in the context of religious education. For example, the enduring appeal of fundamentalist belief systems and populist points of view illustrates that in times of constantly growing complexity simplistic answers become more attractive. As Annette Scheunpflug and Nikolaus Schröck have pointed out in their model of global learning, the most effective remedy against the global upsurge of reductionist models of world interpretation is to increase one’s own complexity-awareness through learning (Scheunpflug & Schröck, 2002, p. 6). In this sense, the OECD has been actively promoting the concept of “global competence” which has been included in the 2018 PISA study. The conceptual underpinning for this assessment is provided by the “OECD PISA global competence framework”, published in 2018 under the title “Preparing our youth for an inclusive and sustainable world”. In this document, “global competence” is defined as a “multidimensional capacity” that can be shaped by education and is acquired in a life-long process (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2018, p. 4). In more detail, four “target dimensions” are delineated: the capacity to examine issues and situations of local, global and cultural significance (e.g. poverty, economic interdependence, migration, inequality, environmental risks, conflicts, cultural differences and stereotypes); the capacity to understand and appreciate different perspectives and world views; the ability to establish positive interactions with people of different national, ethnic, religious, social or cultural backgrounds or gender; and the capacity and disposition to take constructive action toward sustainable development and collective well-being. (OECD, 2018, 8f.) With regard to religious education, it is striking that all four dimensions are implicitly or explicitly related to religion. The OECD conceptualisation of global competence thus suggests a close connection between global learning and religious education. The unanswered challenge: Religion and worldviews as a dimension of global learning It is noticeable, however, that at least in the German-language discourse on global learning albeit its historical roots in the ecumenical movement (Scheunpflug & Seitz, 1995), the religious dimension is only sparsely addressed (Simojoki, 2021). The reasons for this are manifold: in German concepts of

62  Henrik Simojoki global learning, religion tends to be located on the side of the particular and thus on the opposite side of the universalistic objective of a “cosmopolitan education” (cf. Seitz, 2002, 259f.). Moreover, educational theories on learning in a globalised world are often guided by the secularisation thesis, implicitly or explicitly assuming a declining social and cultural relevance of religion in late modernity (cf. Wulf, 2006, 30f.). Conversely, the international debate on religious education is still widely dominated by a nation-state perspective. This also applies to current efforts to broaden the research perspective through comparative research, in which the nation-state remains the primary unit of analysis that structures international comparisons (Ilg, Schweitzer, & Simojoki, 2022; Schweitzer, 2016). In addition, there is a conspicuous imbalance in the reception of the globalisation perspective: while (mostly unspecific) references to challenges of globalisation are omnipresent in current contributions and policy documents on religions and worldviews in education (as a prominent example: Jackson, 2014), the ongoing globalisation of religions and worldviews is not specifically addressed. Globalisation and religion: Sociological perspectives Against this backdrop, this chapter deals with two influential sociological theories on religion and globalisation that approach this complex relationship from different angles, one focusing on religious forms of cultural reflexivity in the face of globalisation and the other analysing the ongoing transformation of religions in a global society (cf. Simojoki, 2020a, 2012a, pp. 23–152). Religion and worldviews in the global field (Roland Robertson)

Since “globalisation” became both popular and notorious as a mainly economic buzzword, it has largely been forgotten that the first use of this highly charged term in the social sciences took place in an article on religious change. In 1985, under the heading “Humanity, Globalization, and Worldwide Religious Resurgence”, Roland Robertson and JoAnn Chirico attributed the conspicuous accumulation of religious movements and conflicts at that time to the accelerating increase of connectivity and interdependency that they conceptualised as “globalisation” (Robertson & Chirico, 1985). Building on this observation, they argued that as the world becomes more and more interwoven, “telic aspects of the human condition” (Robertson & Chirico, 1985, p. 231) gain in importance. According to Robertson, globalisation “refers to a series of interdependent processes that yield a concern with consciousness of the contemporary human condition. Emergence of such consciousness is itself a quasi-religious circumstance – inevitably raising issues concerning the ends of men” (Robertson, 1985, 40f.) Today, Robertson would probably have referred to the COVID-19 pandemic, which has raised existential questions and provoked heated debates about the core values of human coexistence and the direction of society as a source of such global telic concern (Simojoki, 2020b).

Globalised Religion(s) and Worldviews in Education 63 Since Robertson (following Talcott Parsons) understands religion as a “telic” form of cultural reflexivity, he qualifies the emergence of such concern in the global era as religious. Moreover, he assumes that globalisation can directly benefit religions. Insofar as religions claim to interpret the whole of the world, reality and humanity, they correspond to the increased need for orientation and meaning in the global age. In Robertson’s view, “the making of the world into a single place constrains religious movements to offer interpretations of that development and of their own place in it – to give it religio-theological meaning, which may well be done in very negative turns” (Robertson, 1989, p. 18). However, the increasing influence of fundamentalist worldviews, to which the last part of the quote alludes, is only one possible reaction to accelerated globalisation. Seen through the lens of Robertson’s functional understanding of religion in the “global field”, the worldwide renaissance of nationalist ideologies, the QAnon movement, or, to give a more positive example, the global Fridays for Future movement, can be interpreted as basically religious forms of processing the challenging complexity in today’s global society. Religions in global society (Peter Beyer)

In contrast to Robertson, whose functional understanding of religion is very wide and open to all kinds of worldviews, Peter Beyer is interested in the historical differentiation of religions within the religious system of the emerging, as he calls it, global society (Beyer, 2006). He justifies his substantial orientation with the realities of the global religious field, which are often ignored in Western academic discourse. Beyer points out that, despite all their disparity, the globally flourishing religious movements of the present have one thing in common: “all of them draw their religious components from one of the more or less globally structured and recognised ‘world religions’. These movements are Islamic, Christian, Hindu, Jewish or Sikh, not some more nebulous form of religiosity” (Beyer, 2007b, 455f.). In his ambitious attempt to conceptualise the global formation of religion as a dimension of the globalisation process, Beyer draws on Niklas Luhmann’s aforementioned theory of world society. The fundamental interplay of extensive and intensive globalisation processes is illustrated in an extensive chapter on the global (re)construction of Christianity and Islam as the two most consistently globalised religions to date (Beyer, 2006, pp. 117–187). According to Beyer, both religions operate within one global religious system, meaning that they develop, transform, and define themselves with constant reference to each other, in potentially conflictual processes of mutual reference and demarcation. Beyer chooses, among others, African Christianity as an example to illustrate the “glocal” interplay of particularisation and re-universalisation that characterises the complex (trans)formation of religions in a globalised world (Beyer, 2006, pp. 142–147). Although the beginnings of Christianity in sub-Saharan Africa are closely tied to colonisation and missionary activities originating in Europe and the United States, Africans themselves were the driving force of

64  Henrik Simojoki the mass expansion of Christianity in Africa, adapting Christian beliefs and practices to their own cultural and religious traditions and forms. Beyer concludes that the African Christian churches of today – both the ones still identifying themselves with historically Western denominations and, even more so, the African Instituted Churches – “show their own distinct characteristics in emphasis, in biblical interpretation, in ritual form and style, and in ecclesiastical governance” (Beyer, 2006, p. 142). Finally, Beyer points to the phenomena of “reverse-flows” in global Christianity: due to global migration, African Christianity is exerting a growing influence on the religious landscape in the historically Christian heartlands. In Beyer’s view, these dynamics exemplify the specific pattern of construction of religion in a contemporary global society: particular versions of, in this case, Christianity, spread through missionary activity or migration to other parts of the world, where they are adopted and partially transformed by indigenous people there. These new and different versions establish themselves and gain over time broad legitimacy precisely as authentic Christianity, a process that expressly includes an often high degree of contestation. Then, these now institutionalized forms engage in their own spread or universalization beyond their territories […] of origin, thereby becoming a more globalized part of the overall picture and having a certain influence on what Christianity becomes in the areas to which they have expanded. (Beyer, 2006, 146f.) According to Beyer, the ultimate complexity of such processes of progressive “glocalisation” – a term coined by Robertson (1994) – of religion only becomes apparent when the perspective is broadened from such intra-religious dynamics to interreligious coexistence and interaction. Consequently, in today’s world, religions encounter one another in specific, “glocal” constellations. Beyer concludes: Both practitioners and external observers understand these religions as unities through variation, in other words, as glocalizations. The universals are real abstractions; concrete, socially effective religions appear only as localized particularizations of those global universals. Finally, the construction of both global unity and local manifestations occurs with reference to one another: the religions constitute and reproduce themselves in context of a recognized plurality of religions and subdivisions of religions. (Beyer, 2007a, p. 100) Globalised religion(s) and worldviews in education: Pedagogical perspectives Against the background outlined above, it is possible to outline in more detail the specific contribution of religious education to global learning in schools, religious communities, and society. Religious education should more

Globalised Religion(s) and Worldviews in Education 65 consequently aim at enabling people to deal competently with globalised religion in today’s world society. The following proposal to conceptualise this perspective is based on a monograph (Simojoki, 2012a) and more recent articles by the author, all of them situated in the German context. Naturally, the comprehensive concept culminating in 27 competencies related to globalised religion can only be presented in fragments within the limited scope of this chapter. In the following, three interdependent tasks of religious education are distinguished, each of which corresponds with a specific contextual dimension of globalised religion in contemporary world society. Following Robertson’s functional concept of religion, the first one can be expanded to worldviews in general, whereas the latter two are limited to what Beyer calls “specific religions as opposed to religion more generally” (Beyer, 2007b, p. 445). Telic education in the context of a globalised world

Under the conditions of the world risk society sketched at the beginning of this chapter, it is a genuine task of religious education to provide learning opportunities for children, adolescents, and adults, in which they can critically reflect and dialogically discuss questions of individual meaning and global well-being raised by the experience of global crises and challenges (Simojoki, 2012a, pp. 268–309, 2012b, 2014a, 2020b). In a first step, such “telic education” aims at the abilities to recognise global complexity, including its ambivalences and uncertainties, as a given, to process such complexity in a non-reductive way, and to identify fundamental questions related to it. This serves as a basis for fostering the capacity of the learners to make sense of the complexity surrounding them and to bring their own views and convictions into the public discourse. As Robertson points out, religions are “on home ground” in this sphere of telic reflexivity. The question of the telos (meaning and end) of humankind, which has become more relevant in the course of globalisation, lies at the heart of most religious traditions. They unfold images of global ends that do not stand in linear continuity, but are also not unrelated to the globalised present. They can serve as positively irritating impulses for individuals to develop their own images of global well-being, thus helping them to make sense of and also to critically assess the reality they are facing. Ecumenical education in the context of globalised Christianity

Now already more than 20 years ago, the American historian Philip Jenkins in his much discussed book “The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity” described how the centre of gravity in the Christian world has shifted decisively to the global South. According to the projections of the Pew Research Center, this development will continue and accelerate in the foreseeable future. For the year 2050, the following scenario is anticipated: with an estimated 38 percent, sub-Saharan Africa will be the region with the most Christians in the world, far ahead of Latin America (23 percent) and

66  Henrik Simojoki Europe, whose share of global Christianity is predicted to be below 16 percent then. According to Jenkins, such numbers “should make us think carefully before asserting ‘what Christians believe’ or ‘how the church is changing.’ All too often, statements about what ‘modern Christians accept’ or what ‘Catholics today believe,’ refer only to what that ever-shrinking remnant of Western Christians and Catholics believe” (Jenkins, 2002, p. 3) At least in Germany, where Religious Education (RE) as a school subject is “confessional” and hence closely linked to the religious communities, the global South is still blatantly under- and often misrepresented in curricula, school books, and the academic discourse on religious education (Simojoki, 2012a, pp. 309–346). As Jenkins points out, this ongoing marginalisation is not only outrageous, but also absurd in the face of the changed realities in the global religious field. To thematise Christianity in RE without reference to Africa or – another outlier in German curricula – the global Pentecostal movement is like teaching economics without mentioning China or simply skipping the United States in political education. Furthermore, a global perspective on Christianity in RE not only widens the horizon of the learners, but also makes them more aware of the contextuality both of the locally prevailing Christianity and their personal attitudes and convictions (Simojoki, 2012c, 2018). The opportunities of engaging ecumenically with non-European faith in religious education can be illustrated by the example of contemporary African Christology (Simojoki, 2017a). The position of Jesus in modern African faith and theology becomes accessible, among others, in Diane Stinton’s groundbreaking reconstruction based on oral interviews with theologians as well as lay African Christians (Stinton, 2004). The potential of such voices for religious education is rooted, on the one hand, in their otherness. They provide new and in some regard provocatively different perspectives to a central and sometimes all too familiar topic of religious education. On the other hand, dealing with African images of Christ can bring a distant theme of religious education closer to life. In African Christologies, Jesus is often interpreted and embraced in relational images, as a family member or a close friend (Stinton, 2004, pp. 143–176). Thus, Christology is tightly linked to the social sphere of human experience – adding to its potential existential relevance to children and adolescents. Interreligious education in the context of globalised religions

In the German discourse on interreligious learning, the global dimension has been explored on a broader basis (as an overview, see: Meyer, 2019, pp. 45–65). In the pioneering work of Johannes Lähnemann, inspired by Hans Küng’s ambitious project of a World Ethos, it is mainly the solidarity in the face of the global problems that makes interfaith dialogue and interreligious learning inevitable (Lähnemann, 1998). Moreover, the interplay between the global and the local has received increased attention (Simojoki, 2014b, 2016). One reason for this is global

Globalised Religion(s) and Worldviews in Education 67 migration and the religious pluralisation that comes with it. Meanwhile, more than one-third of young people growing up in Germany have a migration background. As respective migration and youth studies show, the religious attitudes of these young people are hybrid not only in a cultural, but also in a spatial sense (Simojoki, 2017b). Their faith has multiple points of reference, which are combined into highly individual and sometimes fragmented formations. According to current theories of identity formation, narrations play a central role for building an (possibly religious) identity and finding one’s place in life (Simojoki, 2019). Consequently, interreligious education in a globalised world is about opening spaces of enunciation for the subjective stories of religious and non-religious individuals. For that to happen, a culture of recognition needs to be cultivated that is open to different points of view and allows even hard differences to be negotiated. Finally, interreligious education needs to take into account that in today’s world images of other religions are often shaped by media representations. In the German context, the reporting of Islam is still dominated by conflict-laden or exoticising images, topics, and controversies (Hafez & Schmidt, 2020). Especially where there is little opportunity for a direct encounter with Islam, the attitudes towards this religion can be strongly influenced and sometimes distorted by media representations. Therefore, young people need to be able to critically deal with such representations (Simojoki, 2016, p. 239). Analytic approaches that help to review classic and digital media formats in order to identify manners of and motifs behind their dealing with a specific religion are only a first step in this process. Additionally, media-critical reflection is needed in order to adopt analytic knowledge and transform one’s own perception of the world. In consequence, media-critical approaches must be combined with learning forms that give the students opportunities for self-assessment. Unlearning as the first step of learning: Unexploited potential of postcolonial approaches to globalised religion Past and present attempts to conceptualise religious education in a global horizon must be critically questioned as to whether they have underestimated the power structures associated with global interdependencies. As Julia Henningsen (2022) has demonstrated on the basis of German RE textbooks, the analytical tools of postcolonial studies are suitable for deconstructing the marginalisation of the Global South in theories and practices of religious education theory. Such “unlearning” (on this more comprehensively: Gearon et al., 2021) can serve as a basis for designing constructive learning perspectives for an appropriate representation of global religion both in religious and in general education. References Beck, U. (2009). World at risk. Cambridge and Malden, MA: Polity Press. Beyer, P. (2006). Religions in global society. London and New York: Routledge.

68  Henrik Simojoki Beyer, P. (2007a). Globalization and glocalization. In J. A. Beckford, & N. J. Demerath (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of the sociology of religion (pp. 98–117). London and Los Angeles: Sage. Beyer, P. (2007b). Religion and globalization. In G. Ritzer (Ed.), The Blackwell companion to globalization (pp. 444–460). Malden, MA: Wiley. Bourn, D. (2015). From development education to global learning: Changing agendas and priorities. Policy and Practice: A Development Education Review, 20, 18–36. Bourn, D. (Ed.) (2022). The Bloomsbury handbook of global education and learning. London: Bloomsbury Academic. Gearon, L., Kuusisto, A., Matemba, Y., Benjamin, S., Du Preez, P., Koirikivi, P., … Simmonds, S. (Eds.). (2021). Special Issue: Decolonising the Religious Education Curriculum: International Perspectives in Theory, Research, and Practice. British Journal of Religious Education, 43(1), 1–135. Hafez, K., & Schmidt, S. (2020). Rassismus und Repräsentation: Das Islambild deutscher Medien im Nachrichtenjournalismus und im Film. Retrieved July 31, 2022 from https://www.bpb.de/lernen/bewegtbild-und-politische-bildung/themenund-hintergruende/314621 Henningsen, J. (2022). Repräsentationen des Globalen Südens im evangelischen Religionsbuch. Eine Thematische Diskursanalyse vor dem Horizont postkolonialer Theorien. Paderborn: Brill Schöningh. Ilg, W., Schweitzer, F., & Simojoki, H. (2022). International cooperative research: Experiences and insights from the project on confirmation work in Europe. International Journal of Practical Theology, 26(1), 155–178. Jackson, R. (2014). Signposts – Policy and practice for teaching about religions and nonreligious world views in intercultural education. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Jenkins, P. (2002). The next Christendom. The coming of global Christianity. Oxford: OUP. Kunze, A., & Zeug, K. (2011). Ab 18: Was junge Menschen wirklich machen. Reinbek: Rowohlt. Lähnemann, J. (1998). Evangelische Religionspädagogik in interreligiöser Perspektive. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Luhmann, N. (2012). Theory of society (Vol. 1). Stanford: Stanford University Press. Luhmann, N. (2013). Theory of society (Vol. 2). Stanford: Stanford University Press. Meyer, K. (2019). Grundlagen interreligiösen Lernens. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2018). Preparing our youth for an inclusive and sustainable world: The OECD PISA global competence framework. Paris: OECD. Robertson, R. (1985). The relativization of societies: Modern religion and globalization. In T. Robbins, W. C. Shepherd, & J. McBride (Eds.), Cults, culture, and the law: Perspectives on new religious movements (pp. 31–42). Chico: Scholars Press. Robertson, R. (1989). Globalization, politics, and religion. In J. A. Beckford, & T. Luckmann (Eds.), The changing face of religion (pp. 10–23). London: Sage. Robertson, R. (1994). Globalisation or glocalisation? The Journal of International Communication, 1(1), 33–52. Robertson, R., & Chirico, J. (1985). Humanity, globalization, and worldwide religious resurgence: A theoretical exploration. Sociological Analysis, 46(3), 219–242. Scheunpflug, A. (2004). Learning and skills for a global society: The education context. In E. O’Loughlin, & L. Wegimont (Eds.), Learning for a global society (pp. 39–45). Lisbon: North-South Centre of the Council of Europe.

Globalised Religion(s) and Worldviews in Education 69 Scheunpflug, A. (2021). Global learning: Educational research in an emerging field. European Educational Research Journal, 20(1), 3–13. Scheunpflug, A., & Schröck, N. (2002). Globales Lernen: Einführung in eine pädagogische Konzeption zur entwicklungsbezogenen Bildung. Stuttgart: Brot für die Welt. Scheunpflug, A., & Seitz, K. (1995). Die Geschichte der entwicklungspolitischen Bildung: Zur pädagogischen Konstruktion der “Dritten Welt”: 3. Erwachsenenbildung und Jugendarbeit. Frankfurt am Main: IKO-Verlag. Schweitzer, F. (2016). Comparing religious education in schools in European countries: Challenges for international comparative research. In M. Rothgangel, M. Jäggle, & T. Schlag (Eds.), Religious education at schools in Europe: Part 1: Central Europe (pp. 15–38). Vienna: V&R Unipress. Seitz, K. (2002). Bildung in der Weltgesellschaft: Gesellschaftstheoretische Grundlagen Globalen Lernens. Frankfurt an Main: Brandes & Apsel. Simojoki, H. (2012a). Globalisierte Religion: Ausgangspunkte, Maßstäbe und Perspektiven Religiöser Bildung in der Weltgesellschaft. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Simojoki, H. (2012b). Ökumenisches Lernen: Neuerschließung eines Programms im Horizont der Globalisierung. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik und Theologie, 64(3), 212–221. Simojoki, H. (2012c). Jugendtheologie im Bildungskontext der christlichen Ökumene: Soziologische Hintergründe und didaktische Perspektiven. In T. Schlag, & F. Schweitzer (Eds.), Jugendtheologie. Grundlagen – Beispiele – kritische Diskussion (pp. 35–44). Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener. Simojoki, H. (2014a). Zwischen innen und außen, drinnen und draußen, irgendwo dazwischen…: Spannungsfelder religionspädagogischer Anthropologie im Kontext der Globalisierung. In T. Schlag & H. Simojoki (Eds.), Mensch – Religion – Bildung: Religionspädagogik in anthropologischen Spannungsfeldern (pp. 385–396). Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus. Simojoki, H. (2014b). Beirut in Berlin? Interreligiöse Bildung in der Spannung zwischen Globalem und Lokalem. Evangelische Theologie, 74(3), 167–179. Simojoki, H. (2016). Collision of contexts? Human rights education and interreligious learning in a globalized world. In M. Pirner, J. Lähnemann, & H. Bielefeld (Eds.), Human rights and religion in educational contexts (pp. 233–242). Cham: Springer. Simojoki, H. (2017a). Christus in Afrika – wie anderswo geglaubt wird. In R. Englert, & F. Schweitzer (Eds.), Jesus als Christus – im Religionsunterricht. Experimentelle Zugänge zu einer Didaktik der Christologie (pp. 220–231). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Simojoki, H. (2017b). Im Dazwischen: Zur Liminalität von Religion und Bildung in der postmigrantischen Gesellschaft. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik und Theologie, 69(1), 26–36. Simojoki, H. (2018). Evangelische Schulen in der Einen Welt: Religionspädagogische Perspektiven. In H. Simojoki, A. Scheunpflug, & M. Schreiner (Eds.), Evangelische Schulen und religiöse Bildung in der Weltgesellschaft. Die Bamberger BarbaraSchadeberg-Vorlesungen (pp. 133–146). Münster & New York: Waxmann. Simojoki, H. (2019). Religiöse Bildung und das Recht zu erzählen. Eine postkoloniale Perspektive. In S. Ahrnke & C. Wiesinger (Eds.), Erzählen (pp. 39–51). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Simojoki, H. (2020a). Die Nähe des Entfernten: Zur räumlichen Mehrbezüglichkeit des Religiösen im “global age”. In H. Knoblauch (Ed.), Die Refiguration der Religion: Perspektiven der Religionssoziologie und der Religionswissenschaft (pp. 113–128). Weinheim & Basel: Beltz Juventa.

70  Henrik Simojoki Simojoki, H. (2020b). Religiöse Bildung in der Weltrisikogesellschaft – ein update in Zeiten von Corona. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik und Theologie, 72(4), 400–412. Simojoki, H. (2021). Religiöse Bildung als Dimension Globalen Lernens. Zeitschrift für internationale Bildungsforschung und Entwicklungspädagogik, 44(1), 4–9. Stinton, D. (2004). Jesus of Africa. Voices of contemporary African christology. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Bookd. Wulf, C. (2006). Anthropologie kultureller Vielfalt. Interkulturelle Bildung in Zeiten der Globalisierung. Bielefeld: transcript.

6

Global Education Policy on Religion and Education UNESCO Geir Skeie

Introduction The aim of this volume is to address and discuss some aspects of religion in education that are relevant in the light of ‘global education policy’, with a particular interest in the role of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). I have approached this by focusing on two overarching questions, which even include some aspects of the ongoing debate about worldviews in education, also addressed in the introduction of this volume:

• How can we understand the place of religion and worldviews in the global education policy of UNESCO?

• Which challenges and opportunities does this raise for the discussion about religion and worldviews among educators on a national level?

To address this, I have consulted policy research and other scholarly work on UNESCO and global education policy more generally, exploring the databases ERIC, Academic Search Ultimate, Oria and Google scholar, combined with searches in the reference lists of a selection of publications from these databases. This is no systematic review, but an explorative inquiry, resulting in a preliminary impression that research explicitly addressing the interface between UNESCO, global education policy and religion in education is limited. If the scope is widened from religion and worldviews to ethical and valueoriented aspects of education, references to religion in education appear more often, however, mainly in the margins. Also, inquiries into the relationship between state, religion and education are many. A preliminary conclusion, therefore, is that religion in education often seems to be a less studied subsection of ‘other’ agendas belonging to UNESCO’s global education policy. To exemplify this, the UNESCO education for sustainability agenda has prompted research into issues of relevance for both religious education and ethics education (Kvamme, 2017); UNESCO’s emphasis on global citizenship education has stimulated reflection on how beliefs and values can underpin such efforts as well as the lack of such (Dreamson, 2018; Tan, 2020); UNESCO’s DOI: 10.4324/9781003265696-7

72  Geir Skeie intercultural education agenda has justified research into interreligious education (Bouma, 2017; Riitaoja & Dervin, 2014); and research into world heritage education includes perspectives relevant for religion in education (Röll & Meyer, 2020). I have not undertaken the challenge to investigate the role of religion in each of these agendas more thoroughly here, but this would be a most welcome study. Another challenge is that the research literature is not completely separated from its object. Research into UNESCO is, in many ways, overlapping with the literature produced by or coming out of UNESCO activities and related to its areas of priority. Several of the researchers in the fields mentioned in this chapter have themselves been active in UNESCO forums and/or contributed to UNESCO publications. This organisation works with all levels of education and research, and the borders between ‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders’ are porous. Further, it is a priority of UNESCO to stimulate critical research about education and to contribute to the knowledge production in its fields of work. This is regularly done through consultations, conferences, commissioned publications, etc., and much of this is documented by the digital library (https://unesdoc. unesco.org/home). This is not necessarily a problem for research, and it certainly does not mean that anything published by or facilitated by UNESCO expresses the view of the organisation, but it still needs to be said. The UNESCO Chair programme, launched in 1992, is one clear example of the overlap between UNESCO and academic institutions and faculty on a global level, covering a wide range of academic fields within the priorities of UNESCO, but funded and run by the individual universities involved.1 It should, therefore, be mentioned that among the more than 800 UNESCO Chairs around the world are both professor Arto Kallioniemi and the present author. Global education policy and UNESCO Education policy has been a key element in nation building for centuries and continues to do so, not the least in the Nordic countries (Telhaug, Mediås, & Aasen, 2004, 2006). While the national level is still important to understand educational policy and practice, studies of national policies show the necessity of international and global perspectives. This is more pronounced in recent research, challenging the earlier ‘methodological nationalism’ in the study of education (Gardinier, 2021). Nations have always influenced each other, but this inter-national dimension has over time been complemented by the effects of supra-national policy actors, contributing to a distinct global policy dimension. The global education policy field includes a series of organisational actors, with internal dynamics, complex relationships with the contexts in which they operate and a corresponding complexity in the interplay between these entities (Verger, Novelli, & Altinyelken, 2012). Summarising some of this, historians of modern education speak of a merger between education, governance, and economics, [and] we find that the resultant forces of the complex interactions treated provide a

Global Education Policy on Religion and Education 73 picture of a global education governing complex characterized by (1) a historical trajectory going back to World War II and shaped during the bipolar world order of the Cold War; (2) distinct ideological components of capitalist economics pursuing economic growth based on human resources and the establishment of a well-functioning labour market; (3) underlying assumptions about the universality and general applicability of education programs and practices; and (4) inherent values about education being a utilitarian endeavour. (Ydesen, 2019a, pp. 300–301) Today, some of the most significant actors in global education policy are UNESCO, the World Bank and OECD, with a different historical background and policy profile. UNESCO started in 1945, coming directly out of the post-World War II situation, and was, from the start, influenced by academics, many from the humanities but also from the sciences. They saw research and education as a key vehicle to peace, material improvement and intellectual development. This led others to criticise the organisation for being secularist and anthropocentric, and particularly in the 1950s and 1960s politicians in the United States saw UNESCO as leftist while several of the developing countries opting for decolonisation joined UNESCO at this time. Similar the US reservations did not affect OECD, which came out of the Marshall plan in 1964 and was more controlled by the United States. The focus was on economic growth and development as well as international trade. Education became more central to OECD after ‘the Sputnik shock’, when investment in education became a key concern for economic growth. The emphasis on neo-liberal market economy went hand in hand with a positive understanding of globalisation and education was seen as a key factor in economic growth (Lingard & Sellar, 2016). During the last decades, the influence of OECD in education has grown, particularly through the work on indicators for evaluating education systems and the influential PISA tests (Ydesen, 2019b). A significant change is the growing interest in OECD for non-cognitive skills like broader competencies in collaborating in heterogenous groups and communicative and entrepreneurial skills. The central role in measuring educational input and output has given OECD a strong epistemic and normative role (soft power) in education policy both nationally and internationally (op. cit., pp. 447–448). The two organisations share the modernist ideal of progress, but OECD has been more oriented towards economic growth, and saw science and technology having a key role in bringing this about, while UNESCO has a broader focus on education for peace, democratic citizenship and cultural heritage as well as social and economic development. Both organisations contributed to improved educational statistics and to comparative education as a research field. Here, UNESCO has been more oriented towards input factors and towards developing countries, and OECD is more output oriented (Elfert & Ydesen, 2020, pp. 86–89). The distance between UNESCO’s focus on global citizenship and OECD’s focus on economic growth is still present, but in later years, OECD has added a focus on broad ‘competencies’ to the earlier emphasis on

74  Geir Skeie economic growth, which has led to a certain overlapping in aims between the two organisations. Compared with another actor, the World Bank, OECD is sometimes pictured as ‘softer’, since the World Bank demands from nations to make distinct changes in their policy and link this to economic assistance. OECD presents analysis and gives advice. During the 1980s, the World Bank became a stronger global education actor with better funding than UNESCO, also in the global south (Menashy & Manion, 2016). UNESCO has a more ‘humanist’ vision of education, and in spite of less resources, it has a significant, but more indirect, global influence (Elfert, 2015, 2019). An analysis of the OECD and UNESCO global education policy documents confirms that they have differing normative frameworks (Vaccari & Gardinier, 2019) and that this partly goes back to their different history (Elfert & Ydesen, 2020). Discussing the importance and effects of this, the present OECD emphasis on broad competencies and measurement may be important in a world with competition between nation-states but may even be helpful for disadvantaged social groups through entrepreneurship and innovation. However, OECD is less oriented towards minimising global inequalities and towards inclusive education for all, both of which are key concerns for UNESCO. On the other hand, the UNESCO’s focus on global citizenship may be conceptualised in ways which make “the common good” not sufficiently grounded in the needs and aspirations of disadvantaged peoples, thereby not taking enough into account ‘global inequalities and power asymmetries and strategies to address this’ (Vaccari & Gardinier 2019, p. 84). A key element seen among UNESCO, OECD and World Bank is the increasing use of research-based knowledge to influence governments and their policies. By producing and disseminating academic knowledge, they provide policymakers with ‘evidence and numbers’ as well as ‘visions’, and all this points in the direction they see as the recommended way forward (Zapp, 2021, p. 1030). By doing this as supra-national actors, they contribute towards the globalisation of educational policy and educational practice. It has been argued that this leads to the establishment of a ‘world culture’, where a series of assumptions and values regarding the role and aims of education are integrated and may have effects on a national level (Ramirez, Meyer, & Lerch, 2016). On the other hand, the influence and credibility of UNESCO and other organisations also depend on how their different policies are understood and received nationally on different levels and in different sectors, and here even the individual actors inside these organisations may be important (Forsberg, 2019; Lingard, Sellar, & Baroutsis, 2015). The globalisation of educational policy is impacted by globalisation processes in other sectors, like economy, social structures, politics and culture, in a series of ways (Verger et al., 2012). This has consequences for the globalisation of the educational labour market; alters the capacity of individual welfare states to ‘use’ education; gives international agencies more space; reduces the control of the nation-states; challenges the legal frameworks; intensifies the exchange of ideas and ideologies influencing politics; and stimulates initiatives for supporting education as a global public

Global Education Policy on Religion and Education 75 good, a human right and a tool for social justice. The interest in the research field of global education policy is growing, supported by, and partly mirroring the interests of global policy actors like World Bank, OECD and UNESCO, but also transnational education enterprises and philanthropical actors, which are becoming more active (Mundy, Green, Lingard, & Vergeer, 2016). UNESCO and religion in education From the start, UNESCO had no particular focus on religion apart from the clear commitment to equal treatment of ‘peoples of the world without distinction of race, sex, language or religion, by the Charter of the United Nations’ (UNESCO, 1945, p. 6). A significant aspect of UNESCO’s role in global education policy has been the influence on aims of education by presenting visions and ambitions anchored in human rights and sustainability values. Parallel to this, UNESCO has even initiated a series of practice-oriented actions, going back to the early literacy programmes in the global south. UNESCO’s constitution had a focus on ‘peace and security by promoting collaboration among the nations through education, science and culture …’, but here ‘religion did not feature as a central area of concern’, reflecting the UN system at large (King, 2010, p. 920). This was partly due to the emphasis in UNESCO on education as a way to (secular) enlightenment and economic growth, and partly a tendency to avoid religion as a potential dividing issue, both globally and within nation-states. However, cultural diversity has gradually become more central to the organisation, due to the influence from decolonisation processes. This can be seen in the world heritage programme, which has been important in affirming the global value of local cultural heritage, leading to a critical discussion about a possible tension between the earlier visions of a rationalist and humanist optimism on behalf of universal educational aims and a growing emphasis on recognition of local values, on diversity and pluralism (Stoczkowski, 2009). This balancing act between universalism and particularism can be traced in recent years. One response to 9/11, 2001, was that the role of education should counter extremism and fundamentalism by becoming more central in ‘protecting cultural diversity, stating that diversity can only be guaranteed through respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and through educational programmes which sustain these’ (King, 2010, p. 923). The debate about Huntington’s book about the ‘clash of civilisations’ (Huntington, 1997) and later 9/11 and other terrorist attacks, prompted the response of an ‘alliance of civilisations’ and ‘dialogue among civilisations’, established in 2005 as United Nations Alliance of Civilizations (UNAOC).2 By using the term ‘civilisation’, UN, UNAOC and UNESCO can be seen to enter a complex and contested discourse with other large policy actors, like US, China and Russia (Winter, 2021). The idea was to bring ‘dialogue’ between civilisations, thereby contributing to global peace understanding. Both in UNAOC and in UNESCO, ‘dialogue’

76  Geir Skeie is a key concept used to cover bridging between ‘civilisations’ and between religions. But also on the small scale, there are a series of local and regional initiatives in the field of intercultural and citizenship education. Even interreligious approaches have become acknowledged, both under the umbrella of UNAOC and UNESCO. Still, it seems that this focus of UNAOC has not succeeded in getting UNESCO involved. An initial focus on religion in education as part of UNAOC seems to have been substantially weakened, and the announced ‘clearinghouse on education about religions and beliefs’ hardly got off the ground (Waggoner, 2010). Looking back in 2019, Haynes refers to several critics of UNAOC’s work and argues that UNAOC shifted its emphasis from being mainly on global citizenship (education) towards preoccupation with the prevention of extremism. This may have been done to weaken the critique of the securitisation of Muslims, which was stronger in the first phase of the organisation (Haynes, 2019). The ‘Action plan for 2019-2023’ (UNAOC, 2019) seems to confirm the development of UNAOC as a ‘soft power’ political tool for preventive diplomacy (Haynes, 2019, p. 12). Its aim is prevention of new conflicts, using intercultural and interreligious dialogue to support this prevention, and an ‘all of UN’ approach to counter and prevent violent extremism conducive to terrorism, including a particular focus on safeguarding religious sites (UNAOC, 2019). While education is mentioned as a useful tool in achieving these aims, the role of religion in education is not particularly addressed. About the same time that UNAOC was established, European international bodies were active in similar directions, with more success regarding religion in education. The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) produced the Toledo Guiding principles (OSCE/ODIHR, 2007). These principles explicitly refer positively to earlier initiatives by UNESCO and other international actors in the education policy field, including UNAOC, the European Union and the Council of Europe (CoE). This, several years later, led CoE to produce the influential Signposts report (Jackson, 2014). Summing up, it seems fair to say that while UNESCO has not been a key factor in the field of religion in education on a global policy level, the general profile of the organisation in this matter fits well with much of the profile of other international and global actors. The exception is to address religion in education explicitly and in depth, like the Toledo Guiding Principles and Signposts. It is more common to include issues of religion in broader educational perspectives, like UNESCO does in peace education, education for social cohesion, citizenship education, intercultural education and cultural heritage education. Throughout this work, there is also a tension between large-scale, top-down initiatives characterised by universal principles and more bottom-up, pluralistic initiatives, giving agency to local and regional collectives. The last UNESCO document on education tries to balance these perspectives, which can be seen from the approach to religion in education (UNESCO, 2021).

Global Education Policy on Religion and Education 77 UNESCO’s vision of global education policy and the place of religion The latest report from UNESCO should be seen in the light of the forerunners from 1972 and 1996 (Delors, 1996; Faure, 1972). The Faure report from the early 1970s only deals with religion as such in a section on premodern education systems and ideals, with respect for different traditions. The goals of (modern) education launched by the report are anchored in ‘scientific humanism’, and ‘The question of revelations of a religious nature, situated mainly outside of time and beyond critical study, does not arise here’ (Faure, 1972, p. 147). Apart from the insistence that religion should not be a matter of discrimination, it emerges mainly as a historical and external factor to education (Faure, 1972, p. 241). The report argues for lifelong education, based on the ambition to ‘help man fulfil himself in every possible way—as agent of development and change, promoter of democracy, citizen of the world, author of his own fulfilment—and to help him find his path through reality towards the ideal of the complete man’ (Faure, 1972, p. 158). The Delors report from 1996 refers positively to the Faure report. It is much shorter, with no historical part and hardly mentioning religion in general or particular religions. What is said about aims of education is on a high level of abstraction, and in line with the emphasis on self-realisation Faure report, the Delors report argues that …often without realizing it, the world has a longing, often unexpressed, for an ideal and for values that we shall term ‘moral’. It is thus education’s noble task to encourage each and every one, acting in accordance with their traditions and convictions and paying full respect to pluralism, to lift their minds and spirits to the plane of the universal and, in some measure, to transcend themselves. It is no exaggeration on the Commission’s part to say that the survival of humanity depends thereon. (Delors, 1996, p. 16) It is, however, not only individualistic, hence the emphasis on ‘learning to live together’; …guided by recognition of our growing interdependence and a common analysis of the risks and challenges of the future, would induce people to implement common projects or to manage the inevitable conflicts in an intelligent and peaceful way. (op. cit., p. 20) In 1972, environmental issues, technological development, ‘mass society’ and youth unrest and rebellion were among the challenges that should be met by better education. Some of these are mentioned in 1996, most prominently environment, poverty and globalisation, and again the humanistic

78  Geir Skeie version of education is described as a way to develop both the individual and the society. Still, 25 years later, UNESCO issued the next report of this kind, ‘Reimagining our futures together. A new social contract for education’ (UNESCO, 2021). Like the earlier reports, there is a broad vision of education for the future, seeing it as a way both to individual fulfilment and a more just society, based on a global perspective and humanistic values. Like the earlier reports, this also underlines the respect and tolerance regarding religion and worldviews: ‘the rights of all regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, disability, sexual orientation, age, or citizenship status. A massive commitment to social dialogue, to thinking and acting together, is needed.’ (…) ‘It is essential that everyone be able to participate in building the futures of education – children, youth, parents, teachers, researchers, activists, employers, cultural and religious leaders’. (op. cit., p. 5) However, religion may also be among the threats to the new social contract for education: ‘Hate speech, the irresponsible dissemination of fake news, religious fundamentalism, exclusionary nationalism – all magnified with new technologies – are, in the end, used strategically to favour narrow interests’. (op. cit., p. 9) Other threats are coming from growing polarisation and democratic backsliding (op. cit., p. 40). Here, it is important to counter the historical legacy of using education to violate rights of minorities and of children (op. cit., p. 26). The social contract means that the state needs partners, including ‘cultural and religious leaders’ (op. cit., p. 5) and ‘religious institutions’ (op. cit., p. 13). This emphasis on diversity is combined with decentralised and ‘local’ perspectives, insisting that identities – ‘cultural, spiritual, social, and linguistic – must be recognized and affirmed, particularly among indigenous, religious, cultural and gender minorities and systemically marginalized populations’ (op. cit., p. 27). The strong legacy of ‘scientific humanism’ is balanced by a more open or pluralistic epistemology, with what may be called a ‘humanism of diversity’ as a main value. One reason for still referring to this as ‘humanism’ is that while education for sustainability is central to this report, there is no mention of Anthropocene and epistemological challenges coming from the relationship between non-human and human life forms. The main focus is on humans shaping their future together and ‘the rich heritage of knowledge across cultures that recognizes the global, local, ancestral, embodied, cultural, scientific, and spiritual’ (op. cit., p. 26). This includes acknowledging the ‘knowledge about being human, about nature, about environment

Global Education Policy on Religion and Education 79 and about cosmology’ coming from indigenous peoples (op. cit., p. 36). Through the recognition of ‘diverse ways of knowing and understanding’ (op. cit., p. 64), there are attempts to encourage ‘epistemic diversity’. This includes the critique of Western habits of thinking in dichotomies, between ‘knowing what’ and ‘knowing how’, theory and practice, individual and collective, arts and sciences, human and nature, progressive and conservative, knowing and feeling, intellectual and physical, spiritual and material, modern and traditional. The document refers to non-Western perspectives having challenged the basis of these polarities and suggesting other ways of approaching such categories (op. cit., pp. 126–127). It is in line with this to see the basis for intercultural citizenship as an affirmation of cultural identities, and that education should therefore be intercultural, not assimilationist, and that power relations should become balanced (op. cit., p. 53) This may be achieved if all kinds of inequalities are addressed, and cultural traditions are respected (op. cit., p. 62). To achieve this, much can be learned from feminism, and from indigenous voices, and teachers should be in the forefront of supporting human rights, confronting power structures and counter discrimination of all sorts in dialogue with social movements and the local community, in a spirit of cultural pluralism (op. cit., pp. 81, 116). Different forms of diversity are seen as a resource in education, but in order to be so, it may be necessary to establish ‘safe spaces from violence and bullying’ (op. cit., p. 97) in order to secure inclusive and collaborative learning environments. Education for all can only be achieved through a variation of teaching and learning methods, adjusted to the individual students and by including families with different backgrounds in educational settings (op. cit., p. 148). Both content and curriculum in education should, therefore, emerge from the social contract, not merely from scientific research, valuing differences of ‘gender, religion, race, sexual identity, social class, disability, nationality, etc. Respecting the dignity of people means teaching them to think for themselves, not what or how to think’ (op. cit., p. 50). So, the place that UNESCO (2021) gives to religion in education is based on its contribution to the ‘social contract’ and drawing on religious resources for defining the ‘future together’. This includes that a) religion is recognised as one legitimate of a plurality of epistemologies (spiritual ones); b) religion defines (part of) the identity of students and families involved in education and their views should be respected and included as part of the school community; and c) religion can be an object of discrimination and this should not be tolerated. These foundational elements should also be seen in the light of the pedagogy recommended, which is ‘collaborative, interdisciplinary and problem-posing; that treasures and sustains diversity; that invites students to unlearn prejudices and divisions; that heals the wounds of injustice; and that uses meaningful assessment to pedagogical advantage’ (op. cit., p. 50). Reports like ‘Reimagining our futures together. A new social contract for education’, are thought-provoking, but do not have any binding influence on

80  Geir Skeie the national education systems of countries. So like the earlier reports, there are reasons for being cautious about the effects: At this time of exacerbating conflicts and widening gaps of inequality worldwide, there could be much to learn from revisiting the reports’ claim for a more just society and their concepts of ‘learning to be’ and ‘learning to live together’. However, in the contemporary political climate characterised by particularism and the hegemony of the economic, it seems unlikely that UNESCO’s message will be noticed. (Elfert, 2019, p. 23) There is admittedly a considerable distance between the visions of UNESCO for ‘a new social contract for education’ operating on a global education policy scale and appealing to ‘members of society to cooperate for shared benefit’, to the realities of education in nation-states and more particularly to religion in education. Diving into the realities of national education systems, we see that religion in education is not only a question of policy documents; ‘religious education lies at the intersection of three institutions: the family, religion and the state’ (Durham, 2013). Studies of national policy documents have shown that they display a complex relationship between religion, power and nationality (Ubani, 2013). The relationship between religion and the secular state has consequences for how religion is treated within education, since the education system is run by or at least regulated by the state. This has resulted in a variety of complex relationships, modifying the formal policies on global and national levels (Martínez-Torrón & Durham, 2013). Discussion Based on the above, I want to address some challenges and opportunities that UNESCO’s global education policy raises regarding religions and worldviews by drawing on some recent discussions in the field of religious education. The influence of UNESCO’s global education policy on its member states may be detected as a direct supra-national influence, or seen as affirming and supporting changes that already are going on nationally, transnationally or internationally. In any case, it is fair to assume that the effects are dependent on the national context.3 Issues of religion have not been a prominent feature in UNESCO but it has become more central in later years in somewhat contradictory ways. On the one hand, it has been a preoccupation with religion being a polarising element in and between countries and a factor in terrorism and war, and on the other hand, religions and worldviews have been mentioned as examples of the increasing positive valuation of diversity and pluralism. Issues of religion in education have mainly been addressed in indirect ways by UNESCO, often as part of intercultural education (UNESCO, 2006, 2013, 2017), while OECD/ODIHR (2007) and Council of Europe (Jackson, 2014) have addressed this more directly. There is an insistence in the two last publications

Global Education Policy on Religion and Education 81 on the value of an inclusive education providing knowledge about a diversity of religions and worldviews, and the importance of stimulating dialogue between students from different backgrounds and the connections with education for democratic citizenship. They do not recommend a distinct type of religious and worldview education for individual countries but argue that the above aims can be reached in different ways according to the national system. A question for empirical research is whether this openness works, or if an intercultural and dialogic type of education about religions and worldviews thrives more in some institutional settings than others. The following will not address this directly, but indirectly, pointing to some recent debates among researchers of religious education, drawing on the perspectives presented in this chapter. The first example is dealing with the understanding of what religion and worldviews ‘do’ in education. From the broad perspective of UNESCO (2021), education is more than a qualification of the workforce for future society, it is about visions for the future society. Here, there is a difference compared with OECD education policy, with its emphasis on resilience, transformative competencies and well-being as outputs on the individual level (OECD, 2021a, 2021b). In UNESCO (2021), humans may have different ideas about futures, but still ‘we’ are ‘together’, and education should be part of a renegotiated, common ‘social contract’. Here, the value of diversity is combined with ambitions of unity through collaboration. The earlier ambition to reach unity through ‘scientific humanism’ and to keep questions about different ontologies and epistemologies outside is left for epistemic pluralism. If not being post-humanistic, it may be called a ‘humanism of diversity’. The policy initiative from UNESCO (2021) aims at social cohesion through inclusion in education and society of different cultural values, religions and worldviews. This complex challenge can be seen as a ‘social problem’ full of dilemmas and the strategy can be interpreted as an example of ‘educationalization’ (Smeyers & Depaepe, 2008). If social problems are addressed through education, this has consequences both for education and for the social problems themselves. Citizenship education has been criticised for its lack of critical self-reflection regarding its role in educationalising broad challenges related to inequality and power (Hodgson, 2008). Another example is the educationalising of mental health issues among young people, when these problems are insufficiently addressed in society at large (Sullivan, 2018). Here, education is in danger of becoming ‘therapeutic’ (Brunila & Ylöstalo, 2020; Ecclestone & Hayes, 2009). Broadly speaking, UNESCO (2021) is educationalising issues of violence, poverty, sustainability and power. This creates dilemmas for education, as illustrated by the school strikes of Greta Thunberg and others. These young people claim that while it is important to learn about the climate crisis in school, the crisis itself is not educational, but societal. Consequently, they leave school for political action outside of education (Kvamme, 2019). Similar arguments have been raised regarding certain types of religious education, criticising them for contributing to ‘securitisation’ of education (Gearon, 2018, 2019b). Gearon has pointed to the close links between

82  Geir Skeie intercultural education, citizenship education and religious education and the growing interest in religious education from global actors like UNESCO, CoE, OECD and OSCE, organisations partly or largely concerned about security. More concretely, he has pointed to Toledo Guiding Principles (OECD, 2007) and a specific research project (REDCo) as examples of securitisation. In securitisation theory, the argument is that religion in general, specific religious groups or positions (e.g. ‘fundamentalism’) are treated rhetorically in a specific way, as ‘threats’, and that this misinterprets the character of religion (Bagge, Laustsen, & Wæver, 2000). Other securitisation researchers have, however, argued that this argument suffers from a limited or biased understanding of ‘religion’ (Sheikh, 2014). Gearon argues, based on securitisation theory, that types of religious education are made a servant to intercultural education and citizenship education and through this religion as such is distorted or misrepresented. ‘The holy’ is not represented and religious education is cut off from ‘religious life’ (Gearon, 2013, p. 149; Gearon, 2019b, p. 8). The end effect may be that the securitisation discourse prevents students from understanding what religion is about and from addressing issues of religion in educative ways. Drawing on the Copenhagen school of securitisation referred to above, Gearon argues that the (well-meaning) educational efforts to harmonise relations between religious and even non-religious beliefs have the effect to draw religious education into a discourse that is not its own, but belongs to political forces preoccupied with citizenship education, security, social control and cohesion. It is this securitisation discourse Gearon is critical of, and he argues against several types of religious education which he finds to be involved in this problematic discourse. The discussion between Gearon and Jackson on the securitisation and politicisation of religious education is instructive in illustrating how controversial this claim is (Gearon, 2015, 2017a, 2017b, 2018, 2019a, 2019b; Jackson, 2015, 2017, 2018, 2019a, 2019b; Lewin, 2017). While it seems difficult to defend Gearon’s position that securitisation and citizenship discourse is taking over religious education, the discussion is a valid contribution to the reflection on dilemmas of educationalisation and also by clarifying different positions on what religious education should be. This last issue is on the agenda in an even more recent debate about content, terminology and aims of religious education, starting with suggestions to replace ‘religions’ with ‘worldviews’. It has been discussed in different national contexts and reflects international developments (Bråten, 2021; Cooling, 2020; Kooij, 2016; Lipiäinen, Halafoff, Mansouri, & Bouma, 2020; Shaw, 2022; Taves, 2020; Tharani, 2018; Valk, 2021; Van Der Kooij, De Ruyter, & Miedema, 2013). One key reason for the suggestion is that it would contribute to making religious education more inclusive, particularly towards the ‘nones’; students with no religious background (Rudge, 1998). Another argument is that it would capture better the diverse and complex ways of identifying religiously, including forms of ‘lived religion’ (Bertram-Troost & Miedema, 2017; Bouma, 2017; Orsi, 2003; Vestøl, 2016). The debate seems to reveal that while some approaches to religious education are mainly preoccupied with

Global Education Policy on Religion and Education 83 religious education being inclusive, opening the classroom for learning about each other and a diversity of traditions, other approaches put more emphasis on the representation of difference, the Other or the ‘holy’; careful not to level out opposing ontologies, epistemologies and truth claims. A recent contribution trying to include both ‘camps’ argues in favour of ‘worldview literacy’(…) ‘as a transformational process of educational praxis through encounter in plurality’ (Shaw, 2022, p. 1). In Shaw’s publication, this is seen as answering the challenges from the global education policy of UNESCO (2021) by offering a ‘framework for both re-thinking the crossover between RE and citizenship education and for strengthening the inclusivity and transformative potential of both’ (Shaw, 2022, p. 12). Here, debates about global education policy, basic aims of education and questions of religion in education are linked and this suggests that the discussions about religious and worldview education in years to come may address these issues within an increasingly international and even global horizon. I would therefore like to end this discussion by drawing attention to an initiative arguing for increased and improved ‘knowledge transfer’ in religious education research (Schweitzer & Schreiner, 2020). While this initiative is more ‘international’ than ‘global’, it acknowledges the perspectives of UNESCO on the importance of research-based knowledge in society and on global information systems to spread such knowledge (Schweitzer & Schreiner, 2021, pp. 31, 36). Another perspective shared is the intention to address common questions across national systems, without insisting that the future is to have one universal way of dealing with religion in education and one common model for religious education. This would be difficult, even within the European perspective of this initiative (op. cit., p. 30). A series of contributions present perspectives on knowledge transfer and in many cases exemplify this with comparative studies. There are even reflections on the role of research in relation to policy and practice as well as discussion about the diffusion of knowledge between contexts (Doney, 2021; Miedema, 2021). Especially these two chapters touch on issues relevant considering UNESCO and its global policy on education and they point towards the possible influence that religious education research may have. Here, researchers need to be aware of the role they are playing in an increasingly globalised and politicised field of education, where research plays a key role in legitimising education policy (Zapp, 2021). The challenges this raises can only be addressed by doing more good research and discussing this research across all kinds of borders. Summing up, we must conclude that the place of religions and worldviews in the global education policy of UNESCO is still peripheral, but that signals of change include an increasing emphasis both on diversity and inclusion, which seems to move in a different direction from the earlier modernist and humanistic perspectives. Whether this has any global influence on religion in education is an open question since national histories and systems still seem to have much to say, and there is still much research to be done in assessing the relationship between religion and education, both policy and practice (Ubani,

84  Geir Skeie 2013). The international debates about religious education do, however, suggest that changes may be on their way in years to come, possibly by drawing on different impulses including public debates, research, international and national policy development and even bottom-up impulses from teachers and students. This last element has not been much discussed in this chapter, but it should be acknowledged that in the end it is the school practice that matters. Notes 1 See https://www.unesco.org/en/education/higher-education/unitwin. Among the Chairs, 12 have religion or religious mentioned in their title 2 See https://www.unaoc.org/ 3 I am drawing on the terms used in the methodology for comparative studies of religious education by Bråten (2013a, 2013b).

References Bagge Laustsen, C., & Wæver, O. (2000). In defence of religion: Sacred referent objects for securitization. Millennium, 29(3), 705–739. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 03058298000290031601 Bertram-Troost, G., & Miedema, S. (2017). Fostering religious tolerance in education: The Dutch perspective. In R. R. Ganzevoort, & S. Sremac (Eds.), Lived religion and the politics of (in)tolerance (pp. 237–257). Berlin: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43406-3_11 Bouma, G. D. (2017). Religions–lived and packaged–viewed thought an intercultural dialogue prism. In F. Mansouri (Ed.), Interculturalism at the crossroads, comparative perspectives on concepts, policies and practices (pp. 127–142). Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved from https://www.upf.edu/documents/3329791/0/UNESCO+book+ interculturalism/5925b98c-e485-067c-8c70-a6adcacc1d06 Bråten, O. M. H. (2013a). Comparative studies in religious education: The issue of methodology. Religion & Education, 40(1), 107–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 15507394.2013.745358 Bråten, O. M. H. (2013b). Towards a methodology for comparative studies in religious education. A study of England and Norway. Münster: Waxmann. Bråten, O. M. H. (2021). Non-binary worldviews in education. British Journal of Religious Education, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/01416200.2021.1901653 Brunila, K., & Ylöstalo, H. (2020). The Nordic therapeutic welfare state and its resilient citizens. In D. Nehring, O. J. Madsen, E. Cabanas, C. Mills, & D. Kerrigan (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of global therapeutic cultures (pp. 334–345). New York, NY: Routledge. Cooling, T. (2020). Worldview in religious education: Autobiographical reflections on the commission on religious education in England final report. British Journal of Religious Education, 42(4), 403–414. https://doi.org/10.1080/01416200. 2020.1764497 Delors, J. (1996). Learning: the treasure within; report to UNESCO of the International Commission on Education for the Twenty-first Century. Retrieved from https:// unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000109590 Doney, J. (2021). Theorising boundary encounters as a means to understand diffusion of ideas in religious education In F. Schweitzer, & P. Schreiner (Eds.), International knowledge transfer in religious education (pp. 143–258). Münster: Waxmann.

Global Education Policy on Religion and Education 85 Dreamson, N. (2018). Culturally inclusive global citizenship education: Metaphysical and non-Western approaches. Multicultural Education Review, 10(2), 75–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/2005615x.2018.1460896 Durham, W. C. (2013). Introduction. In D. Davis, & E. Miroshnikova (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of religious education (pp. 1–12). New York, NY: Routledge. Ecclestone, K., & Hayes, D. (2009). The dangerous rise of therapeutic education. New York, NY: Routledge. Elfert, M. (2015). UNESCO, the Faure report, the Delors report, and the political Utopia of lifelong learning. European Journal of Education, 50(1), 88–100. https:// doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12104 Elfert, M. (2019). Revisiting the Faure report and the Delors report: Why was UNESCO’s Utopian vision of lifelong learning an “unfailure”? In F. Finnegan, & B. Grummel (Eds.), Power and possibility: Adult education in a diverse and complex world (pp. 17–25). Leiden: Brill. Retrieved from https://library.oapen.org/ bitstream/handle/20.500.12657/38037/9789004413320_webready_content_ text.pdf?sequence=1#page=30 Elfert, M., & Ydesen, C. (2020). The influence of the United States on the rise of global governance in education: The OEEC and UNESCO in the post–Second World War period. In K. Gram-Scholdager, H. A. Ikonomou, & T. Kahlert (Eds.), Organizing the 20th-century world: International organizations and the emergence of international public administration, 1920-1960s (pp. 73–90). London: Bloomsbury Academic. Faure, E. (1972). Learning to be: The world of education today and tomorrow. UNESCO. Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000001801 Forsberg, S. (2019). Setting a global agenda of education: Cooperation and tension within the global education policy field. Geoforum, 100, 32–40. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2019.01.019 Gardinier, M. P. (2021). Imagining globally competent learners: Experts and education policy-making beyond the nation-state. Comparative Education, 57(1), 130–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2020.1845064 Gearon, L. (2013). On holy ground. New York, NY: Routledge. Gearon, L. (2015). Religious education and the challenge of pluralism. Book review. Church & State, 57(3), 563–565. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcs/csv051 Gearon, L. (2017a). Paradigm shift in religious education: A reply to Jackson, or why religious education goes to war. Journal of Beliefs & Values, 1–21. https://doi. org/10.1080/13617672.2017.1381438 Gearon, L. (2017b). Secularisation and the securitisation of the sacred: A response to Lewin’s framing of the Gearon-Jackson debate. British Journal of Educational Studies, 65(4), 469–480. Gearon, L. (2018). Paradigm shift in religious education: A reply to Jackson, or why religious education goes to war. Journal of Beliefs & Values, 39(3), 358–378. https:// doi.org/10.1080/13617672.2017.1381438 Gearon, L. (2019a). The politicization and securitization of religion in education: A response to a rejoinder. In M. L. Pirner, J. Lähnemann, W. Haussmann, S. Schwarz, P. Bubmann, F. Höhne, A. Nehring, H. Simojoki, & T. Wabel (Eds.), Public theology perspectives on religion and education (pp. 211–227). New York, NY: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429464973 Gearon, L. (2019b). Religion, education, security. Religions, 10(5), 330. https://doi. org/10.3390/rel10050330

86  Geir Skeie Haynes, J. (2019). Religion, education and security: The United Nations Alliance of Civilisations and Global Citizenship. Religions, 10(1), 51. https://doi. org/10.3390/rel10010051 Hodgson, N. (2008). The educationalisation of social problems and the educationalisation of educational research: The example of citizenship education. In P. Smeyers, & M. Depaepe (Eds.), Educational research: The educationalization of social problems (pp. 125–140). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9724-9_9 Huntington, S. P. (1997). The clash of civilizations and the remaking of world. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Jackson, R. (2014). Signposts: Policy and practice for teaching about religions and nonreligious world views in intercultural education. Council of Europe Publishing. Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/Display DCTMContent?documentId=09000016806cd2f5 Jackson, R. (2015). The politicisation and securitisation of religious education? A rejoinder. British Journal of Educational Studies, 63(3), 345–366. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/00071005.2015.1069257 Jackson, R. (2017). ‘Who’s afraid of secularisation?’ A response to David Lewin. British Journal of Educational Studies, 65(4), 463–468. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 00071005.2017.1358804 Jackson, R. (2018). Paradigm shift in religious education? A reply to Gearon, or when is a paradigm not a paradigm? Journal of Beliefs & Values, 39(3), 379–395. https:// doi.org/10.1080/13617672.2018.1469327 Jackson, R. (2019a). Do the Toledo Guiding Principles politicise religious education? In M. T. Mjaaland (Ed.), Formatting religion across politics, education, media and law (1st ed., pp. 127–141). New York, NY: Routledge. https://doi.org/ 10.4324/9780429030567-8 Jackson, R. (2019b). Politicization and securitization? The REDCo project and the Toledo Guiding Principles. In M. L. Pirner, J. Lähnemann, W. Haussmann, S. Schwarz, P. Bubmann, F. Höhne, A. Nehring, H. Simojoki, & T. Wabel (Eds.), Public theology perspectives on religion and education (pp. 228–249). New York, NY: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429464973 King, L. (2010). Education for human rights, inter-cultural and inter-religious dialogue: The role of UNESCO. In K. Engebretson, M. de Souza, G. Durka, & L. Gearon (Eds.), International handbook of inter-religious education (Vol. 4, pp. 919– 932). Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9260-2_55 Kooij, J. C. v. d. (2016). Worldview and moral education: On conceptual clarity and consistency in use (Doctoral Thesis, University of Amsterdam). Retrieved from https:// research.vu.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/42160953/complete+dissertation.pdf Kvamme, O. A. (2017). The significance of context: Moral education and religious education facing the challenge of sustainability. Discourse and Communication for Sustainable Education, 8, 24–37. https://doi.org/10.1515/dcse-2017-0013 Kvamme, O. A. (2019). School strikes, environmental ethical values, and democracy. Studier i pædagogisk filosofi, 8(1), 6–27. https://doi.org/10.7146/spf.v8i1.117967 Lewin, D. (2017). Who’s afraid of secularisation? Reframing the debate between Gearon and Jackson. British Journal of Educational Studies, 65(4), 445–461. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071005.2017.1305182 Lingard, B., & Sellar, S. (2016). The changing organizational and global significance of the OECD’s education work. In K. Mundy (Ed.), Handbook of global education

Global Education Policy on Religion and Education 87 policy (pp. 435–453). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Retrieved from http:// ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uisbib/detail.action?docID=4427184 Lingard, B., Sellar, S., & Baroutsis, A. (2015). Researching the habitus of global policy actors in education. Cambridge Journal of Education, 45(1), 25–42. https://doi. org/10.1080/0305764X.2014.988686 Lipiäinen, T., Halafoff, A., Mansouri, F., & Bouma, G. (2020). Diverse worldviews education and social inclusion: A comparison between Finnish and Australian approaches to build intercultural and interreligious understanding. British Journal of Religious Education, 42(4), 391–402. https://doi.org/10.1080/01416200.2020. 1737918 Martínez-Torrón, J., & Durham, W. C. (2013). Religion and the secular state. In K. B. Brown, & D. V. Snyder (Eds.), General reports of the XVIIIth Congress of the International Academy of Comparative Law/Rapports Généraux du XVIIIème Congrès de l’Académie Internationale de Droit Comparé. Berlin: Springer. Retrieved from https://www.iclrs.org/content/blurb/files/General%20Report.pdf Menashy, F., & Manion, C. (2016). The historical evolution and current challenges of the United Nations and global education policy-making. In K. Mundy, A. Green, B. Lingard, & A. Verger (Eds.), Handbook of global education policy (pp. 391–408). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest. com/lib/uisbib/detail.action?docID=4427184 Miedema, S. (2021). Strengthening the links between academia, lifeworld and politics in religious and worldview education. In F. Schweitzer, & P. Schreiner (Eds.), International knowledge transfer in religious education (pp. 229–242). Münster: Waxmann. Mundy, K., Green, A., Lingard, B., & Vergeer, A. (Eds.). (2016). The handbook of global education policy. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell. OECD. (2021a). Education at a glance 2021: OECD indicators. https://doi. org/10.1787/b35a14e5-en OECD. (2021b). Education policy outlook 2021: Shaping responsive and resilient education in a changing world. https://doi.org/10.1787/75e40a16-en Orsi, R. (2003). Is the study of lived religion irrelevant to the world we live in? Special Presidential Plenary Address, Society for the Scientific Study of Religion, Salt Lake City, 2 November 2002. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 42(2), 169–174. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/1387834 OSCE/ODIHR. (2007). Toledo guiding principles on teaching about religions and beliefs in public schools. Retrieved from https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/ c/e/29154.pdf Ramirez, F. O., Meyer, J. W., & Lerch, J. (2016). World society and the globalization of educational policy. In K. Mundy, A. Green, B. Lingard, & A. Verger (Eds.), Handbook of global education policy (pp. 79–104). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell. Riitaoja, A.-L., & Dervin, F. (2014). Interreligious dialogue in schools: Beyond asymmetry and categorisation? Language and Intercultural Communication, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/14708477.2013.866125 Röll, V., & Meyer, C. (2020). Young people’s perceptions of world cultural heritage: Suggestions for a critical and reflexive world heritage education. Sustainability, 12(20), 8640. Retrieved from https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/20/8640 Rudge, L. M. (1998). ‘I am nothing, does it matter?’ A critique of current religious education policy and practice in England on behalf of the silent majority. British Journal of Religious Education, 20(3), 155–165. https://doi.org/10. 1080/0141620980200304

88  Geir Skeie Schweitzer, F., & Schreiner, P. (2020). International knowledge transfer in religious education - A manifesto for discussion. Religious Education, 115(1), 10–14. https:// doi.org/10.1080/00344087.2019.1677988 Schweitzer, F., & Schreiner, P. (Eds.). (2021). International knowledge transfer in religious education. Münster: Waxmann. Shaw, M. (2022). Worldview literacy as intercultural citizenship education: A framework for critical, reflexive engagement in plural democracy. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice. https://doi.org/10.1177/17461979211062125 Sheikh, M. K. (2014). The religious challenge to securitisation theory. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 43(1), 252–272. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0305829814540853 Smeyers, P., & Depaepe, M. (Eds.). (2008). Educational research: The educationalization of social problems (Vol. 3). Berlin: Springer. Retrieved from https://link.springer. com/book/10.1007/978-1-4020-9724-9 Stoczkowski, W. (2009). UNESCO’s doctrine of human diversity: A secular soteriology? Anthropology Today, 25(3), 7–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8322.2009.00666.x Sullivan, T. L. (2018). The educationalization of student emotional and behavioral health: Alternative truth. Berlin: Springer. Tan, C. (2020). An ethical foundation for global citizenship education: A neoConfucian perspective. Journal of Beliefs & Values, 41(4), 446–457. https://doi. org/10.1080/13617672.2019.1683431 Taves, A. (2020). From religious studies to worldview studies. Religion, 50(1), 137–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/0048721X.2019.1681124 Telhaug, A. O., Mediås, O. A., & Aasen, P. (2004). From collectivism to individualism? Education as nation building in a Scandinavian perspective. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 48(2), 141–158. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/0031383042000198558 Telhaug, A. O., Mediås, O. A., & Aasen, P. (2006). The Nordic Model in Education: Education as part of the political system in the last 50 years. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 50(3), 245–283. Retrieved from http:// web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=4&hid=125&sid=ee01d 6ec-46e4-4ca3-bb29-81f9559586e0%40sessionmgr12 Tharani, A. (2018). Religion and worldviews. The way forward. A national plan for RE. Report produced for the Commission of Religious Education. Retrieved from https://www.commissiononre.org.uk/final-report-religion-and-worldviews-theway-forward-a-national-plan-for-re/ Ubani, M. (2013). Threats and solutions: Multiculturalism, religion and educational policy. Intercultural Education, 24(3), 195–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/14675 986.2013.797701 UNAOC (2019). United Nations Alliance of Civilisations (UNAOC) Action Plan 2019-2023. New York, NY: Author. Retrieved from https://www.unaoc.org/wpcontent/uploads/UNAOC-Action-Plan-2019-2023-final-191122.pdf UNESCO (1945). Constitution of the United Nations Educational Scientific, and Cultural Organisation. Paris: Author. Retrieved from https://www.refworld.org/ pdfid/3ddb73094.pdf UNESCO (2006). UNESCO guidelines on intercultural education. Paris: Author. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001478/147878e.pdf UNESCO (2013). Intercultural competences. Conceptual and operational framework. Paris: Author.

Global Education Policy on Religion and Education 89 UNESCO (2017). Making textbook content inclusive: A focus on religion, gender, and culture. UNESCO (2021). Reimagining our futures together: A new social contract for education. Paris: Author. Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/ pf0000379707 Vaccari, V., & Gardinier, M. P. (2019). Toward one world or many? A comparative analysis of OECD and UNESCO global education policy documents. International Journal of Development Education and Global Learning, 11(1), 68–86. https://doi. org/10.18546/ijdegl.11.1.05 Valk, J. (2021). Worldviews: A comprehensive approach to knowing self and others. Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82491-4 Van Der Kooij, J. C., De Ruyter, D. J., & Miedema, S. (2013). “Worldview”: The meaning of the concept and the impact on religious education. Religious Education, 108(2), 210–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/00344087.2013.767685 Verger, A., Novelli, M., & Altinyelken, H. K. (2012). Global education policy and international development. An introductory framework. In A. Verger, M. Novelli, & H. K. Altinyelken (Eds.), Global education policy and international development new agendas, issues and policies (pp. 3–32). London: Bloomsbury Academic. https://doi. org/10.5040/9781472544575.ch-001 Vestøl, J. M. (2016). Textbook religion and lived religion: A comparison of the Christian faith as expressed in textbooks and by young church members. Religious Education, 111(1), 95–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/00344087.2016.1124015 Waggoner, M. D. (2010). Education about religions and beliefs (ERB) Clearinghouse (www.aocerb.org). Religion & Education, 37(1), 91–93. https://doi. org/10.1080/15507390903559137 Winter, T. (2021). Civilisations in dialogue? UNESCO and the politics of building East and West relations. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 1–15. https://doi. org/10.1080/10286632.2021.1941913 Ydesen, C. (2019a). The formation and workings of a global education governing complex. In C. Ydesen (Ed.), The OECD’s historical rise in education (pp. 291–303). Berlin: Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33799-5_14 Ydesen, C. (2019b). The OECD’s historical rise in education. Berlin: Springer. https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33799-5 Zapp, M. (2021). The authority of science and the legitimacy of international organisations: OECD, UNESCO and World Bank in global education governance. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 51(7), 1022–1041. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2019.1702503

Part II

Thinking Through Religion and Worldviews Policy in Education: Philosophical and Practical Problematics

7

Rewriting the Historical Narrative of Post-Confessional English Religious Education L. Philip Barnes

It is widely recognised for some time that English (non-confessional) religious education is in ‘crisis’ (Religious Education Council of England and Wales [REC], 2013, p. 8). Different responses to this have been developed but by far the most radical and influential have been the proposals of the Commission on Religious Education (CoRE), established by the Religious Education Council of England and Wales. Its final report Religion and Worldviews: The way forward: A national plan for RE (2018) recommended a new ‘National Entitlement’ for all pupils in all schools (community schools, free schools, academies, and schools of a religious character) centred on reconceptualising religions as worldviews and requiring the subject to include a range of secular worldviews; hence, religious education reconfigured under the proposed name of ‘religion and worldviews’ (note religion, not religions, for religions are intended to be subsumed under worldviews as religious worldviews); it also called for changes to the law and to the policies governing the subject so that its proposals would have statutory force. Wendy Dossett (2022) has referred to the CoRE Report as ‘the single most significant encapsulation of a vision for the subject since the 1988 Education Reform Act’ (my emphasis). Dossett is here taking up CoRE’s own description of its proposals as providing a ‘new vision’ (10 times in fact and the term ‘new’ as a qualifying adjective for CoRE’s proposals is used over 60 times in 68 pages). Later supporting materials (again produced under the direction of the Religious Education Council) also speak of CoRE as providing a ‘new approach’ and as a ‘new paradigm’ (Cooling, 2000; Cooling, Bowie, & Panjwani, 2020; Tharani, 2020). The interpretation of CoRE’s position as articulating a new paradigm is chiefly indebted to Professor Trevor Cooling. ‘At the first meeting of the Commission’, Cooling tells us, ‘in my capacity as Chair of the REC, I challenged the commissioners to produce a “game-changer”. A more academic way of talking about a game-change is to refer to it as a paradigm change’ (Cooling et al., 2020, p. 20)—by which he means the adoption of a new belief framework with its attendant presuppositions that will guide pedagogy, practice, and the production of resources. Although Cooling believes CoRE’s advocacy of worldview ‘represents a new paradigm’ (Cooling et al., 2020, p. 15), it never uses the term, though Cooling (2020) believes it is DOI: 10.4324/9781003265696-9

94  L. Philip Barnes ‘foreshadowed in the Report’s recommendation’ (p. 404). The idea of a worldview approach as a new paradigm of religious education is central to its case for adoption and to its apologetic appeal, and it has increasingly come to characterise and give unified form to CoRE’s proposals, particularly at the level of academic discussion. This work is now carried forward by ‘The Worldview Project’ (again under the aegis of the Religious Education Council) through such things as supportive events and publications and the production of guidance materials. Much has been written on CoRE’s proposed worldview paradigm, both ‘for’ and ‘against’—one of the most serious issues is that the worldview approach is not grounded in a research project or can claim empirical research to support its conclusions. Criticisms are already well focused in a growing body of scholarly literature and there isn’t any need to rehearse them here (see Barnes, 2022, 2023; Independent Schools Religious Studies Association [ISRSA], 2022). What has been overlooked by critics, however, is the interpretation of the post-confessional history of English religious education offered by Cooling and set out in the publications of the Worldview Project (Tharani, 2020). A new paradigm presupposes an old paradigm that needs to be replaced; Cooling and supporters of CoRE refer to this as ‘the world religions paradigm’, which is believed to have dominated English religious education for the last 50 years (Cooling et al., 2020, p. 25; Benoit, Hutchings, & Shillitoe, 2020, pp. 7–8). Is this a credible reading of the history of religious education in England? What is the nature of the ‘world religions paradigm’ that is to be replaced and what is the evidence that it dominated theory and practice for the last 50 years? These questions are mainly of historical interest but unconvincing answers to them carry implications for our perception and probably estimate of the proposed new worldview paradigm. Is the post-confessional history of religious education being falsified to present the worldview paradigm in the best possible light and to exaggerate the differences between what has gone before and the proposed new approach? Should the differences be inconsiderable, CoRE’s rhetoric of ‘newness’ will be undermined. More seriously, if the proposed new paradigm is heavily indebted to what has gone before, the question arises, given that current theory has brought religious education to its widely acknowledge ‘lamentable state’ (Myatt, 2020, p. 11), why should we believe that something not all that different will overcome current weaknesses? Robert Jackson has stated: ‘If evaluations of present and past models of RE are themselves defective, their use in re-thinking the future shape and content of the subject is highly questionable’ (Jackson, 2015, p. 76). These words of warning by Jackson are relevant to our analysis of CoRE’s and Trevor Cooling’s claim that a worldview approach represents a new departure for religious education. A flawed or inaccurate account of the history of English religious education and the ‘defective’ models that have shaped it will inevitably result in equally flawed proposals to rescue it from the current crisis. To use a medical analogy: if the aetiology of a patient’s disease is

Historical Narrative of Post-Confessional English RE 95 mistaken, it follows that the proposed treatment will be equally mistaken and therefore much less likely to be successful. Some final introductory comments: first, the purpose of this chapter is to ask whether the history of post-confessional religious education confirms Cooling and the Worldview Project’s interpretation and whether their interpretation gives credence to the newness of a worldview paradigm. It is not to develop an alternative interpretation of English religious education that more accurately captures its vicissitudes and developments. Second, CoRE’s proposals for the future are not our main concern, though what is said has implications for our estimate of them. Third, this is an introductory study, which it is admitted does not do justice to the complexities of the issues; however, the hope is entertained that the material here will be greatly expanded and refined in a future publication. Kuhn, paradigms, and ‘revolutions’ The concept of paradigm and associated terms go back to Thomas Kuhn (1922–1996) and his study of the nature of science and of scientific ‘progress’ in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962; enlarged 2nd edition, 1970). In the article by Cooling (2020), supporting and commending the proposals of CoRE, to which we have already referred, he speaks approvingly of Kuhn’s idea about ‘paradigm shifts’ and how he views the emergence of a worldview paradigm as something analogous to Kuhn’s account of how one scientific paradigm gives way to another (for Kuhn, one paradigm ‘replaces’ another rather than ‘follows’ another). According to him, science usually operates according to a commonly assumed network of commitments—‘conceptual, theoretical, instrumental, and methodological’ (Kuhn, 1970, p. 42)—that operationalises its practice, adjudicates its research priorities and successes, and so on. He (pp. 23–34) refers to this as ‘normal’ science (pp. 23–34): science pursued according to a common framework, that is, pursued according to a common paradigm. Paradigms determine what problems are significant and provide the tools for their solution. Normal science is a ‘puzzle-solving’ activity. Yet puzzles can take a more challenging form when certain research findings do not fully conform to predictions generated by the paradigm or when novel findings emerge from new sources of evidence or from new scientific instruments for testing that require accommodation and a shift of meaning or significance elsewhere in the network of assumptions constitutive of the paradigm. There is a point, which though difficult to determine, when, according to Kuhn, puzzles become ‘anomalies’, that is when there is ‘recognition that nature has somehow violated the paradigm-induced expectations that govern normal science’ (Kuhn, 1970, pp. 52–53). A ‘crisis’ is admitted when there is an appreciation of the existence of a major anomaly or a group of anomalies that appear to undermine the credibility of the ruling paradigm. Crisis is a semi-technical term for Kuhn that denotes the increasing awareness by

96  L. Philip Barnes scientists working within existing scientific parameters that the paradigm guiding research is incapable of resolving anomalies. A state of crisis initiates the search by some scientists for a new paradigm that can overcome identified anomalies. A ‘revolution’ (Kuhn’s term) and the shift to a new paradigm will eliminate at least the most pressing anomalies and optimally provide a solution to many of the outstanding, unsolved puzzles associated with the old paradigm. Once accepted by the scientific community, what was once a new paradigm becomes the ruling paradigm, which now determines the reconfigured structure of normal science. Much more could be said about Kuhn’s account of the nature of science and paradigm change, though enough has been said to identify its main feature and to indicate its relevance to other disciplines and fields of study. Transposing his position into the field of religious education, Cooling and others speak of the current, dominant ‘normal’ paradigm of religious education as a ‘world religions’ paradigm, in which serious weaknesses (Kuhn’s ‘anomalies’) are now becoming increasingly apparent, hence the current ‘crisis’ in English non-confessional religious education. The world religions paradigm seems incapable of overcoming these weaknesses; hence the search for a new paradigm that can revitalise religious education and give it renewed educational relevance and credibility. The Commission on Religious Education presages the emergence of a credible alternative, in the form of a worldview paradigm, to the educationally dominant world religions paradigm. The Religious Education Council’s well-funded and ambitious programme entitled ‘The Worldview Project’ to win over the religious education community to implement its proposed ‘reforms’ may be interpreted in this way. Cooling believes that CoRE’s proposals ‘offer a new way forward for RE that would be fit for purpose for at least a decade’ (Cooling in Tharani, 2020, p. 3). A world religions paradigm The historical narrative of religious education is, for supporters of a shift to a worldview paradigm, relatively straightforward; this of course is one of its attractions. A Christian civic religious instruction (or Christian confessional) paradigm gave way to a world religions paradigm around 50 years ago and it is now time for a further paradigm shift. In the quotation below, Cooling reviews the post-war history of English religious education as being structured and determined by three contrasting paradigms: This … survey indicates how the paradigm that shaped understandings of the purpose of RE in schools has changed over the last seventy years. The biggest shift was from the Christian civic religious instruction paradigm to the world religions paradigm around fifty years ago. Developments since then have mostly been variations on that world religions paradigm, which focuses on the religions as discrete, self-contained, clearly defined traditions as the main subject content. Even when Humanism is

Historical Narrative of Post-Confessional English RE 97 included, as it increasingly is, the approach taken to it mirrors the world religions paradigm. Approaches which have departed from this model, such as the shift to experience or to philosophy …, have rather lost touch with religion. In what follows, I will argue that the CoRE report encapsulates another fundamental paradigm shift, where the idea of worldview is central but a clear focus on religion is maintained. (Cooling et al., 2020, pp. 24–25) Some observations before moving on to more important matters: Cooling maintains the ‘shift to experience’ and the incorporation of ‘philosophy’ in religious education both depart from a world religions paradigm (whether they do or not is not pursued here), whereas a clear focus on religion, he believes, is maintained by orientating religious education to worldviews. This is not the case. To revise the religious education curriculum to include the study of a range of secular worldviews, such as Paganism, secularism, or agnosticism (all recommended as possible worldviews to be studied) alongside religions, obviously moves the subject away from ‘a clear focus on religion’. It is also difficult to know what sense is to be attached to his claim that the representation of Humanism in religious education ‘mirrors the world religions paradigm’. Humanism is a non-religious worldview that rejects most of the beliefs and practices that are typically associated with religions—belief in God, in the afterlife, in worship, and so on; consequently, how can its representation in education mirror representations of religions? Finally, if the current world religions paradigm, as Cooling acknowledges, can accommodate the teaching of Humanism, surely it can accommodate other non-religious worldviews and obviate the need for a new paradigm. The world religions paradigm is characterised by Cooling as focused on discrete, self-contained, clearly defined traditions as the main subject content. Elsewhere in supportive material, Amari Tharani (2020, p. 12) expresses a broader characterisation of the world religions paradigm: The ‘world religions paradigm’ tended to construct religions along the model of Protestant Christianity: with founders, sacred texts, specific places of worship, churchlike organisational structures and systems of doctrine. It gave rise to assumptions that there are a fixed number of important ‘religions’; that each is unitary and separate; and that each conform to the same pattern. Finally, Céline Benoit et al. (2020), who were charged by the Religious Education Council with ‘the aim of disseminating’ CoRE’s proposals, state that an ‘ethnocentric, Christianity-centred approach is the foundation of the World Religions Paradigm’ (pp. 5, 7). The contention that those who pioneered the study of world religions in schools in the early 1970s, those who contributed to the development of multi-faith religious education in the 1980s and 1990s, and those who continue to employ a multi-faith approach under (what CoRE

98  L. Philip Barnes interprets as) a (presumed) world-religions, multi-faith paradigm have all been building on ethnocentric, Christian foundations, whether knowingly or unknowingly, is not convincing. Benoit et al.’s accusations of religious education being ethnocentric and Christianity-centred may fit confessional religious education but it certainly does not fit many of the movements and developments that are regarded by supporters of CoRE as illustrative of a world religions paradigm (see below). Interpretive religious education A compelling example of a past development that challenges the claim that a world religions paradigm accurately captures and conceptualises the postconfessional history of religious education up to the present is Robert Jackson’s interpretive approach. That this approach cannot be categorised under the world religions paradigm is the view of Robert Jackson himself. Yet it has been one of the most influential pedagogical approaches in Britain and internationally in the last 25 years. In his article ‘Religious Education’s representations of “Religions” and “Cultures”’, which was written in 1995, and gave programmatic form to interpretive religious education, Jackson (1995, p. 277) distinguished his approach from what he explicitly referred to as ‘[t]he “world religions” movement in British RE,’ as an example of ‘modern religious education’. According to him, the ‘religions’ were represented in terms governed by a powerful western intellectual tradition which, in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, had defined them. The idea of a ‘world religion’ is an extension of the eighteenth century idea of a ‘religion’ and, arguably, still presents ‘other religions’ as structured on a parallel with Christianity. Although the term ‘world religions’ is sometimes used as a synonym for ‘religions of the world’, they are sometimes perceived as having a universal message and a doctrine of salvation potentially available to people in different cultural contexts (thus distinguishing them from primal religions, for example). They also have scriptures, a class of special interpreters and appeal to large numbers of people (Fitzgerald, 1990, p. 104). Many educational books and school resources operate with this idea of a religion (e.g. Brown, 1987; Cole, 1985). (Jackson, 1995, p. 278) Contrary to what Jackson believes, most scholars of religion acknowledge that Christianity and Islam do claim to have ‘a universal message and a doctrine of salvation potentially available to people in different cultural contexts’ (see Coward, 2003; Sharpe & Hinnells, 1973). The world religion approach is for Jackson predicated on the ‘uncriticized assumption of separate, distinct “religions”, having similar structures and types of content’ (Jackson, 1995, p. 278). His aim was to move the focus of religious

Historical Narrative of Post-Confessional English RE 99 education away from what he regards as essentialised and discrete ‘religions’ to personal appropriations of religions mediated through community membership groups and interactions with wider organised traditions: individuals ‘construct’ their distinctive religious identities in dialogue with these relationships. Different insiders and outsiders construct their own personal versions of a religious tradition (Jackson, 1997, p. 64). According to Jackson’s interpretive religious education should not be regarded as appropriately classified under the world religions paradigm or as conceptualised in such terms. His emphasis on personal constructions of religious identity and on the diversity within religious traditions is also a prominent feature of CoRE’s proposed worldviews paradigm. The Commission on Religious Education (CoRE, 2018, p. 75) speaks of the need ‘to understand the full diversity of religious or non-religious worldviews’ and of a ‘personal worldview’, which is used to describe ‘an individual’s own way of understanding and living in the world’ (p. 4). Cooling (2020) candidly acknowledges ‘that CoRE … draw[s] heavily on the insights developed by Robert Jackson’ and that ‘[t]he worldview paradigm offered by CoRE can therefore be seen as an endorsement of and evolution from Jackson’s approach to representing institutionalised religion’ (p. 408). Cooling seems unaware that this acknowledgement challenges his view that the world religions paradigm provides the best framework for interpreting developments in post-confessional religious education: the framework cannot accommodate interpretive religious education, one of the major influences on religious education in Britain and Europe since the late 1990s. His acknowledgment also challenges CoRE’s claim to newness. Narrative pedagogy The work of Clive Erricker constitutes a further influential form of religious education that questions the view that the history of post-confessional British religious education is adequately conceptualised and explained by a world religions paradigm, as affirmed by Cooling, Tharani, and Benoit. Erricker’s account of religion, like Jackson’s, came to prominence in the 1990s, and while being distinctive shared with him a number of emphases: that the concepts of ‘religion’ and ‘religions’ and the names of the different religions are used to give a false impression of agreement between adherents of a particular ‘religion’ and that this results in the prioritising of ‘orthodox’ form of religion, the construction of ‘essentalist’ views of the different religions and of ‘stereo-typical’ accounts of religious believers. Although both Erricker and Jackson can be regarded as influenced by post-modern commitments and beliefs (Barnes, 2014, pp. 180–197), Erricker is by far the more radical thinker. For him, the relationship between language and reality is entirely arbitrary, reflecting semantic customs that do not connect to the world of objects and relationships external to language; Jackson’s position is much more ambiguous, and probably in the last analysis more acknowledging of a link between social reality and the language that mediates human meaning and understanding.

100  L. Philip Barnes Erricker, in postmodern fashion, has referred to his account of religious education in different ways, as ‘whole child education’ (1997), ‘spiritual education’ (Erricker, 1998, 2000; Erricker & Erricker, 2001), and ‘narrative pedagogy’ (Erricker & Erricker, 2000). All three iterations place emphasis on children constructing their own ‘personal narratives’, and all three emerged out of Erricker’s involvement in ‘the Children and Worldviews Project’ (again note the name), which was a collaborative project between three (then two) institutions of higher education. The Project was based on ‘the conviction that education and religious education was too content led and paid insufficient attention to the capabilities and experiences of children and young people’ (Erricker & Erricker, 2000, p. 188): the focus ought to be on the constructed personal worldviews of pupils. According to Erricker, ‘there is no absolute or objective knowledge’ (Erricker & Erricker, 2000, 194); consequently, ‘the belief systems of Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc [are] … constructions with political purposes …’ (p. 194). Even ‘the idea of subject matter [in religious education] is wrong in itself’ (p. 195), rather, he avers, ‘it is the voice of individuals that have to be heard’. The study of ‘grand narratives’ needs to give way to the study of ‘the “small narratives” of learners’ (p. 194) (here Erricker is following Lyotard, 1984; for discussion, Barnes, 2014, pp. 169–174). Individual pupils are to enjoy the freedom to construct reality in the ways that they find most meaningful or useful. Individuals choose, in a pick-and-mix fashion, from the range of concepts, images, and identities that are culturally available to construct their own personal worldviews. Erricker and Jackson both shy away from thinking of religions as belief systems and instead place the emphasis on personal narratives: where they differ is that Jackson focuses on personal appropriations of religious traditions, whereas Erricker focuses on the liberative potential of pupils constructing their own worldviews; for him, preferably without reference to religions and their ideological ‘underbelly’. Both interpretive religious education and narrative pedagogy have been influential over CoRE, though its position is closer to that of Erricker’s than that of Jackson’s. According to Cooling and Robert Bowie (2022, p. 6), ‘CoRE argued that everyone draws on a worldview unique to them, which shapes how they interpret their experience of the world’. Moreover, personal worldviews are often ‘constructed’ without recourse to religious beliefs and practices: an individual’s personal worldview ‘may or may not draw from one, or many, institutional worldviews’ (CoRE, 2018, p. 4). The obvious criticism is that attending to the personal worldviews of those who do not draw on institutional worldviews entails attending less to religious content. Critical religious education Critical religious education is an approach to religious education based on the philosophy of critical realism and is chiefly associated with lecturers and (now) former students at King’s College London (Barnes & Wright, 2006; Easton, Goodman, Wright, & Wright, 2019; Wright, 2000a, 2004). It emerged out of the Spiritual Education Project, which was based at King’s, under the direction

Historical Narrative of Post-Confessional English RE 101 of Andrew Wright and operated during a five-year period between 1996 and 2000, resulting in three reports, coordinated to three-phases of the project (Wright, 1998, 1999, 2000b). The final report anticipated a wider field of enquiry moving from spirituality and spiritual education to that of religious education as a curriculum subject. Wright (2000a, pp. 177–180) has identified five key pedagogical principles that characterise critical religious education. 1 Critical religious education seeks to do justice to the horizon of religion. Reference is made to the need to distinguish between quantitative pluralism, in which a plurality of religions is presented under a common (typological) phenomenological framework, and qualitative pluralism, ‘which reflects the genuine diversity of religious and secular perspectives on religion, and accepts the ambiguous, controversial, and conflicting nature of theological truth claims’ (Wright, 2000a, p. 177). Alongside an emphasis on qualitative pluralism, attention should also be given to interrelationships between religious traditions and atheistic critiques of religion. 2 Critical religious education must do justice to the horizon of the pupil. Wright recognises that pupils come to the study of religion with an already developing religious stance that may be positive or negative, enquiring or disinterested, religious or secular, tentative and open or closed and fixed (p. 178), and in many cases the stance is one of uncertainty and ambiguity. Religious education must give pupils the opportunities to articulate and express their emergent religious beliefs and to appreciate how these condition their understanding and perception of religion and the different forms of religious life. 3 Critical religious education seeks to sensitise pupils to the power structures inherent in religious and educational discourse. There is no neutral vantage point from where religions and religious beliefs and practices can be considered and explored. Religious institutions and religious believers seek social influence and control through a variety of ways, which are subject to different moral evaluations; equally secular and state institutions are redolent of the same forces and influences (see Barnes, 2020, pp. 188–190). 4 Critical religious education aims to initiate a critical dialogue between the horizon of the pupil and the horizon of religion. Through an encounter with a range of religious traditions in their internal and external diversity and variety, and through acquaintance with a range of perspectives on religious traditions, pupils should be able to identify, critically engage, and develop their own personal responses to religious issues. 5 Critical religious education seeks to develop religious literacy—the ability to reflect, understand and evaluate the various aspects of religion and to engage sensitively in public debates about the role of religions in different societies. Wright’s (1993) Religious Education in the Secondary School: Prospects for Religious Literacy anticipated most of the themes that are constitutive of critical religious education and which in later works are developed in more sophisticated

102  L. Philip Barnes philosophical, educational, and theological ways: taking account of criticism of claims to religious neutrality, which are associated with some liberal versions of religious education; appreciating the diversity and ambiguous status of religion in society; and exposing pupils to religious truth claims and providing them with the knowledge, understanding, and skills to make their own reflective responses. Wright’s ideas about critical religious education have continued to develop. More recent writings indicate a deeper commitment to the philosophy of critical realism, which expresses a realistic understanding of the order-of-things, and therefore a realistic understanding of the (purported) religious order-ofthings; this, according to him, reflects the truth asserting nature of what most religious adherents believe about their beliefs. A further development, which reinforces and deepens Wright’s commitment to acquainting pupils with the internal diversity of religious traditions, is his use of the Variation Theory of Learning, which developed within the phenomenographic research tradition (see Åkerlind, 2015). The Variation Theory of Learning aims to facilitate understanding by introducing learners to different ways of perceiving or comprehending an object or phenomenon. According to the theory, variation is necessary for real learning to take place: to understand more fully what something  is, it is often equally as important to understand and contrast it with what it is not and what constitutes a variation. Students (pupils) must experience variation in the educationally critical aspects of the ‘object of learning’. Hella and Wright (2009, p. 59) give the following example: ‘… for Finnish students to understand Lutheranism, it is necessary to experience variation between, for example, a theological understanding of Lutheranism as a vehicle of God’s grace and a sociological understanding of Lutheranism as an aspect of Finnish national culture’; a further variation is the students’ prior understanding and experience of Lutheranism (who in Finland are mostly Lutheran). This introductory (and frankly superficial) account of critical religious education is sufficient for our purpose. It also does not fit the world religions paradigm as characterised by Cooling and supporters of CoRE. Critical religious education does not conceive of religions in essentialist terms, and it does not accredit uniformity of belief and practice to followers of a particular religion. Its understanding of religious traditions is much more nuanced, fluid, and open-ended, and in my opinion more intellectually credible than CoRE’s, given the importance that it attaches to beliefs and their role in shaping religious life and practice and in structuring religious communities. Three different accounts (pedagogies) of religious education have been considered, Jackson’s interpretive approach, Erricker’s narrative pedagogy, and Wright’s critical religious education, all influential from the late 1990s, and none conforms to the world religions paradigm as maintained by supporters of CoRE. Other pedagogical approach could have been considered, such as John Hull’s Gift of the Child Approach (1996) and Michael Grimmitt’s (1987) Human Development model; they too fail to conform to Cooling’s and Benoit et al.’s world religions paradigm. The accusation that all forms of religious

Historical Narrative of Post-Confessional English RE 103 education mentioned above, which find their origins in the last decade of the twentieth century, present essentialised, stereotypical portraits of religions and their adherents, and that they all overlook both diversity within religions and how religions are ‘lived’ and practised by ordinary believers, is simply false. Should our discussion be widened, we could have noted the influences that contributed to the renaming of religious education in some schools as ‘Religion, Philosophy and Ethics’; this title and its connotations again challenge the dominance of a world religions paradigm over the last 50 years. What is needed by Cooling and others is a more discerning and discriminating account of the forces and commitments that have shaped and structured postconfessional religious education. Conclusion There are three clear conclusions that emerge from our critical review of the history of religious education. First, the contention that a world religions paradigm has dominated religious education in England and Wales since the 1970s cannot be sustained. The claim is mistaken in both parts, namely that a world religions paradigm accurately characterises the historical approaches and movements it purports to explain and that (whatever title is used) the diversity of approaches and movements can be conceptualised under a single paradigm. A world religions paradigm fails to capture both what unifies and what is distinctive about the history of post-confessional religious education. The claim that a single paradigm determining theory and practice in English religious education for 50 years is not sustainable once the diversity of movements and approaches is appreciated. A more sophisticated analysis and interpretation is required. Second, there are good reasons for thinking that CoRE’s proposed ‘worldview’ paradigm does not represent a new departure for English religious education, once the movements and developments that were influential in its history are identified and considered. CoRE’s proposals are heavily dependent on Jackson’s interpretive religious education and on Erricker’s narrative pedagogy: both affirm that a major focus of religious education should be on the personal worldviews of pupils. According to CoRE (2018, p. 5), ‘[i]t is one of the core tasks of education to enable each to understand, reflect on and develop their own personal worldview’; through this ‘young people [i.e pupils in school] come to a more refined understanding of their own worldview’ (CoRE, 2018, p. 5). In a recent article intended for teachers of religious education, Trevor Cooling (2021) asked the question of whether CoRE’s proposals represent a ‘Paradigm shift or shuffling of content?’ Our review suggests that the proposals are best interpreted as the shuffling of content. Finally, we noted how Jackson distinguished his interpretive approach from the world religions movement in religious education, which he, in turn, regarded as an example of ‘modern religious education’. Perhaps unknowingly, Jackson has laid the foundations for a more sophisticated and accurate analysis

104  L. Philip Barnes of the history of religious education in England—a modern paradigm of religious education, with which he disassociates himself, and a different paradigm to which he believes his own work (and presumably that of others) belongs. To consider what this might be and how it is characterised is beyond our current concern (see Barnes, 2014, pp. 232–244). References Åkerlind, G. (2015). ‘From phenomenography to variation theory: A review of the development of the variation theory of learning and implications for pedagogical design in higher Education’. HERDSA Review of Higher Education, 2, 5–26. Barnes, L. P. (2014). Education, religion and diversity: Developing a new model of religious education. London: Routledge. Barnes, L. P. (2020). Crisis, controversy and the future of religious education. London: Routledge. Barnes, L. P. (2022). ‘The commission on religious education, worldviews and the future of religious education’. British Journal of Educational Studies, 70(1), 87–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071005.2021.1871590 Barnes, L. P. (Ed.) (2023). Religion and worldviews: The triumph of the secular in religious education. London: Routledge. Barnes, L. P., & Wright, A. (2006). ‘Romanticism, representations of religion and critical religious education’. British Journal of Religious Education, 28(1), 65–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/01416200500273695 Benoit, C., Hutchings, T., & Shillitoe, R. (2020). Worldview: A multidisciplinary report. London: Religious Education Council of England and Wales. Retrieved from https://www.religiouseducationcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/ 20-19438-REC-Worldview-Report-A4-v2.pdf Brown, A. (1987). Religions. London: Longman. Cole, W. O. (1985). Six religions in the twentieth century. Amersham: Hulton. Commission on Religious Education (CoRE) (2018). Final Report: Religions and worldviews: The way forward. Retrieved July 19, 2022 from commissiononre.org. uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Final-Report-of-the-Commission-on-RE.pdf Cooling, T. (2020). ‘Worldview in religious education: Autobiographical reflections on The Commission on Religious Education in England final report’. British Journal of Religious Education, 42(4), 403–414. https://doi.org/10.1080/01416200.2020. 1764497 Cooling, T. (2021). ‘Paradigm shift or shuffling the content?’. REtoday: Professional REflection, 38(2), 53–55. Cooling, T., Bowie, B., & Panjwani, F. (2020). Worldviews in religious education. London: Theos. Cooling, T., & Bowie, R. A. (2022). ‘Christian theology and school religious education: Exploring the relationship’. Theology, 125(1), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0040571X211068154 Coward, H. (2003). Sin and salvation in the world religions: A short introduction. London: Oneworld. Dossett, W. (2022). The Independent Schools Religious Studies Association Report Religion and Worldviews (Weltanschauung) June 2022 - A Personal Response. Retrieved from https://reformingre.wordpress.com/2022/07/02/the-isrsa-report-apersonalresponse/

Historical Narrative of Post-Confessional English RE 105 Easton, C., Goodman, A., Wright, A., & Wright, A. (2019). Critical religious education in practice: A Teacher’s guide for the secondary classroom. London: Routledge. Erricker, C. (1998). ‘Spiritual confusion: A critique of current educational policy in England and Wales’. International Journal of Children’s Spirituality, 3(1), 51–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364436980030106 Erricker, C. (2000). Reconstructing religious, spiritual and moral education. London: RoutledgeFalmer. Erricker, C., & Erricker, J. (2000). ‘The children and worldviews project: A narrative pedagogy of religious education’. In M. Grimmitt (Ed.), Pedagogies of religious education (pp. 188–206). Great Wakering, Essex: McCrimmons. Erricker, C., & Erricker, J. (2001). ‘Shall we dance? Authority, representation, and voice: The place of spirituality in religious education’. Religious Education, 96(1), 20–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/00344080120607 Erricker, C., Erricker, J., Ota, C., Sullivan, D., & Fletcher, M. (1997). The education of the whole child. London: Cassell. Fitzgerald, T. (1990). ‘Hinduism and the “world religion” fallacy’. Religion, 20(2), 101–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-721X(90)90099-R Grimmitt, M. (1987). Religious education and human development. Great Wakering, Essex: McCrimmons. Hella, E., & Wright, A. (2009). ‘Learning “about” and “from” religion: Phenomenography, the variation theory of learning and religious education in Finland and the UK’. British Journal of Religious Education, 31(1), 53–64. https://doi. org/10.1080/01416200802560047 Hull, J. M. (1996). ‘A gift to the child: A new pedagogy for teaching religion to young children’. Religious Education, 91(2), 172–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 0034408960910204 Independent Schools Religious Studies Association (ISRSA) (2022). Religion and worldviews (Weltanschauung). Retrieved from https://isrsa.co.uk/wp-content/ uploads/2022/06/ISRSA-Report-Religion-and-Worldviews-LowRes.pdf Jackson, R. (1995). ‘Religious education’s representation of “religions” and “cultures”’. British Journal of Educational Studies, 43(3), 272–289. https://doi.org/10. 1080/00071005.1995.9974037 Jackson, R. (1997). Religious education: An interpretive approach. London: Hodder and Stoughton. Jackson, R. (2015). ‘Misrepresenting religious education’s past and present in looking forward: Gearon using Kuhn’s concepts of paradigm, paradigm shift and incommensurability’. Journal of Beliefs and Values, 36(1), 64–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13617672.2015.1014651 Kuhn, T. S. (1970 [1962, 1st edition]). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Lyotard, J.-F. (1984). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Myatt, M. (2020). ‘Forward: Reforming RE’. In M. Chater (Ed.), Reforming RE: Power and knowledge in a worldviews curriculum (pp. 11–14). Melton, Woodbridge: John Catt. Religious Education Council of England and Wales (2013). ‘A review of religious education in England’. London: RE Council. Retrieved from https://www.religiousedu cationcouncil.org.uk/documents/a-review-of-religious-education-in-england/ Sharpe, E. J., & Hinnells, J. R. (1973). Man and his salvation. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

106  L. Philip Barnes Tharani, A. (2020). The worldview project: Discussion papers. London: Religious Education Council of England and Wales. https://www.religiouseducationcouncil.org. uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/The-Worldview-Project.pdf Wright, A. (1993). Religious education in the secondary school: Prospects for religious literacy. London: David Fulton. Wright, A. (1998). Spiritual pedagogy. Abingdon: Culham College Institute. Wright, A. (1999). Discerning the spirit: Teaching spirituality in the religious education classroom. Abingdon: Culham College Institute. Wright, A. (2000a). The spiritual education project. In M. Grimmitt (Ed.), Pedagogies of religious education (pp. 100–187). Great Wakering, Essex: McCrimmons. Wright, A. (2000b). Spirituality and education. London: Falmer Press. Wright, A. (2004). Religion, education and post-modernity. London: Routledge.

8

Critical Religious Education and Worldview Theory Andrew Wright and Elina Wright

Introduction: Worldviews in religious education ‘Worldview’ has become an increasingly important concept in ongoing discussions of the nature of Religious Education (RE) in many countries. Globalization, pluralization, and diversification of worldviews have made it necessary to clarify what is meant by religious and non-religious worldviews and what it means for the subject of RE in schools. In 2008, the Council of Europe published a ‘Recommendation’ regarding the study of ‘non-religious convictions’ in schools (Council of Europe, 2008). There has been a growing international interest in the study of ‘non-religion,’ especially from the social scientific perspective, and the inclusion of non-religious worldviews in the school curriculum (e.g., Bråten and Everington, 2019; Everington, 2019). Worldview education has been considered part of, parallel with, an alternative to, or consisting of RE. In Britain, there is a debate about whether non-confessional RE as a school subject should be renamed as ‘Religion and Worldviews’ as suggested by the Commission on Religious Education (2018) and how these concepts relate to each other and to the nature of the subject. (e.g., Barnes, 2021; Cooling, 2020, 2022; Everington, 2019). In line with the non-statutory guidance for England and Wales (DCSF 2010, p. 7), the Religious Education Council (REC) of England and Wales developed a national curriculum framework for RE (NCFRE) through a review of RE (Religious Education Council of England and Wales (REC), 2013, pp. 12, 14), which states that RE teaching should ‘equip pupils with systematic knowledge and understanding of a range of religions and worldviews.’ ‘Religious education contributes dynamically to children and young people’s education in schools by provoking challenging questions about meaning and purpose in life, beliefs about God, ultimate reality, issues of right and wrong and what it means to be human’ (p. 14). In Poland, RE in the state school system is determined by the constitutional principle of worldview neutrality, which means that it is not to be seen as an ideological issue but a legal norm (Milerski & Zieliński, 2022). In Finland, worldview education is seen to be a task of the combination of school subjects: RE and its secular alternative, ‘Ethics,’ and has been approached from DOI: 10.4324/9781003265696-10

108  Andrew Wright and Elina Wright the human rights perspective (e.g., Salmenkivi, Kasa, Putkonen, & Kallioniemi, 2022). Åhs, Poulter, and Kallioniemi (2019, p. 79) describe the Finnish worldview education as a religion-based model or a worldview-based model offering students teaching of either their ‘own’ religion or of secular ethics, ‘according to their religious or non-religious affiliation throughout comprehensive school.’ They argue for a pedagogical rather than legal approach to the child’s right to be educated about worldviews and discuss the role of the parent in determining the child’s own worldview. They argue for the child as an active agent versus a passive recipient in learning about and from ‘religions and worldviews while constructing her personal worldview – which might be different from what has been represented as her own religion or worldview’ (p. 80). There have been school-based pilot projects that aim for integrative worldview education to promote dialogue between worldviews and avoid labelling of pupils according to worldview categories with which the pupils do not necessarily identify (Åhs et al., 2019). There is a range of definitions of worldview in relation to RE. Naugle (2002, p. 253) emphasizes that definitions of worldview are not impartial but dependent on perspective: any definition of worldview is a function of the worldview of the theorist or the definer and thus worldview dependent. Oser and Reich’s (1990, p. 97) definition, for example, echoes the language of cognitivistconstructivist focus on the individual: ‘a person’s mental representation of the universe (e.g., its origin, evolution, the laws governing it, its destiny), of the Ultimate Being’s interactions with the universe, as well as of the position and role of human beings in the universe.’ van der Kooij, de Ruyter, and Miedema (2013, pp. 212–213) make a distinction between an organized worldview and a personal worldview, and the latter may be based on the former but not necessarily; religions are always organized worldviews but not all organized worldviews are religious. Worldview is related to four elements: existential questions, influence on thinking and action, moral values, and meaning giving in life. They describe an organized worldview as a view on life that has developed over time as a coherent and established system with certain (written and unwritten) sources, traditions, values, rituals, ideals, or dogmas. An organized worldview has a group of believers who adhere to this view on life (pp. 212, 215). van der Kooij, de Ruyter, and Miedema (2017, pp. 173–174) identify three ‘essential characteristics of a worldview’: first, ‘it can be used for religious and secular views on life’; second, ‘it can refer to a more organized as well as a personal view on life, the world, and humanity’; third, ‘existential questions are a conceptually necessary part of “worldview”; they distinguish a worldview from other views on life, the world, and humanity.’ Critical Religious Education (CRE) is a theoretical framework for RE based on the philosophy of critical realism and created by and mainly known through the work of Andrew Wright (e.g., Wright, 1993, 2004, 2007, 2013, 2016). In 1993, Wright introduced the concept of ‘religious literacy’ as a criterion for a ‘religiously educated’ person, who would ‘acknowledge and articulate their own answers to ultimate questions, striving to reach a deeper understanding

Critical Religious Education and Worldview Theory 109 of them, and be willing to alter and adapt them should this be necessary’ (Wright, 1993, p. 79). The concept of worldview is not explicitly defined in this early work but it is implicit: references to worldviews can be seen in discussion about ‘religious and non-religious belief systems that offer contrasting and conflicting answers to the ultimate questions’ and in describing the development of religious literacy through ‘theological and philosophical reflection’ to be able to evaluate various ‘claims to truth offered in answer to the ultimate questions humanity has to deal with’ (Wright, 1993, p. 79). However, since 2004, worldviews have been in the foreground of CRE (e.g., Demirel-Ucan, 2019; Easton, Goodman, Wright, & Wright, 2019; Wright, 2004, 2007, 2016). Specifically, CRE has identified and drawn on a substantial body of worldview theory (e.g., Hiebert, 2008; Sire, 2009; Walsh & Middleton, 1984; Wright, 1992, pp. 29–80) and related it directly to CRE theory (e.g., Wright, 2004, pp. 22f, 38, 172–173, 199, 216; Wright, 2007, pp. 32–37, 176–180, 220–224; Wright, 2013, pp. 24, 41, 83–87, 225, 255f; Wright, 2016, pp. 35f, 59, 205–211, 221f, 237f) and practice (e.g., Easton et al., 2019). Despite a body of literature that provides a complex, substantial understanding of worldviews, rather than mere definitions, CRE is largely absent from the current discussion on worldviews. For example, Cooling, in defending the Commission on Religious Education’s work, acknowledges the absence of a ‘philosophically sophisticated treatment of the worldview concept’ and points to ongoing ‘attempts at clarifying and developing the proposed worldview vision, with the aim of exposing its academic foundations, exploring its pedagogical potential and stimulating professional thinking as to its application,’ referencing the work of Éline Benoit and Amira Tharani as evidence of this work in progress (Cooling, 2022; cf. Benoit, Hutchings, & Shillitoe, 2020; Tharani, 2020). Yet neither Benoit nor Tharani references any of CRE’s extensive work on worldviews and RE, nor do they reference any of the key instigators of the established worldview theory drawn on by CRE. Similarly, van der Kooij et al. (2017, pp. 173, 176–178), in insisting on the distinction between organized and personal worldview as necessary for a conceptually appropriate definition of worldview, criticize our use of the concept of worldview (Hella & Wright, 2009) as inconsistent, incomprehensive, and lacking ‘sophisticated vision of personal worldview.’ Such criticism was based on a single paper whose primary focus was not on worldviews and failed to reference, acknowledge, or consider any of our substantial research in this area. To rectify omissions such as these, this chapter will set out the basic contours of CRE, outline its theoretical understanding of ‘worldview,’ and explicate the implications of both for the further development of RE. Critical religious education CRE, pioneered and developed by the present authors and others, first emerged at the start of the present century. The following summary draws on Wright (2004, 2007, 2016). Negatively, it was a reaction to concerns that

110  Andrew Wright and Elina Wright post-confessional liberal forms of RE tended to entrap the subject within modernist and post-modernist assumptions engendered by the occidental Enlightenment. Positively, it sought to refocus the subject, not contra some critics on critical thinking but on critically important ontological and epistemological issues frequently obscured by contemporary liberal RE. The fact that most religious traditions predate the Enlightenment and have their origins in non-occidental locations, when coupled with the deep suspicion of religion amongst many of the Enlightenment’s protagonists, led to the danger of paternalistic colonization of religions by tolerant-yet-sceptical representatives of the western liberal intelligentsia. The Enlightenment was, in part at least, concerned to affirm the security and integrity of humankind against the background of an increasingly absent and apparently less-thanbenevolent God. Hence, Descartes’ drive to establish secure knowledge via a hermeneutic of suspicion directed against all authorities other than human reason. Modernity identified such secure knowledge as an amalgam of idealistic and empirical ‘facts’: objectively true statements verifiable by appeal to either logical coherence or empirical convergence between sense experience and objects in the world. This has the effect of limiting objective knowledge to that generated by the natural sciences and reducing moral, aesthetic, spiritual and theological statements to the level of mere subjective opinion. Recognition of the unavoidable place of moral, aesthetic, and spiritual values in ordinary life led to various failed attempts to rehabilitate the realm of value: romanticism’s imposition of selected subjective values onto society by force generated various forms of totalitarianism (e.g., Nazism); post-modern attempts to resist totalitarianism by proclaiming a thoroughgoing relativism in which the pursuit of truth was reduced to a playfully ironic game proved incapable of resisting the fabrication of fake election results (e.g., Trumpism) and false pretexts for overriding national sovereignty (e.g., Putinism). A more pragmatically effective means of attending to the assumed tension between objective facts and subjective values was proffered by the twin secular liberal principles of freedom and tolerance: since human beings stand at the apex of the evolutionary process, they are not answerable to any greater authority and consequently free to embrace whatever subjective values they choose; however, to avoid any descent into anarchy, such freedom of choice must be tempered by a requirement to tolerate the choices of others. CRE suggests that as far as contemporary forms of post-confessional liberal RE embrace these assumptions, they generate and impose a paternalistic less-than-liberal discourse about religion onto religious traditions rather than allow those traditions to speak for themselves. Diverse religious understandings of the ultimate nature of reality and our place in the ultimate order-of-things are relegated to the level of unverifiable subjective opinion. Though liberal insistence on freedom and tolerance with respect to religion offers a veneer of openness and respectfulness, it nevertheless disguises the reality of a prior paternalistic judgement that religious truth claims are mere subjective opinions whose veracity does not warrant further public investigation. To address the

Critical Religious Education and Worldview Theory 111 question of ultimate truth in the RE classroom is often dismissed as intellectually impossible (unverifiable religious beliefs necessarily lack epistemic justification), morally dangerous (taking conflicting religious truth claims seriously risks fuelling inter-religious strife and undermining social cohesion), and aesthetically distasteful (religious enthusiasts who insist on bringing their private beliefs into the public sphere may constitute a source of social embarrassment). The post-Enlightenment assumptions informing contemporary liberal RE tend to be philosophically foundational: affirming a fixed (empirical, rational, liberal, romantic, post-modern) bedrock that constitutes the ontological and epistemic foundation that all ongoing debate must acknowledge and build on. In response, CRE appeals to the non-foundational philosophy of critical realism, which understands itself as a mere heuristic tool striving to under-labour for a variety of intellectual endeavours by inviting simple ‘plain sense’ answers to the primal question ‘What must the world be like for us to experience it in the ways we do?’ Reflecting inferentially from experience to the best available answers to this question generates the following set of plain sense provisional answers: (a) we inhabit a world greater than ourselves so that if we die on Sunday, the world remains much the same on Monday (ontological realism); (b) despite knowing a great deal about the world, our knowledge is always incomplete, partial, and contingent on particular cultural perspectives (epistemic relativism); and (c) nevertheless it is possible, though not necessarily always easy, to move from less truthful to more truthful knowledge, always accepting that any such advances will themselves remain epistemically relative (judgmental rationality). Critical realists contend that the only adequate way of challenging their basic position is to generate an alternative set of self-evidently more powerful and truthful plain sense answers to this basic question and suggest that such alternatives have not yet been offered. The question posed by the Enlightenment ‘How can we establish secure and certain knowledge?’ tends towards ontological and epistemic closure: ontologically, the reality is that which is described by natural science; epistemically, there is a fundamental divide between objectively verifiable facts and subjectively unverifiable opinions. In sharp contrast, critical realism remains inclusive of all ontological possibilities, religious and nonreligious alike, and retains an epistemic humility in which notions of informed judgement, inference to the best available solution, informed adjudications ‘beyond reasonable doubt,’ faith-seeking-understanding, and so forth are not automatically trumped by the epistemic arrogance of an a priori commitment to epistemological certitude, proof, and closure. Applied to RE, the heuristic tool of critical realism identifies critical dimensions of the subject that tend to be eclipsed by dominant liberal approaches. (a) Ontological realism invites religious educators to focus on the critical question of the ultimate nature of reality, rather than merely on religious and non-religious traditions as cultural phenomena whose ultimate truth claims about ultimate reality may be acknowledged but not investigated as serious options. (b) Epistemic relativism invites religious educators to recognize that since human beings are not omniscient all understandings of ultimate reality

112  Andrew Wright and Elina Wright and our place in the ultimate order-of-things, religious and non-religious alike, are necessarily incomplete, partial, and contingent and as such necessarily take the form of faith-seeking-understanding. (c) Judgmental rationality invites religious educators to recognize the danger of turning epistemic relativism into a thoroughgoing epistemic principle in which no truth claim has any greater validity than any other so that all such claims are simultaneously equally true and false. This ignores the intellectual imperative to recognize the possibility that one account of the ultimate nature of reality may potentially be more truthful than others, the moral imperative to recognize that some ways of living in relation to the ultimate order-of-things may potentially be less morally reprehensible than others, and the spiritual imperative to recognize that some ways of being-in-the-world are potentially more true to the ultimate order-ofthings than others (if God exists, then submission to the divine will be a more appropriate way of being-in-the-world than being true to ones’ own personally constructed identity and of course vice versa). CRE’s focus on the critical questions of the ultimate nature of reality, contested understandings of our place in the ultimate order-of-things, and the ongoing pursuit of truth and truthful living claims to be a more open, inclusive, informed, and authentically liberal approach to RE in a pluralistic post-Enlightenment world than a pseudo-liberalism that brackets out questions of ultimate truth and contents itself with a neo-confessional advocacy of its own core liberal commitments. Worldview theory CRE employs ‘worldview’ as a key concept (e.g., Wright, 1993, 2004, 2007, 2013, 2016), and in doing so draws on a range of worldview theorists to establish a working understanding of ‘worldview’ as a heuristic framework which it then applies to RE (Hiebert, 2008; Sire, 2009; Walsh & Middleton, 1984; Wright, 1992, pp. 29–80). The following summary draws on the work of these philosophers, theologians, and educators. Virtually without exception worldview theory assumes a basic set of realistic philosophical assumptions: there is a real ‘world,’ there are real ‘viewers,’ and these viewers really ‘view’ the world. In doing so, they draw, some implicitly and others explicitly, on the philosophical outlook of critical realism: whilst world viewers inhabit the same world (ontological realism), they understand it in significantly different and frequently incompatible ways (epistemic relativism) and hence face a moral, intellectual, and spiritual imperative to strive to understand and live within it in more truthful ways (judgmental rationality). ‘Worldview’ can conjure the image of viewers standing apart from the world and seeking to generate an objective account of its true nature. This image is a product of modernity: Descartes’ search for epistemic certainty generated a hermeneutic of suspicion that effectively dislocated him from the world he inhabited; Kant’s distinction between the world-in-itself and the worldas-it-appears-to-us led him to seek to force the world into the straight jacket of the mind’s conceptual apparatus. Worldview theorists reject this image: a

Critical Religious Education and Worldview Theory 113 worldview is not something we generate by interrogating the world from a distance; it is a cultural form-of-life we indwell and participate in from birth. As we learn to live within the communities we are born into and are brought up within, so we come to embrace basic shared assumptions, some explicit and others implicit, about ourselves and the world we indwell, assumptions embedded and reflected in the rich pattern of thoughts, words, and deeds that constitute our shared interpersonal interactions. Whether one wishes another person ‘good luck’ or invokes a prayer that ‘God bless’ them reflects contrasting assumptions about the place of arbitrary fate or divine providence in the ultimate order-of-things. Crucially, the worldviews we indwell and primal assumptions we assume are frequently implicit: they may not be explicitly aware of them and may not articulate them as religious creeds or philosophical commitments. There can be no such thing as a private worldview held in splendid isolation by a solitary individual. This is because worldviews are forms of life that are constituted by interpersonal interactions between individuals who implicitly or explicitly share common primal assumptions. By definition, a uniquely solipsistic worldview not shared with others cannot exist, and the thoughts, speech, and actions of purveyors of such solipsism can only be interpreted as forms of madness. Though all worldviews are necessarily communal and interpersonal, they do not necessarily take institutional form. The binary distinction between individuals and institutions is sociologically naïve. There are a multitude of different non-institutional ways in which human beings interact with one another and share basic primal worldview assumptions: the Black Lives Matter movement, for example, is predominantly a non-institutional social media phenomenon. Because worldviews are necessarily interpersonal, they cannot be hermetically sealed: the nature of human interaction is such that we engage with people across a multiplicity of worldviews and frequently adjust our thoughts, words, and deeds in various ways to accommodate ourselves to or set ourselves apart from those who may not share our primal assumptions. It follows that worldviews are not essential entities: they are malleable and dynamic, constantly changing and adapting to emergent cultural contexts. However, this does not make them mere nominal entities: despite being in a state of constant change and flux, worldviews tend to retain secure identities over time. Thus, for example, though the Christian worldview does not possess any permanent unchanging Platonic essence, it does possess a significantly substantial identity for it to be clearly distinguishable from other religious and non-religious worldviews despite the inevitable fuzzy edges and disputed borders (no amount of post-modern nominalist pleading can undermine the critical distinctions between churches and synagogues, mosques, temples, and gurdwaras). Worldviews are embedded in forms of life: shared patterns of interpersonal understanding, communication, and action. Though such interactions will normally be concerned with relatively mundane issues, they will be underpinned by a set of deeply rooted assumptions regarding the ultimate nature

114  Andrew Wright and Elina Wright of reality and the ultimate meaning and purpose of life. Whenever issues of ultimacy come to the fore, the deep worldview assumptions underpinning and shaping forms of life begin to emerge. If ‘reality’ is simply the totality of all that exists, then ‘ultimate reality’ is the fundamental ontological bedrock of reality: the primal reason all things exist and function in the way they do. Candidates for this role include the self-generating order-of-nature, the God of Abraham, Buddhist Dharma, Hindu Brahman, and a host of others. Seeing ourselves as part of reality and in relationship with ultimate reality and addressing the question of our place in the ultimate order-of-things raises a host of existential problems and possibilities. These will vary according to our given understanding of the ultimate nature of reality: the challenges of living life in submission to the will of Allah are very different from those of living a life in which, as the highest entities known to have evolved from nature, we assert our freedom to construct our own meanings, purposes, values, and identities. Since much undoubtedly rests on the relative veracity of our fundamental beliefs and commitments, there is a clear moral, spiritual, and intellectual imperative to strive to live truthful lives as far as possible in harmony with the ultimate order-of-things. Not everyone belongs to a religious or secular institution established to promote a particular worldview, not everyone subscribes to a philosophy of life or a religious creed, but everyone without exception inhabits a worldview. ‘Below the surface of speech and behaviour are beliefs and values that generate what is said and done’ and beneath these lie ‘basic assumptions and images that provide a more or less coherent, though not necessarily accurate, way of thinking about the world’ (Hiebert, 2008, p. 19). Often these assumptions remain implicit, unrecognized, and unacknowledged: ‘Like glasses [worldviews] shape how we see the world, but we are rarely aware of their presence’ (p. 46). Despite the implicit subterranean nature of many worldviews, it is nevertheless possible to bring them to explicit surface awareness by attending to: the primal stories they tell (narratives of divine creation or a ‘big-bang,’ tales of gracious redemption or rational enlightenment, stories of being transformed by God or the self-creation of one’s identity); the ultimate questions they strive to answer (Who am I? Where am I? What is wrong? What is the solution?); the basic symbols they employ (architectural symbols of church or shopping mall, mosque, or sports stadium); and the types of praxis they support (obedient discipleship of creative freedom). Critical religious education and worldview theory Most subject disciplines enjoy distinct ontological objects of study: History studies the past, Sociology studies society, Physics studies matter and energy, etc. The ontological object of study in contemporary RE is ambiguous and contested. Traditionally, confessional Christian RE studied the Christian God and sought to nurture pupils in the Christian faith. Teaching Christianity was a means to the greater end of enabling students to understand the ultimate

Critical Religious Education and Worldview Theory 115 nature of reality (the Triune God) and their place in the ultimate order-ofthings (the drama of salvation). Multifaith liberal RE, perhaps concerned to avoid accusations of indoctrination, replaced the study of ultimate reality with the study of various religious and non-religious traditions whose respective truth claims were sidelined as epistemically relative subjective opinions. No longer concerned to explore the ultimate reality, liberal RE elected instead to police the potentially fractious relationship between different traditions by promoting the liberal values of freedom and tolerance. Through its recognition that all students unavoidably relate to the ultimate order-of-things, possess diverse understandings of that relationship, and have the potential to move towards more truthful ways of being-in-the-world, worldview theory invites RE to recover its original object of study: the ultimate nature of reality and our place in the ultimate order-of-things. The recovery of RE’s original object of study sheds light on the issue of inclusivity: the concern that the subject should be relevant to those of ‘all faiths and none.’ This phrase resonates with the notion of religion as an optional extra: a departure from some non-religious norm. Liberal RE’s promotion of social cohesion between those of faith and no faith did little to mitigate the exclusion of the voices of those of no faith from the curriculum. Attempts to resolve the problem by identifying non-religious parallels to religious institutions floundered: few of no faith subscribe to organizations such as the British Humanist Association. Labelling those of no faith ‘humanist,’ ‘secularist,’ or ‘atheist’ ignored the existence of Christian Humanists, Amish secularists, and Buddhist atheists. Worldview theory offers a simple path towards inclusivity: we all indwell the same ontological reality yet participate in diverse worldviews that make contrasting assumptions, some potentially more truthful than others, about the ultimate nature of reality and our place in the ultimate order-of-things. This being the case, all worldviews take the form of faithseeking-understanding, the distinction between those of faith and no faith is a misnomer, and the study of our place in the ultimate order-of-things is necessarily inclusive of both religious and non-religious worldviews. Worldview theory helps make visible the currently dominant non-religious worldview, constituted by a matrix of naturalism, secular humanism, and secular liberalism. Naturalism identifies reality as the self-generating product of natural forces and recognizes the ‘Big Bang’ as the primal cause of all that exists. Secular humanism locates human beings at the apex of the evolutionary process: as the greatest entities are known to exist, they are free to live autonomous lives without recourse to any higher authority. Secular liberalism affirms the need to tolerate and respect others whilst exercising personal autonomy to mitigate the risk of a clash of self-interests descending into anarchy. Largely implicit, this worldview matrix permeates virtually every aspect of contemporary culture: the majority of those of ‘no faith’ (i.e., most students in most schools) think, speak, and act on the implicit assumption that nature constitutes the bedrock of reality and that they free to act in accordance with their own personal preferences and inclinations provided they

116  Andrew Wright and Elina Wright avoid harming others in the process. This non-religious worldview, which transcends membership of the British Humanist Association and labels such as ‘secular,’ ‘humanist,’ and ‘atheist,’ demands due recognition and exploration in the curriculum. Locating religious and non-religious worldviews in the curriculum invites not so much a quantitative expansion in curriculum content as a qualitative enhancement of the pedagogic process. Epistemically, Critical Realism holds epistemic relativism and judgmental rationality in dialectical tension. The fact that our knowledge of ultimate reality and our place within it is contested, when combined with the possibility of pursuing more truthful understanding and living more truthful lives, gives CRE its dynamic critical edge. The hermeneutical task is no longer to make sense of the religious ‘Other,’ to empathetically get under the skin of the person who chooses religious subjectivity, and to learn to be more tolerant by imaginatively walking a mile in their sandals. Rather, the hermeneutical task is to understand how and why different groups inhabiting the same reality come to understand it and behave within it in such radically diverse ways, to embrace the intellectual, moral, aesthetic, and spiritual challenge of engaging with others in pursuit of a greater truth about the ultimate nature of reality and more truthful living in relation to the ultimate order-of-things. This requires a realistic hermeneutic in which the learner embraces the epistemic humility of allowing the reality they seek to understand to shape and reshape their understanding, rather than assuming the constructivist freedom to construct the realities they prefer. Finally, worldview theory promises to make a significant contribution to the coherence of the school curriculum and the integrity of RE within it. The principle of the hermeneutical circle suggests a dialectic in which the parts of an object are understood in terms of the object-as-a-whole, and the objectas-a-whole is understood in terms of its constituent parts. Thus, Hamlet’s soliloquy (‘To Be, or Not to Be’) must be understood in terms of Shakespeare’s play-as-a-whole, and any understanding of the play-as-a-whole must take account of the place of the soliloquy within it. Most school curricula consist of discrete subjects (English, Mathematics, Science, History, etc.), each of which focuses on a particular aspect of reality. Students are not normally invited to consider the relationship between the parts of reality explored by discrete subjects and reality-as-a-whole: in effect, the hermeneutical circle is ignored. Historically, Confessional Christian RE assumed the integrative role of relating discrete subjects to a coherent whole by grounding learning in a Christian worldview, a strategy reinforced by placing Collective Christian worship at the centre of the life of the school. With the emergence of liberal RE, his integrative role was effectively abandoned: questions of the ultimate nature of realityas-a-whole gave way to more immediate concerns of preserving freedom of belief and cultivating social cohesion, concerns consistently highlighted in the secular assemblies that replaced collective Christian worship. CRE draws on worldview theory to attend to the nature of reality-as-a-whole, complete the

Critical Religious Education and Worldview Theory 117 hermeneutical circle, and thereby avoid a fragmented parts-only education. This suggests a critical role for RE in the curriculum, one transcendent of the subjects’ current ‘Cinderella’ status. Conclusion The need for conceptual clarification of worldviews has come to the surface of conversation about the nature of RE in the last two decades as it has been widely recognized that non-religious worldviews need to be learned about alongside religious worldviews if worldview diversity is to be taken seriously. We have sought to contribute to this conversation by introducing worldview theory as an integral part of CRE, offering a systematic heuristic tool for analyzing the epistemological nature of worldviews in relation to the ontological object of the ultimate nature of reality they are viewing, which can also be used as a pedagogical tool in teaching about worldviews to help students develop worldview literacy. Having described CRE and its understanding of worldview theory, we have considered critical ways in which these may potentially enhance RE. First, it recovers the original object of study in RE, namely, ultimate reality in a way that is inclusive of religious and non-religious worldviews. Second, it helps identify and make explicit the currently dominant nonreligious worldviews in a manner that labels such as ‘naturalism,’ ‘secularism’ and ‘humanism’ fail to do. Third, its placement of non-religious worldviews in the curriculum has the potential to enhance the pedagogical process of RE by relating religious and non-religious worldviews in the dialectic critically realist engagement with ultimate reality as a hermeneutical cycle of understanding worldviews as parts within a whole: students inhabit the same ultimate orderof-things and can pursue the truth about its ultimate nature. Fourthly, worldview theory can enable RE, as far as it combines religious and non-religious worldviews in its study of the ultimate nature of reality-as-a-whole, to establish its own internally coherent identity within the curriculum by assuming responsibility for enabling other curriculum subjects to be properly understood as parts of a greater whole. References Åhs, V., Poulter, S., & Kallioniemi, A. (2019). Preparing for the world of diverse worldviews: Parental and school stakeholder views on integrative worldview education in a Finnish context. British Journal of Religious Education, 41(1), 78–89. Barnes, L. P. (2021). The commission on RE, worldviews and the future of RE. British Journal of Educational Studies, 70(1), 87–102. Benoit, C., Hutchings, T., & Shillitoe, R. (2020). Worldview: A multidisciplinary report. London: Religious Education Council. Bråten, O. M. H., & Everington, J. (2019). Issues in the integration of religious education and worldviews education in an intercultural context. Intercultural Education, 30(3), 289–305.

118  Andrew Wright and Elina Wright Commission on RE (2018). Religion and worldviews: The way forward. London: Religious Education Council. Retrieved from: https://www.commissiononre.org.uk/ final-report-religion-and-worldviews-the-way-forward-a-national-plan-for-re/ Cooling, T. (2020). Worldview in RE: Autobiographical reflections on the commission on RE in England final report. British Journal of Religious Education, 42(4), 403–414. Cooling, T. (2022). The commission on RE: A response to L. Philip Barnes. British Journal of Educational Studies, 70(1), 101–118. Council of Europe (2008). Recommendation CM/Rec (2008)12 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on the Dimension of Religions and Non-Religious Convictions within Intercultural Education. Retrieved from https://search.coe.int/cm/ Pages/result_details.aspx?ObjectID=09000016805d20e8 Demirel-Ucan, A. (2019). Improving the pedagogy of Islamic religious education in secondary schools: The role of critical religious education and variation theory. New York, NY: Routledge. Department of Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) (2010). Religious education in English schools: Non-statutory guidance 2010. Nottingham: DCSF. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/religious-education-guidancein-english-schools-non-statutory-guidance-2010 Easton, C., Goodman, A., Wright, A., & Wright, A. (2019). Critical religious education in practice: A teachers guide for the secondary classroom. London: Routledge. Everington, J. (2019). Including nonreligious worldviews in RE: The views and experiences of English secondary school teachers. British Journal of Religious Education, 41(1), 14–26. Hella, E., & Wright, A. (2009). Learning “about” and “from”: Phenomenography, the variation theory of learning and RE in Finland and the UK. British Journal of Religious Education, 31(1), 53–64. Hiebert, P. G. (2008). Transforming worldviews: An anthropological understanding of how people change. Grand Rapids, MI: Barker Academic. Milerski, B., & Zieliński, T. J. (2022). Religion in a world-view neutral school. Challenges on the example of Poland. British Journal of Religious Education. Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01416200.2022.2049208 Naugle, D. K. (2002). Worldview: The history of a concept. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. Oser, F., & Reich, H. (1990). Moral judgment, religious judgment, world view and logical thought: A review of their relationship, part one. British Journal of Religious Education, 12(2), 94–101. Religious Education Council of England and Wales (REC) (2013). A review of religious education in England. London: Religious Education Council. Salmenkivi, E., Kasa, T., Putkonen, N., & Kallioniemi, A. (2022). Human rights and children’s rights in worldview education in Finland. Human Rights Education Review, 5(1), 47–69. Sire, J. W. (2009). The universe next door: A basic worldview catalogue. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic. Tharani, A. (2020). The worldview project: Discussion papers. London: Religious Education Council. van der Kooij, J. C., de Ruyter, D. J., & Miedema, S. (2013). “Worldview”: The meaning of the concept and the impact on RE. Religious Education, 108(2), 210–228. van der Kooij, J. C., de Ruyter, D. J., & Miedema, S. (2017). The merits of using “Worldview” in RE. Religious Education, 112(2), 172–184.

Critical Religious Education and Worldview Theory 119 Walsh, B. J., & Middleton, J. R. (1984). The transforming vision: Shaping a Christian worldview. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. Wright, A. (1993). Religious education in the secondary school: Prospects for religious literacy. London: David Fulton. Wright, A. (2004). Religion, education and post-modernity. London and New York: Routledge Falmer. Wright, A. (2007). Critical religious education, multiculturalism and the pursuit of truth. Cardiff: University of Wales Press. Wright, A. (2013). Christianity and critical realism: Ambiguity, truth and theological literacy. London and New York: Routledge. Wright, A. (2016). Religious education and critical realism: Knowledge, reality and religious literacy. London and New York: Routledge. Wright, N. T. (1992). The New Testament and the People of God. London: SPCK.

9

Worldviews in Flux – Comparing Separative and Integrative Contexts of Worldview Learning Vesa Åhs and Marjaana Kavonius

Introduction “For the world is not humane just because it is made by human beings, and it does not become human just because the human voice sounds in it, but only when it has become the object of discourse. However, much we are affected by the things of the world, however deeply they may stir and stimulate us, they become human for us only when we can discuss them with our fellows” (Arendt, 1968). The above quote from Hannah Arendt comes from her book Men in Dark Times. Arendt reflects on the concepts of friendship, communicability and humanness through the thoughts of Theodor Lessing and Aristotle. She points out that from an Aristotelian perspective, friendship and especially the humaneness related to it is fundamental to the workings of a polis which necessitates mutual communication about all things human. Arendt continues this thought on a note relevant to worldview learning: “We humanize what is going on in the world and in ourselves by speaking of it, and in the course of speaking of it we learn to be human” (Arendt, 1968). This humaneness, anchoring a range of phenomena into the lives and experiences of individuals, is also crucial to how and what we learn about our own worldviews and those of others. The Finnish worldview education, which consists of school subjects religious education (RE) and education in culture, worldview and ethics, deals explicitly with the questions of meaning, existence and the transcendent, which orient both groups and individuals in their everyday lives. The nature of this education has long been under both academic and public debate, and questions about the core aims of this education considering the pluralisation and secularisation of society (see, e.g., Rissanen, Ubani, & Poulter, 2019) are ongoing. Since the current Finnish model of worldview education was last reformed in 2003, there have been numerous societal and demographic changes which decidedly affect how worldviews should be examined in school education (Salmenkivi & Åhs, 2022). This chapter emphasises the need to reconceptualise this education in relation to individual pupils, their personal worldviews and the possibility of communication across preset worldview boundaries in light of two recent PhD DOI: 10.4324/9781003265696-11

Worldviews in Flux 121 theses (Åhs, 2020; Kavonius, 2021) which examine this education. Our aim is to provide pertinent perspectives in relation to worldview learning, comparing separative (Kavonius, 2021) and integrative (Åhs, 2020) contexts of worldview learning. Finnish worldview landscape – Rapid change and developments The Finnish educational landscape in relation to worldviews and worldview education is rapidly changing, posing new challenges to the worldview education provided by the Finnish school system (Salmenkivi & Åhs, 2022). The diversity of worldviews has increased in Finnish society (e.g., Salomäki, Hytönen, Ketola, Salminen, & Sohlberg, 2020). The Evangelical Lutheran Church has traditionally been the largest religious community in Finland. Its membership percentage, however, dropped significantly from over 90% to below 70% between 2008 and 2020 (Sohlberg & Ketola, 2020). For many, the Lutheran religion still occupies a significant ritual position at life’s turning points, and historically, Lutheranism has formed an important part of moral and societal hegemony in Finland. The so-called cultural Christianity has been a strong part of the Finnish Lutheran landscape, yet it is currently breaking down as the idea of cultural Christian identity is undergoing a profound transformation. Cultural Christianity refers to Christian identification for more cultural than religious reasons. The millennial generation is showing a decline in cultural Christianity and a corresponding increase in humanistic and agnostic seeking, as well as non-religiosity (e.g., Salomäki et al., 2020). While both membership and participation in the Lutheran church have declined, the number of new religious communities has increased. The widening religious spectrum is in part related to the increase in immigration. Diversity via immigration in Finland has grown particularly in the bigger cities, though with variations between different parts of the cities. The largest and most rapidly growing religious minority is Muslims. There are no precise statistics, but estimations of the Finnish Muslim population are between 110 000 and 200 000, depending on the source (Konttori & Pauha, 2021, p. 238). In addition to immigration and the increasing presence of various religious denominations, the rapid change of the Finnish worldview landscape results from numerous other factors, as in other Western societies, such as secularisation, as well as a growing interest in new spiritual and religious movements and, furthermore, polarisation of values and worldviews more broadly. Diversity and heterogeneity within worldviews are also visible. Several studies, Finnish and international, indicate the increasing number of personal worldviews which are not associated with a single worldview, religious or non-religious tradition, but instead worldviews are strongly flexible, individualistic and eclectic (Halafoff et al., 2020; Kuusisto, Poulter, & Kallioniemi, 2017; Salomäki et al., 2020). Even when participating in practices or having beliefs that resemble those of organised religion, some prefer to identify as “spiritual”, instead of “religious”.

122  Vesa Åhs and Marjaana Kavonius Thus, although atheism and religiosity are often considered to be opposite worldviews, there are reasons to see the two as partly overlapping categories (see Pauha et al., 2020; Salomäki et al., 2020). Overlapping, fluid, dynamic, non-linear and at times fragile worldviews have been observed, especially among young people in Western societies, particularly among the generation Z and the millennials (Halafoff et al., 2020; Helve, 2015; Kuusisto & Kallioniemi 2014, 2017; Salomäki et al. 2020). The nature of worldviews of young people has also been described as “mosaic” (Kuusisto & Kallioniemi, 2017) or “hybrid” (Halafoff & Gobey, 2018) as referring to increased complexity and fluidity (see also Halafoff et al., 2020). The mass media and internet moreover expose people all over Finland to remarkable diversity. Additionally, peers, schools, social communities, social media, virtual worlds and pictorial symbols play a significant role in forming young people’s worldviews (Helve, 2015; Salomäki et al., 2020). The significance of dialogue, encountering the myriad worldviews and also general knowledge about worldviews is growing as critical elements of worldview education in school (Avest & Wielzen, 2017; Jackson, 2014). Furthermore, education ought to foster an understanding of worldviews as relevant and existentially valid orientations in the contemporary world, whether religious, non-religious or in-between (Biesta, Aldridge, Hannam, & Whittle, 2019). The concept of worldview in Finnish RE and ethics The Finnish model of worldview education is implemented in two different subjects: religious education (RE) and education in culture, worldview and ethics (or ethics). RE is further implemented in several forms depending on the religious background of the pupils. Education is arranged according to the pupils’ own religion, which is taken to refer to the religious tradition in the pupil’s home, but from an organisational perspective, it refers to the pupil’s membership of a religious community.1 We see the usage of the concept of worldview as an important step in inclusive education about religions and other worldviews. Here, we see worldview as the umbrella concept for both religious and non-religious worldviews (Åhs, 2020; Kavonius, 2021; Koirikivi, Poulter, Salmenkivi, & Kallioniemi, 2019). While worldview (katsomus in Finnish) is already used in both RE and ethics in the Finnish educational system, its usage has often been unsystematic and unclear, especially in relation to religion. There is extensive interest in the current academic discussion in Finland in relation to using worldview (Åhs, 2020; Kavonius, 2021; Koirikivi et al., 2019). Current approaches in the Finnish literature have explored the concept of worldview in relation to its contents (e.g., Kontala, 2018) and development through the lifespan (Helve, 2015). As noted by van der Kooij and others (van der Kooij, de Ruyter & Miedema, 2017), the concept of worldview allows for both organised and personal perspectives on worldviews. In the Finnish

Worldviews in Flux 123 language, the word for worldviews in general (katsomus) can be framed either through its shared, systematised and social nature (maailmankatsomus) or through its ties to individual identity, personality and meaning making (elämänkatsomus) (Koirikivi et al., 2019). While organised worldviews allow for perspectives on the interpersonal, shared and systemic nature of various religions and ideologies such as Christianity, Islam or Humanism, a personal worldview could be defined as a single, comprehensive, general and explanatory system of assigning meanings to an individual’s ideas and experiences (Kontala, 2018, p. 50). Here the more eclectic nature of an individual’s worldview is emphasised, with both religious and non-religious aspects likely holding meaning. The concept of worldview is present in the curricula of both RE and secular ethics in the National Core Curriculum for Basic Education (2014) and General Upper Secondary Education (2019). However, the usage of the various aspects of worldview, namely the organised and personal perspectives, is often used unsystematically and sometimes differs between the two school subjects. This is why, recently, Finnish scholars have attempted to make the usage of the concept more uniform (Koirikivi et al., 2019). The underlying values of the current National Core Curriculum for Basic Education put emphasis on the dynamic and pluralistic nature of both society and pupils’ identities and thus also worldviews (as being part of identity). One of the key goals of all basic education is to lay a foundation on which pupils are able to build knowledge and abilities as means to broaden their worldview. Pupils’ holistic personal development is also underlined in the aims of transversal competence: an entity consisting of knowledge, skills, values, attitudes and will. The general values of the NCCBE adhere to the UN Declaration on the Rights of the Child, where spiritual and moral development are seen as key areas of individual rights (NCCBE, 2014, pp. 23–25, 35–37). Even though the concept of spiritual is not explicit, it can be argued that spirituality in this context includes worldview (e.g., Sagberg, 2017, p. 28) and moral questions are an important component of a worldview. Personal worldviews: Eclectic, practical and meaningful? A crucial benefit of the concept of worldview is the option to offer an inclusive starting point, in which non-religious views are not approached a priori as absence of religion (Åhs, 2020). As has been noted, this is beneficial to both religious and secular pupils. If religion is taken to be the focus and starting point of worldview education, secular or non-religious worldviews are mainly viewed through the absence of religion. However, as seen in studies on secular worldviews (Kontala, 2018), many individuals do not construct their secular worldview in contrast to religion. Approaching worldviews mainly through religion is also detrimental in the fact that it can often lead to the normalisation of the secular. As religion is the focus of interest, secular or non-religious worldviews are left relatively unexplored, thus making religion the “problem

124  Vesa Åhs and Marjaana Kavonius to be solved”. As Casanova notes, a certain focus on religious phenomena can emphasise, quite wrongly, that secularity is just “there” without the baggage brought on by religious worldviews and thus naively thought of as a natural mode of worldviews without an existential choice to be made (Casanova, 2009). The emphasis on individual experience and meaning, on the other hand, differentiates personal worldview from a philosophy of life or philosophising. Because personal worldviews are connected to the general framework of meaning making and individual personalities, the drive to create this framework is often not articulated. For this reason, personal worldviews can, to a large extent, be presupposed: they are often acquired outlooks on life, derived from a cultural, familial, communal or social background which implicitly guides us in our choices and decisions. Whether we are aware of it or not, our worldview informs our actions (Valk, 2017). As Vidal (2012) proposes, at any given time, most people have only an intuitive grasp and representations of their worldview which orients them generally towards meaning and ethical decisions (Vidal, 2012). The practical side of worldviews can also be summarised with the concept of enactment (Taves, Asprem, & Ihm, 2018). The enacted (or lived) worldview refers to patterns of behaviour which are often not cognitively articulated. However, when confronted with questions, behaviour or events that are contrary to these enacted patterns, it often becomes necessary to articulate one’s worldview (Taves et al., 2018). This view, which emphasises worldviews as enacted, often implicit and tied to practice, could be summarised as being a pragmatist. As Joas (1993) puts it: “pragmatism is above all a reflection on the fact that the subject is embedded in praxis and sociality prior to any form of conscious intentionality of action” (pp. 59–60). This is not to deny conscious rationality or espouse a deterministic view of individual choice and action vis-a-vis a worldview, but to emphasise the need to view worldviews not only through cognition, but also through performance and enactment. One could say this Deweyan “actionfirst” (Kivinen & Piiroinen, 2020) approach to worldviews provides us with another viewpoint into worldviews in relation to education where sometimes emotions, habits and performance take priority over articulation. One could even argue that a cognitive bias is inherent in the concept of worldview itself, with its roots in (especially Protestant) Christian and Western thought and rationality (Naugle, 2002). From a pragmatic perspective, one could argue that a worldview is tied to the conscious and unconscious habits that are both formed and informed by it, as much as it is to the conscious cognitive processes that explore and make sense of the world. From this perspective, the Finnish word for worldviews (katsomus) inherently captures this implicit and habitual level of seeing in worldviews along with emphasising the cognitive and conscious process of viewing. The link of worldview to seeing the world as meaningful (Taves et al., 2018) also ties it closely to emotions (Helve, 2015) and motivations (see also

Worldviews in Flux 125 Nilsson, 2013). This is why worldviews elicit strong defences when challenged whether in the classroom or elsewhere. Already the pivotal work on personal worldviews by Karl Jaspers (1919) explored these themes which are deemed important in current research as well (Nilsson, 2013). Jaspers posited that worldviews are a fixed shell (Gehaüse) which translate and make sense of the world and orient the individual in their life (Jaspers, 1919). These shells are in constant flux and must be adjusted during the individual’s life when confronted with aspects of life that the old shell cannot make sense of. However, they are also extremely resistant to change. This aspect can become clear in another translation of the term Gehäuse, which can be translated as shell or housing (Naugle, 2002). However, this concept can also be translated as cage, which more explicitly refers to the incarcerating effect of the rigid explanations the individual might use to make sense of the world (Thornhill, 2013). We can never live completely outside these cages because they are our window to the world through which we make sense of it. The nature of worldviews and their characteristic as resistant to information or evidence which run counter to them is noted in many theories on worldviews (Rousseau & Billingham, 2018). Thus, considering the personal worldview, speaking of teaching about religions and worldviews merely through presenting facts is inherently a onesided account of both learning and its effect on a pupil’s personal worldview. The same could be said about thought experiments in which a pupil is tasked to encounter the “other”. If pupils are only allowed to learn and discuss worldviews with pupils from relevantly similar worldview backgrounds, it is possible that worldview education cannot reach its full potential in relation to pupil worldview development. Worldview education should be conceptualised first and foremost through its aims related to the growing individual and their developing worldview. General knowledge related to worldview systems is important, but this knowledge should be viewed in relation to how this knowledge helps pupils understand their own and other worldviews around them. Needless to say, this necessitates an emphasis on the lived aspects of religions and other worldviews with a critical eye on the “world religions” paradigm in education (Fitzgerald, 2000; Masuzawa, 2005; Sakaranaho & Konttori, 2020). Aim of worldview education: Reflecting on a worldview Emphasising the practical and often implicit functions of personal worldviews highlights the importance of studying, learning and discussing with pupils from different worldview backgrounds. Only this can enhance the readiness to discuss and encounter other ways of meaning making but also, perhaps even more importantly, provide tools with which to examine one’s own worldview. Whatever form school worldview education takes, it should aim to provide pupils with tools to explore, articulate and evaluate their personal worldview. However, this is not a simple task especially if we note the implicit modes of

126  Vesa Åhs and Marjaana Kavonius worldview operation outlined above. As Vidal articulates, the explication of one’s worldview as a whole is an extremely difficult task (Vidal, 2012) which demands rigorous philosophical tools. However, explaining different, pertinent and at the moment salient factors in the developing individual’s worldview can be seen as a crucial task for education and worldview education This articulation and developing views relating to one’s own worldview could be seen as integral in learning from worldviews. There is merit in reflecting on one’s own worldview. As seen in studies, articulating one’s worldview and thus the meaning giving prospects in one’s life is positively correlated to psychological and physical well-being (Hooker, Masters, & Park, 2018; Schnell, 2010). Whatever these positions might be, the role of exploring questions relating to worldviews has intrinsic merit, since existential indifference, or in other words, indifference towards meaning in life and its sources can be seen to affect individual well-being negatively: Summarizing the findings, the existentially indifferent appear to live a less introspective and apparently also less intense life. They report low commitment to all sources of meaning, with self-knowledge and selftranscendence being especially underrepresented. Though the existentially indifferent show no indication of psychological stress, they can hardly be viewed as living a life of health and well-being. (Schnell, 2010, p. 368) If worldviews are both explicit and implicit structures of thought and habit, what are the relevant tools with which to become more aware of it? Speech and dialogue are the vehicles with which the individual can start to understand themself, their habits and reactions and the world better. By explaining and encountering worldviews in dialogue, it is possible to recognise the limitations and automation of one’s own view and construct new ways of viewing the world. This chapter takes its starting point in two recent PhD studies examining Finnish worldview education. One of these, by author 1, examines pupil experiences of partially integrative practices of worldview education, while the other, by author 2, examines pupil experiences of a more traditional separative worldview education. Our aim is to highlight relevant themes in relation to worldview learning from both theses and hopefully highlight pertinent developments in relation to Finnish worldview education. Exploring worldviews in integrative and separative classroom contexts? In this section, we will compare separative (Kavonius, 2021) and integrative (Åhs, 2020) contexts of learning. Our aim is not to offer a comprehensive comparison of the theses but rather to highlight a few pertinent results and conclusions related to separative and integrative spaces of learning.

Worldviews in Flux 127 First, if we are to discuss what is possible from dialogue and encounter between worldviews in educational contexts, it is vital to begin from presuppositions concerning the worldview of the pupil. The Finnish model of religious education is implemented on the basis of one’s “own religion” and it has been claimed that starting from one’s own religion can provide a safe space for pupils to learn about worldviews and enable the pupil to understand other worldviews better by first learning the “language” of one worldview and enhancing dialogue by first making the pupil aware of their own position. While these aspects can indeed be important, especially when considering pupils in a minority position (Rissanen, 2014, 2019), as educators we should be extremely careful when considering what we label to be the pupil’s own religion. If dialogue is only possible through organised worldview positions, with the teachers first guiding the pupils to a correct position, we eschew pupil agency and individuality in relation to worldview education. As seen at the beginning of this chapter, the worldview landscape of Finland has changed dramatically since 2003. Especially when considering the younger generations, the clearly delineated worldview boundaries are in many cases in flux. While research shows that some pupils, especially those whose home environment emphasises an organised worldview tradition, identify well with a concept of one’s own religion, valuing knowledge from their respective organised worldview tradition (Åhs, 2020; Kavonius, 2021), increasing numbers of pupils do not make this identification. On the contrary, research shows that for these pupils, the label put on them by separating them according to their own religion has adverse effects on worldview learning since they are distanced from the worldviews and affiliations of their parents (Kavonius, 2021). Thus, learning begins from starting points which are not actually there at all. Similarly, the pupils in integrative spaces of learning especially highlight as a positive the fact that in such a space, no one can make assumptions relating to the pupil worldview (Åhs, 2020). On the contrary, the pupils seemed to gain a sense of agency by deciding for themselves what, to whom and to what extent they could define and explain their own worldview (Åhs, 2020). This relates to the practical side of a personal worldview, in which the salience and situationality of one’s own positions can be of great importance, especially when the developing worldview is in great flux. This highlights the need for a space where the pupils can engage in questions relating to worldviews on their own terms, without outside presuppositions. On the other hand, the options for gaining empowering experiences in defining one’s own worldview depend very much on how the integrative classroom space was implemented. The pedagogical approach of the teacher was important and while positive experiences were abundant, it was also possible to be trapped in the same “cage” of defined worldviews as in a separative system. However, in these cases the definition did not come from the system of worldview education but rather, from the teacher or other pupils (Åhs, 2020). In these cases, it was mainly the majority who was interested in the worldview of a minority. This was clearest in the cases of Muslim students, whose religion

128  Vesa Åhs and Marjaana Kavonius was a source of interest for many pupils. While this interest was deemed important for learning about the worldviews of other pupils, there is a danger that certain worldviews are exoticised and objectified, while the worldviews of the “silent majority” of secular Evangelical Lutheran pupils remain relatively unexplored (Åhs, 2020). So, what emphases are put on dialogue and encounter in these different spaces of learning? In our previous studies (Åhs, 2020; Kavonius, 2021), we highlighted that the arrangements of worldview education by themselves cannot provide straightforward answers in relation to increasing dialogue, and on the other hand reflexivity, in relation to worldviews. Pedagogical choices and approaches are the factors that either encourage or prevent worldview learning. However, mutual integrative spaces can highlight the need for worldview reflexivity by challenging pupils’ preconceptions about what different worldviews mean to individual pupils. These spaces of learning become increasingly important because religion and worldviews are not themes that the pupils engage in much outside the RE or ethics classrooms (Kavonius, 2021). The pupils have highlighted that mutual classes provide them with opportunities to not only learn about worldviews in general but about worldviews as they relate to the lives of their friends (Åhs, 2020). As one interviewed pupil put it, once you can discuss these themes with “your own classmates that have a personality … or personal views so you can like at least somewhat relate and know where they are coming from then these views become much more interesting and they can tell you a lot more” (Åhs, Poulter, & Kallioniemi, 2019, p. 212). The pupils themselves highlighted that worldview themes can elicit strong emotions (Åhs, 2020). For example, information about habits related to worldviews such as fasting, praying, certain rituals or wearing certain items of clothing elicited strong contrary opinions and debate and could even act as sources of conflict (Åhs, 2020). More importantly, this was almost a necessity for learning in the eyes of the pupils, since with the guidance of the teacher, they could start to discuss these differences (Åhs et al., 2019). Also of importance was the notion that through these discussions the pupils came to a realisation that the habits, actions and emotions related to certain worldviews varied from pupil to pupil. Or as one interviewee put it, every pupil has their own experiences and relationship with their religion (Åhs et al., 2019). The other pupils who were previously categorised in a certain monolithic worldview block in a separative system proved to live their worldviews in myriad ways. In other words, it is important to acknowledge the diversity within diversity, including the extent of variance of personal worldviews in minority groups, as shown in research (Åhs, 2020; Kavonius, 2021). As mentioned, the present model of worldview education has been seen as supporting religious minority identities (e.g., Rissanen, 2014) through “interpreting” religions into contexts of locally lived religions and in the process contributing to coherence and inclusion in society, democratic citizenship, and countering extreme and radical thinking (Kuusisto & Kallioniemi, 2021). However, being a member of a

Worldviews in Flux 129 certain minority does not reflect or predict all aspects of a personal worldview since it is adjusted to environments and influences that overlap traditional, cultural, religious and linguistic borders. For instance, a pupil may consider themselves both Muslim and “not that religious” (Kavonius, 2021). Furthermore, youth identities are intersectional, interwoven with identities other than those related to worldviews, such as gender, sexuality or social class (e.g., Pauha, 2018). When encouraging worldview-dialogue in a classroom context with young developing identities, it is important to responsively recognise this intersectionality and endorse a space free of presuppositions or worldviewrelated reductionism when discussing values. As both the majority and the minority worldview traditions hold inner diversity within their communities, the same is evident for many of the teaching groups as well. Thus, factors such as local variance in applying worldview education are important. However, it is extremely challenging to set aims and tasks for worldview education that are simultaneously common for all groups in a separative model and take into consideration the variety of religions and other worldviews. Especially, when the presence of individual worldviews is acknowledged. Our findings illustrate that pupil perceptions and experiences on worldview education are notably teacher-reliant (e.g., Åhs, 2020; Kavonius, 2021). A teacher’s implicit theories, perceptions of power positions between minorities and the majority and understanding worldviews – “worldview consciousness” – have a critical role to play (Flanagan, 2019; Hirvonen, Holm, Åhs, & Rissanen, 2021; Kavonius, 2021; Kavonius & Putkonen, 2020; Poulter 2017; Rissanen, Kuusisto, Hanhimäki, & Tirri, 2018). Questions arise on how all worldviews could achieve the same amount of time and space in classroom dialogue and how we make sure they are discussed and presented in an equally positive light and every pupil have their opportunity to be seen and heard, despite their minority/majority position? The teacher and their pedagogical stands are in a key position for constructing a positive atmosphere in all education and classroom interaction, which is an important element in supporting both worldview development and learning from and about those of others (e.g., Åhs, 2020; Biesta, 2010; Ubani et al., 2015; Kuusisto & Kallioniemi, 2021). Conclusions We would argue that when setting the developing individual worldview at the centre of worldview education and taking into consideration the nature of these worldviews, it makes sense to frame this education not primarily through different worldview traditions or organised worldviews, but rather through the skills that an individual will need in the rapidly changing societal, digital and worldview landscape: multiliteracy, critical thinking skills, readiness to encounter and appreciate diversity and dialogue-skills which all factor into the ability to articulate one’s own developing worldview. One important question that relates to the development of new forms of worldview learning in schools. As seen in a recent overview (Salmenkivi & Åhs,

130  Vesa Åhs and Marjaana Kavonius 2022), the Finnish model of RE and ethics has historically emphasised the role of religious communities and organisations in planning and developing education due to the nature of the membership principle. Viewing education related to worldviews through the developing pupil and the skills and knowledge they need necessitates an emphasis on educational research and pupil voices in relation to the development of new forms of worldview education. It should be noted that the majority of the data in both of the studies presented is already over or almost 10 years old with few data sets from 2018 (Åhs, 2020). However, questions relating to pupil views on worldview education and integrative spaces of worldview learning are equally timely now as they were when the data were gathered. However, it should be noted that various schools have begun to implement integrative practices after the data for these studies were gathered. More recent data on integrative contexts of learning would therefore be valuable and could provide a more comprehensive perspective into comparing separative and integrative practices of worldview learning in the Finnish context. We would argue that to develop the skills needed to reflect on worldview issues, the pupils need to exchange both experiences and thoughts across preset worldview boundaries. While studies have pointed to the benefits of education according to one’s own religion, it is becoming increasingly clear that the membership principle no longer resonates with the worldviews of many young pupils. Furthermore, not being able to discuss religions and other worldviews with their peers from different backgrounds limits the opportunities available for worldview learning in a public school context. Returning to the quote at the beginning of this chapter, communicability is needed to anchor worldviews into the lived experience of others and to learn how to react humanely to different sources of meaning in an ever more plural society. Note 1 For a more detailed account of the organizational principles of the Finnish worldview education system, see Sakaranaho (2013, 2019).

References Åhs, V. (2020). Worldviews and integrative education: A case study of partially integrative religious education and secular ethics education in a Finnish lower secondary school context. Helsinki: University of Helsinki. Åhs, V., Poulter, S., & Kallioniemi, A. (2019). Pupils and worldview expression in an integrative classroom context. Journal of Religious Education, 67(3), 203–221. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40839-019-00088-0 Arendt, H. (1968). Men in dark times. New York, NY: Harcourt Publishing. Avest, I., & Wielzen, D. (Eds.). (2017). Interfaith education for all: Theoretical perspectives and best practices for transformative action. Boston, MA: Sense Publishers. Biesta, G. (2010). Good education in an age of measurement: Ethics, politics, democracy. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.

Worldviews in Flux 131 Casanova, J. (2009). The secular and secularisms. Social Research, 76(4), 1049–1066. Fitzgerald, T. (2000). Ideology of religious studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Flanagan, R. (2019). Implementing a Ricoeurian lens to examine the impact of individuals’ worldviews on subject content knowledge in RE in England: A theoretical proposition.  British Journal of Religious Education,  43(4),  472–486.  https://doi. org/10.1080/01416200.2019.1674779  Halafoff, A., & Gobey, L. (2018). “Whatever”? Religion, youth, and identity in 21st century Australia. In P. Gareau, S. Bullivant, & P. Beyer (Eds.), Youth, religion and identity in a globalizing context: International perspectives (pp. 255–277). Leiden: Brill. Halafoff, A., Shipley, H., Young, P. D., Singleton, A., Rasmussen, M. L., & Bouma, G. (2020). Complex, critical and caring: Young people’s diverse religious, spiritual and non-religious worldviews in Australia and Canada. Religions, 11(4). https://doi. org/10.3390/rel11040166 Hannam, P., Biesta, G., Whittle, S., & Aldridge, D. (2019). ‘Religious literacy: A way forward for religious education?’ Journal of Beliefs & Value, 41(2), 214–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/13617672.2020.1736969 Helve, H. (2015). A longitudinal perspective on worldviews, values and identities. Journal of Religious Education, 63, 95–115. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s40839-016-0021-5 Hirvonen, E., Holm, K., Åhs, V., & Rissanen, I. (2021). Kohti katsomustietoisuutta Suomalaisten opettajien orientaatioita katsomuksiin koulussa. In A. Kimanen, J. Urponen, & A-E. Kilpeläinen (Eds.), Oppimista katsomusten äärellä. Juhlakirja Tapani Innasen jäädessä eläkkeelle. Suomalaisen Teologisen kirjallisuusseuran julkaisuja, Nro 296, Suomalainen teologinen kirjallisuusseura. Hooker, A., Masters, K., & Park, C. (2018). A meaningful life is a healthy life: A conceptual model linking meaning and meaning salience to health. Review of General Psychology, 22(1), 11–24. https://doi.org/10.1037/gpr0000115 Jackson, R. (2014). ‘Signposts’: Policy and practice for teaching about religions and non-religious worldviews. In Intercultural education. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing. Jaspers, K. (1919). Psychologie Der Weltanschauungen [Psychology of Worldviews]. Berlin: Springer. Joas, H. (1993). Pragmatism and social theory. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Kavonius, M. (2021). Young people’s perceptions of the significance of worldview education in the changing Finnish society. Helsinki: University of Helsinki. Kavonius, M., & Putkonen, N. (2020). Katsomustietoisuus voimavarana. Kieli, koulutus ja yhteiskunta, 11(3). Ketola, K. (2020). Kuinka arvot ja kulttuuri muuttuvat [how values and culture change]. In H. Salomäki, M. Hytönen, K. Ketola, & V. Salminen (Eds.), Uskonto arjessa ja juhlassa, Suomen evankelis-luterilainen kirkko vuosina 2016-2019 (pp. 12–16). Helsinki: Kirkon tutkimuskeskuksen julkaisuja. Kivinen, O., & Piiroinen, T. (2020). Updating Dewey’s transactional theory of action in connection with evolutionary theory. In C. Morgner (Ed.), John Dewey and the notion of trans-action. London: Palgrave-Macmillan. Koirikivi, P., Poulter, S., Salmenkivi, E., & Kallioniemi, A. (2019). Katsomuksellinen yleissivistys uskonnon ja elämänkatsomustiedon perusopetuksen opetussuunnitelman (2014) perusteissa [general knowledge in the curricula of religious education and secular ethics in the National Core Curriculum (2014)]. Ainedidaktiikka, 3(2), 47–68. https://doi.org/10.23988/ad.78078

132  Vesa Åhs and Marjaana Kavonius Kontala, J. (2018). Emerging non-religious worldview prototypes. A faith Q-sort-study on Finnish group-affiliates. Turku: Åbo Akademi University Press. Konttori, J., & Pauha, T. (2021). Finland. In E. Račius, S. Müssig, S. Akgönül, A. Alibašić, J. S. Nielsen, and O. Scharbrodt (Eds.), Yearbook of Muslims in Europe (Vol. 12, pp. 229–246). Leiden: Brill. van der Kooij, J. C., de Ruyter, D. J., & Miedema, S. (2017). The merits of using ‘worldview’ in religious education. Religious Education, 112(2), 172–184. https:// doi.org/10.1080/00344087.2016.1191410 Kuusisto, A., & Kallioniemi, A. (2014). Pupils’ views on Religious Education in pluralistic educational context. Journal of Beliefs & Values, 35(2), 155–164. https://doi. org/10.1080/13617672.2014.953296 Kuusisto, A., & Kallioniemi, A. (2017). Finnish youths’ views on religious and worldview membership and belonging. Journal of Religious Education, 64(2), 87–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40839-017-0032-x Kuusisto, A., Poulter, S., & Kallioniemi, A. (2017). Finnish pupils’ views on the place of religion in school. Religious Education, 112(2), 110–122.  https://doi.org/10. 1080/00344087.2016.1085237  Kuusisto, A., & Kallioniemi, A. (2021). Children’s and youths’ perspectives on value diversity in education: Implications for teacher education and educator professionalism. In E. Kuusisto, M. Ubani, P. Nokelainen, & A. Toom (Eds.), Good teachers for tomorrow’s schools: Purpose, values, and talents in education. Leiden: Brill. Masuzawa, T. (2005). The invention of world religions: Or, how European universalism was preserved in the language of pluralism. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Naugle, D. (2002). Worldview: The history of a concept. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans. NCCBE (2014). National Core Curriculum for Basic Education 2014. Helsinki: National Board of Education. Nilsson, A. (2013). The psychology of worldviews: Toward a non-reductive science of personality. Lund: Media-Tryck. Pauha, T., Renvik, T., Eskelinen, V., Jetten, J., van der Noll, J., Kunst, J., … JasinskajaLahti, I. (2020). The attitudes of deconverted and lifelong atheists towards religious groups: The role of religious and spiritual identity. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 30(4), 246–264. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508619. 2020.1774206 Pauha, T. (2018). Religious and national identities among young Muslims in Finland: A view from the social constructionist social psychology of religion. [Väitöskirja, Helsingin yliopisto]. Helsinki: University of Helsinki. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle. net/10138/239079  Poulter, S. (2017). From citizenship of God’s Kingdom to liberal individualism? A critical historical analysis of Finnish religious education. British Journal of Religious Education, 39(2), 187–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/01416200.2015.1110113 Rissanen, I. (2014). Negotiating religion and identity in a single faith religious education: A case study of Islamic education in Finnish schools. Münster: Waxmann. Rissanen, I. (2019). Inclusion of Muslims in Finnish schools. In M. Ubani, I. Rissanen, & S. Poulter (Eds.), Contextualizing dialogue, secularization and pluralism: Religion in Finnish public education (pp. 127–144). Münster: Waxmann. Rissanen, I., Kuusisto, E., Hanhimäki, E., & Tirri, K. (2018). The implications of teachers’ implicit theories for moral education: A case study from Finland. Journal of Moral Education, 47(1), 63–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240.2017. 1374244

Worldviews in Flux 133 Rissanen, I., Ubani, M., & Poulter, S. (2019). Key issues of religion in Finnish public education. In M. Ubani, I. Rissanen, & S. Poulter (Eds.), Contextualizing dialogue, secularization and pluralism: Religion in Finnish public education (pp. 203–216). Münster: Waxmann. Rousseau, D., & Billingham, J. (2018). A systematic framework for exploring worldviews and its generalization as a multi-purpose inquiry framework. Systems, 6(3), 27. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems6030027 Sagberg, S. (2017). Taking a children’s rights perspective on children’s spirituality. International Journal of Children’s Spirituality, 22(1), 24–35. https://doi.org/10. 1080/1364436X.2016.1276050 Sakaranaho, T. (2013). Religious education in Finland. Temenos, 49(2), 225–254. Sakaranaho, T. (2019). The governance of religious education in Finland: A statecentric relational approach. In M. Ubani, I. Rissanen, & S. Poulter (Eds.), Contextualizing dialogue, secularization and pluralism: Religion in Finnish public education, religious diversity and education in Europe (pp. 17–27). Münster: Waxmann. Sakaranaho, T., & Konttori, J. (2020). Mitä ovat maailmanuskonnot? [What are world religions?]. In H. Pesonen, & T. Sakaranaho (Eds.), Uskontotieteen ilmiöitä ja näkökulmia (pp. 71–84). Helsinki: Gaudeamus. Salmenkivi, E., & Åhs, V. (2022). Selvitys katsomusaineiden opetuksen nykytilasta ja uudistamistarpeista’. Opetus ja kulttuuriministeriön julkaisuja 2022:13. Opetusja kulttuuriministeriö. Retrieved from https://okm.fi/julkaisu?pubid=URN:ISBN: 978-952-263-775-8 Salomäki, H., Hytönen, M., Ketola, K., Salminen, V., & Sohlberg, J. (2020). Uskonto arjessa ja juhlassa, Suomen evankelis-luterilainen kirkko vuosina 2016-2019. Helsinki: Kirkon tutkimuskeskuksen julkaisuja. Schnell, T. (2010). Existential indifference: Another quality of meaning in life. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 50(3), 351–373. Sohlberg, J., & Ketola, K. (2020). Uskonnolliset yhteisöt Suomessa. In Salomäki, H., Hytönen, M., Ketola, K., Salminen, V. and Sohlberg, J. (Eds.), Uskonto arjessa ja juhlassa, Suomen evankelis-luterilainen kirkko vuosina 2016-2019. Helsinki: Kirkon tutkimuskeskuksen julkaisuja 134. Taves, A., Asprem, E., & Ihm, E. (2018). Psychology, meaning making, and the study of worldviews: Beyond religion and non-religion. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 10(3), 207–217. Thornhill, C. (2013). Karl Jaspers: Politics and metaphysics. New York, NY: Routledge. Ubani, M., Kallioniemi, A., & Poulter, S. (2015). Finnish class student teachers’ perceptions of religious education. Nordidactica: Journal of Humanities and Social Science Education, 2015(2), 74–93.  Valk, J. (2017). Worldview education. In Wielzen, D., & der Avest, T. (Eds.), Interfaith education for all: Theoretical perspectives and best practices for transformative action (pp. 227–242). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Vidal, C. (2012). Metaphilosophical criteria for worldview comparison. Metaphilosophy, 43(3), 306–347. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9973.2012.01749.x

10 Theologies, Religion and Literacy Towards Socially Sustainable Religious Education? Martin Ubani

Introduction It can be said that the fundamental purpose and mission of education is to ensure that all students benefit from learning so that they are able to ‘participate fully in public, community and economic life’ (New London Group, 1996, p. 60). Many times, in political documents and policy recommendations, education is portrayed as the principal answer to many challenges (Niemi, 2021). On the other hand, poverty, the unequal distribution of resources, is one of the ‘wicked’ and ‘persistent’ problems of humankind and includes, for instance, physical, psychological, social and also educational consequences (Comber, 2015). Just as educational or any other inequality cannot be overcome by education alone (Berliner, 2013), at least some of the answers lie in education. The key here is what kind of education is perceived as part of the solution to the wicked and persistent problems surrounding the sustainability of societies and lifestyles. This chapter discusses the place of religious literacy in educating for socially sustainable development. In the literature, ‘literacy’ has been more and more applied and presented as a suitable concept for defining knowledge and skills concerning religion and worldviews educated in public education (Dinham, 2020; Moore, 2014; Ubani, 2023). Previously, sustainable development has been connected with several skill domains of what can be termed the 21st century transferable skills framework (Darling-Hammond, 2006; Geisinger, 2016; Niemi & Multisilta, 2016). In the literature, skills connected to sustainability often lean towards competence related to the use of technology (Dell & Rand, 2001) or digital literacy (Gündüzalp, 2021). The underlying premise of this 21st century learning framework is to map out and provide through education applicable skills to ensure each citizen has the competence to navigate complex and evolving societies characterized by information flood, digitalization and plurality. Consequently, the immediacy of the questions related to sustainability is also visible in the emergence in the 2010s of UNESCO chair–based scientific journals such as Discourse and Communication for Sustainable Education and the Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability. Most Western societies have a public education subject devoted to developing students’ skills and knowledge with regard to religion. Partly for this DOI: 10.4324/9781003265696-12

Theologies, Religion and Literacy 135 reason, religious literacy is difficult to discuss in that context without reference to religious education (see Parker, 2020). However, today, there is a clear lack of conceptualization of ‘religion’ and ‘education’ (Biesta & Hannam, 2021) in public religious education, which also hinders developing education concerning religious literacy itself or in relation to the broader challenges humanity faces in the 21st century in a coherent manner. Much, therefore, remains to be explored with respect to learning and development and religious literacy. In this chapter, I draw on the literature concerning multimodal and critical literacies, religious literacy and social sustainability to explore the potential and requirements of religious literacy and religious literacy education for providing solutions to some of the pressing wicked questions of societies today. In this process, I advocate for the need to establish a renewed relationship between the academic discipline of theology, theologies and the study of religion and public education in order to establish critical religious literacy in relation to social sustainability. Social sustainability and critical 21st century education The United Nations based Brundtland Commission’s definition in 1987 of sustainable development can be seen as a staple description of the concept of sustainability. The Brundtland report (1987) on ‘Our common future’ defined sustainable development as ‘… development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’. Hence, in the current literature, sustainability is generally seen as a very broad concept. The 2000s in particular witnessed an upsurge in integrating social aspects such as inclusion, inequity and poverty into the question of sustainability (Dujon, Dillard, & Brennan, 2013; Scoones, 2016; Vallance, Perkins, & Dixon, 2011). It is usually agreed that the concept of sustainable development includes three domains: bio-physical/environmental, economic and social (Dillard, Dujon, & Brennan, 2013; Vallance et al., 2011). This is in stark contrast with the initial use of the term, where ‘sustainability’ referred primarily to natural systems and forestry: to resources and the environment. The emergence of the concept of social sustainability in public consciousness can be in part traced to the United Nations General Assembly (1983), which argued for new environmental initiatives for 2000 and beyond. In its holistic and comprehensive understanding of solving environmental issues, it pursued the following goal: ‘To recommend ways in which concern for the environment may be translated into greater co-operation among developing countries and between countries at different stages of economic and social development and lead to the achievement of common and mutually supportive objectives which take account of the interrelationships between people, resources, environment and development’. This led to a key development in 2015 when the United Nations underlined the integrality of social sustainability in its 2030 Framework, which issued 17 goals for sustainable development

136  Martin Ubani (United Nations, 2015) that were more broadly encompassing, including, e.g., nutrition, health and well-being, education, equality and human rights, security, access to material and energy resources, economic growth, and environment and climate. While the 2030 Framework included several goals that can be seen to align implicitly with the question of religious literacy, there were a few that align with it more explicitly. Such a more explicit alignment is Goal 4: ‘Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all’. Here Article 4.7 sets the tone also for this chapter. There, it is stated that ‘By 2030, ensure that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including, among others, through education for sustainable development and sustainable lifestyles, human rights, gender equality, promotion of a culture of peace and non-violence, global citizenship and appreciation of cultural diversity and of culture’s contribution to sustainable development’ (p. 17). In other words, education is to give all learners the competence to promote sustainable development with an understanding of, adherence to and/or means of the following:

• Sustainable development and sustainable lifestyle • Human rights • Gender equality • Promotion of a culture of peace and non-violence • Global citizenship and appreciation of cultural diversity • Culture’s contribution to sustainable development Another example of a relevant goal with regard to social sustainability is Goal 16 (pp. 25–26): ‘Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels’. Social sustainability can be viewed as one domain of sustainability. Moreover, social sustainability itself includes a wide range of subdomains. For instance, in their analysis, Vallance et al. (2011) distinguish between three types of social sustainability: development sustainability, which focuses on people’s life conditions and needs, such as poverty and inequity; bridge sustainability, which focuses on human behaviour and bio-physical environmental goals; and maintenance sustainability, which focuses on the preservation and continuation of socio-cultural patterns and practices amid social and economic change (p. 345). The concept of social sustainability also includes tensions with respect to its own goals, purposes and practices. According to Vallance et al. (2011), these tensions can be largely attributed to confusion and conflict between each of the different types of social sustainability they identified. Furthermore, they argue that the recognition of maintenance sustainability with respect to ways of life to be sustained and improved is crucial to understanding why eco-messages are ignored and resisted: it is part of the project of the rehumanization and contextualization of sustainability (p. 347).

Theologies, Religion and Literacy 137 Social sustainability should be looked at as a teleological process where the present strivings and their inherent character align with what is aimed for. Sustainability in general needs also to be examined in light of the fluctuating, changing and evolving societal realities and ecological systems. These realities and systems are characteristically dynamic and in non-equilibrium states that are driven by interlinked political, economic and ecological forces (Scoones, 2007) – as is sustainability. This broad approach is essential especially when looking at sustainability as a societal process rather than merely a product or end-state (Berkes, Colding, & Folke, 2003, p. 2). Furthermore, focusing on sustainability as a process instead of a product is merited because in societies sustainability includes many aspects and actors whose movements are intertwined and which both contradict and support each other. Scoones (2016) has provided a typology for looking at patterns of transformation processes in relation to sustainability (p. 304) comprising four processes: technology-led, market-led, state-led and citizen-led (Figure 10.1). According to Scoones, these four transformation processes intersect and do not function in isolation (ibid). He argues for the importance of focusing on how ‘local knowledges and practices are connected with wider transformative change’ (p. 309). He cites the work of Watts and Peluso (2013) to describe the immediacy of the need to question and deconstruct regimes of truth (power over legitimate and justifiable knowledge, identifying a problem and conceptualising a solution), regimes of rule (who governs what and in which ways) and regimes of accumulation (the distribution of possessions and

Figure 10.1 Transformations and politics for sustainability and development (Scoones 2016, p. 304)

138  Martin Ubani resources) (Scoones, 2016, pp. 305–306) for developing sustainable and just societies and lifestyle conditions. The question of social sustainability intertwines with the concept of social justice. Comber (1994, 2015; Comber & Kamler, 2004) has advocated for critical literacy in a Freirean sense as a tool for social justice. When discussing the concept of critical literacy, Luke (2012) similarly traces the philosophical foundations also, for instance, to Freire’s critical pedagogy giving tools to critique and transform the established oppressive social roles. In addition, he mentions post-war British cultural studies and the expansion of ‘texts’ to popular culture and marginalized communities’ narratives, counter-hegemonic critique and post-structuralist models of discourses critiquing the validity of definitive interpretations and truth from a text as foundations of critical pedagogy. In terms of critical education, the student should not just be aware of these above-mentioned four ‘actors’ (Scoones, 2016), but also of their dynamics, rules and misgivings and of the need for these to align to some extent in order to create a culture and society of sustainability. The student should also recognize their own position, role and responsibilities as a critical citizen in these four fields of transformation and as an agent in developing a better today and tomorrow. Instead of compliance, students need to develop capacities ‘to speak up, to negotiate and to engage critically’ (New London Group, 1996) not only with working life (ibid.) but, moreover, with life in society. Luke (2012) describes critical literacy as characterized by:

• ‘a focus on ideology critique and cultural analysis as a key element of education against cultural exclusion and marginalization;

• a commitment to the inclusion of working class, cultural and linguistic minorities, indigenous learners, and others marginalized on the basis of gender, sexuality, or other forms of difference; and • an engagement with the significance of text, ideology, and discourse in the construction of social and material relations, everyday cultural and political life’ (p. 6). Educating for socially engaging religious literacy and theology What, then, are the requisites for religious literacy to compliment questions of social sustainability and social justice? Religious literacy can be understood as ‘… a competence (knowledge, skills and attitudes) for “critical reading” (i.e., identifying, recognizing, understanding, analysing, distinguishing, evaluating, contesting) of religion in different contexts and also in applying this “critical reading of religion” appropriately to different topics and practices’. Religious literacy covers, for instance, personal, communal, societal, institutional, cultural, local, global and ideological aspects related to religion and understands not only the interconnectedness of these aspects but also how some aspects are in some situations more integral (Ubani, 2023). Looking at the different definitions of religious literacy (Dinham & Francis, 2015; Prothero, 2007),

Theologies, Religion and Literacy 139 this definition adheres to how Moore (2014) perceives religious literacy and takes her work as a starting point for elaboration. In the above definition, ‘critical’ could be used in ‘critical reading of religion’ in what can be loosely termed a Kantian manner. This would denote an assumption that, socio-culturally speaking, in Western education it is plausible to use validated criteria to examine religion, but also to assume that the academic multidisciplinary research on religion is the provider of the normative bases behind such criteria (Ubani, 2021, 2022). In addition, or completion, to this view, the concept of ‘critical’ can and should be expanded towards a more socially responsive and responsible conception of critical in literacy (see Luke, 2004, 2018; Pandya & Avila, 2014). Thus, ‘understanding’ or ‘being able to read’ religion should not be looked at in isolation from moral reactions, just actions or value judgements. Education is not just for knowledge, being able to identify, or being able to search for more knowledge, but also for acting on the basis of and in line with the knowledge at hand and obtained. This is essentially what the shift from knowledge to knowing should entail. The emphasis on this kind of ‘knowing’ highlights situatedness and practical cases where the individual is to act on the basis of his or her competence meaningfully and ethically. The New London Group advocated that the understanding and pedagogy of literacy should include ‘negotiating a multiplicity of discourses’ (New London Group, 1996, p. 61). Critical literacy is multimodal in that it involves the use of the technologies of print and other media of communication ‘to analyze, critique, and transform the norms, rule systems, and practices governing the social fields of everyday life’ (Luke, 2012). Religion, too, can be viewed as one such social field. Therefore, it could be considered a question of definition whether religious literacy should be perceived under critical literacy (as defined here by Luke) or, similarly, whether it should be looked at as a type of cultural literacy (as defined by Hirsch, 1987) or some other domain of skill. However, as religion has been identified historically in Western societies as a distinct and well-established field of academic study with its specific methods of inquiry and knowledge, it is not without merit to approach skills related to religion as a distinct, albeit, multimodal and critical type of literacy that overlaps or connects with cultural literacy or some others. In order not to reduce the knowledge, skills and education concerning religion or the complexity of the mere phenomenon of religion, a dedicated conception of competence related to it is required – and a devoted school subject, Religious Education, to support growth in it is warranted. According to Luke (2012), ‘Critical literacy entails a process of naming and renaming the world, seeing its patterns, designs, and complexities, and developing the capacity to redesign and reshape it’ (Luke, 2012, p. 9). For instance, in the reconceptualization of their original model, where literacy was conceived in terms of roles of semantic code breaker, text participant, text user and text analyst, Luke and Freebody (1999) tied these to a set of resources and practices from which the readers draw upon to make sense of life and the

140  Martin Ubani world (Serafini, 2012). In other words, the practices of understanding meaning, making meaning and acting meaningfully along with critical evaluation of the processes, contextual input and outcomes of appropriating and validifying what is meaning and meaningful are intertwined in literacy. Serafini (2011), on the other hand, furthered his attention to the situatedness of literacy. Based on the literature, he expanded the four resources model to the reader acting as a navigator, interpreter, designer and interrogator (p. 152) to better address the comprehensive and situated nature of dealing with the multimodality of ‘texts’ when reading: he depicts the cognitive act of shifting between modes, identifying, selecting and focusing on cultural cues in materials and designing the dialogue and, eventually, the ‘text’ in the learning situation. However, in order to reconceptualize religious literacy as a constituent of education for social sustainability, more work is required concerning a modern conceptualization of religion and learning in public education. At present, there is an imperative need for a modern and critical normative basis for how to evaluate understanding and organize knowledge of religion in general (Vermeer, 2012, p. 340). Similarly, to religious education having a problem lacking coherence in education in relation to religion, religious literacy requires a theoretical commonality that ties religious literacy together with academic disciplinary studies on religion and educational studies. Without developing a valid core conceptualization of what religious literacy is and how it is developed, it faces the same risk with regard to social sustainability as religious education has, for instance in Finland, with regard to themes such as (even though important in themselves) cultural heritage (see Ubani, Poulter, & Rissanen, 2021). Namely, social sustainability is seen as a tool (or apology) for underlining the relevance of education about religion in modern societies, but assumes the definitive role too near to the core of the subject or skill. At worst, it in effect substitutes religion for religious education or religious literacy and produces a reductionist representation of religion without an adequate scholarly basis. The other ‘worst’ is to neglect sustainability altogether, for instance, by emphasizing individual private aspects related to religion. To actualize social sustainability in education about religion in a manner that gives justice to both sustainability and religion requires the acknowledgment of how social justice and sustainability have been acknowledged in theologies and in theological inquiry, respectively. The key here is to overcome the deficit in education with regard to acknowledging, applying and merging academic studies of religion with public education curricula and their conceptions of learning concerning religion (see also Biesta & Hannam, 2020). As Arthur, Gearon, and Sears (2010, p. 88) discuss, ‘the exponential growth’ of religion at local, national and global levels has also forced religious education in schools to increasingly acknowledge political and historical aspects in the subject. However, without a plausible framework for identification, evaluation and conceptualization, these aspects easily become separate topics touched from the surface only. As Kimanen (2022) has rightfully observed, for instance, the Finnish national core curriculum for religious education tends to

Theologies, Religion and Literacy 141 emphasize individuality, membership and community cohesion instead of social agency or active critical citizenship. Admittedly, this finding is similar to what Arthur et al. (2010, p. 88) report with regard to the lack of recognition of the citizenship aspect in religious education scholarship in Britain and internationally. Kimanen cites the curriculum: ‘the instruction of religion supports the pupil’s growth into a responsible member of his or her community and the democratic society as well as a global citizen’ (Finnish National Core Curriculum for Basic Education (NCCBE) 2014, p. 726) as an example of not reaching the potential in terms of social justice, and evidently, in ‘changemaking’. Her claim is highlighted by the fact that the mere concepts of ‘justice’, ‘equality’ and ‘equity’ do not appear in the curriculum for RE (ibid.), even though ‘society’, ‘community’ and ‘culture’ do. The positive and negative roles of religion in the histories of Western societies should offer a wide array of material for examining aspects related to, for instance, social justice in relation to various aspects related to religion (see Ives & Kidwell, 2019). Moreover, several scholars connect the mere emergence of literacy in Western society to the 15th century insurrection against Papal control over the ‘Word’ by Reformists such as Luther (Luke, 1988, 2014) and how this use of literacy as a basis for individual agency set the precedent for societal changes in Europe not only with regard to the state constitution, but also with regard to education and citizenship. Moreover, Luke (2014) also traces the emergence of critical literacy to these developments. However, when studying religion from contemporary sources, what is problematic is that at the same time religion today is often portrayed in (secular) liberal democratic settings as a ‘negative force within social, cultural and political contexts’ (Arthur et al., 2010, p. 88). In other words, without a truly critical framework for the ‘reading’ of religion, the representation of religion is distorted and uncritically biased towards the negative, and thus even knowledge about religion has little to offer to sustainability, except for cautionary or corrupt examples. This rift between recent developments in theology (and to some extent even religious studies) and public education seems to be a common problem shared by several Western societies other than Finland. For instance, Freathy and Davis (2019) have described a similar dichotomy concerning religious education in the UK. They cite Copley (2008) in describing how, since certain developments in the early 1970s, religious educators have been inclined towards a certain type of religious studies, while theology has often been scorned as having a bias and being inherently Christian. As also academic theologians showed little interest in the subject at school, there, too, religious education lost connection with the developments in theology and the subject became marginalized in RE (Copley, 2008, p. 207; Freathy & Davis, 2018, p. 4). There have been similar tendencies evident in Finnish curricula for religious education (Ubani, 2017, 2019; Ubani et al., 2021). Reportedly, in the 2000s in the scholarly community surrounding religious education, there has been a lack of input from both theology and religious studies. However, for theology or religious studies to be truly useful for the purposes of critical religious

142  Martin Ubani literacy and 21st century public education in Finland, critical deconstruction of those traditions’ a priori assumptions, attitudes and relationship to institutional religion or lived religiosity are integral. Arguably, in countries like Finland, where there is a history of dichotomy in the study of religion roughly between confessional theology and the study of religion, there may be a tendency to lean towards either apologetic defensiveness or convicted negativity in relation to confessional religion in general, its religiosity and its position in society, culture and modern lifestyles. This is despite the willingness in recent years for self-criticism in relation to power and unwritten assumptions with regard to good science and increasing the blendedness of borders between academic traditions. Indeed, Finnish literature on theology has adopted an increasingly self-critical stance towards its normative assumptions and discourses of power with regard to these aspects (Hallamaa, Tervo-Niemelä, & Peltomäki, 2021) and, likewise, some key researchers in the contemporary study of religion have been paying attention to the normative assumptions and discourses of power (see Hjelm, 2020; Taira, 2020). While generalizations are problematic, as there are differences among individual researchers and in Finland religious studies is a diverse field including, for instance, distinctive areas such as cultural anthropology and contemporary sociological study of religion, the traditionally quite evident differentiation between theology and the study of religion in Finland seems, from the viewpoint of public education, outmoded. This holds true especially as the developing of a certain religious conviction has ceased to be an objective of religious education. The dissolution of confessional religious education coincides with the restriction of the role of theology solely to curricular contents and the structures of knowledge behind them. Therefore, theology and the contemporary study of religion are to operate at the same level with similar input in the public education curricula, but neither can claim such relevance that it can be perceived as a dominant voice in providing the discourse surrounding religious education, its objectives and core purpose. Simply put, religiosity or non-religiosity, plurality or diversity are today contextual facts to be acknowledged, yes, but not what religious education in public education is or is to be about. However, academic studies of religion do have an important task in the handling of contemporary topics in public education while also maintaining coherence in learning about religion. Namely, if (social) sustainability is perceived as a problem rooted in the deeper fragments of society and culture and justified, maintained and reproduced through narratives, discourses and memory, we need tools that can aid the ‘reading’ of such problems. Jenkins (2008) has discussed the role of theology (mainly in the sense of confessional systematic theology) in meeting the challenge of sustainability. Although admittedly overlapping, based on a literature review, he presents seven theological approaches in the form of claims that make sustainability ‘a different kind of theological problem’ (p. 200). He argues, firstly, that as religions have significantly shaped the cultural roots of sustainability problems, theology may help to critique and reform the elements of religion that contribute to

Theologies, Religion and Literacy 143 unsustainable worldviews (p. 200). Secondly, the theological analysis may help to illuminate and critique unsustainable social pathologies that place ‘Godlike’ value and sanctity on exploiting markets (p. 201). Thirdly, he indicates that ‘transition toward sustainability requires engagement with the religious symbols that shape a global moral consciousness’ and that theology should be able to reformulate concepts accordingly (p. 204): this would also cater to people who consider themselves religious. On the basis of this, contemporary theology, for instance, in public education could provide useful support towards achieving sustainability goals. However, the kind of modern conception of theology preferred by Freathy and Davis (2018) could also provide a solid basis for furthering awareness of social justice and sustainability not artificially as part of critical religious literacy. There, theology is seen as ‘a multi- or inter-disciplinary field of inquiry, encompassing theories and concepts, interpretations and perspectives, and/or methodologies and methods shared with other disciplines’ (p. 2). According to Freathy and Davis, it draws not only from theological disciplines such as systematic theology, but also from across humanities (and religious studies). In their preferred use of the concept, theology covers therefore not only theologies of, say, Christian denominations or other religions or alike, but also contemporary theological traditions such as post-colonial, eco-theology, neoorthodox, feminist or global ethics. Furthermore, they argue to incorporate into the conception of theology the contents and topics (the ‘What’) and the methods and practices (the ‘How’) of theologizing. With regard to religious literacy and public education, the inclusivity of the ‘what’ and ‘how’ is integral. Moreover, the ‘what’ includes not only the topics ‘traditionally’ identified as ‘theological’ but also the ability to identify aspects and patterns in life and societies outside of the traditional boundaries of theology and even religious studies, the understanding of which is sufficiently or decisively aided by knowledge produced by the academic study of religion. This ‘what’ is intertwined with the ‘how’ so that this identification process is connected with the diverse methodologies, practices and disciplinary criteria for producing ‘good knowledge’ concerning religion. This rests on the assumptions that in the Western socio-cultural context academic study is recognized as the primary tool for acquiring, producing and validating knowledge and its criteria (not in the narrow sense) and, therefore, the academic study of religion (regardless of the discipline and field) is accredited with maintaining this task concerning religion. Consequently, this also concerns public education curricula, as after what could be loosely termed confessional normativity in religious education, the conceptualizations of religious literacy and eventually the contents and objectives of curricula in religious education should be built on this as one of the primary premises. Freathy and Davis (2018) use the concepts of ‘positionality’, ‘empathy’ and ‘criticality’ as lenses for understanding the ‘inter-relationship between ideologies, theological inquiries and learning about religion’ (pp. 12–14). It is in the intersection of these that phenomena such as secularization, secularism and

144  Martin Ubani secular should also be explored not only for religious literacy per se. However, this is also where the deconstruction of obstacles is to take place for overcoming the barriers to applying skills related to religion and eventually perceiving religious literacy as relevant to spheres beyond what is considered the ‘private’ to what is considered the ‘public’, i.e., society. Arguably, education concerning religion that is built on ‘positionality’, ‘empathy’ and ‘criticality’ would have the potential for religious literacy that is socially engaging, empowering, just and sustainable. Furthermore, the recognition of these aspects in relation to religious literacy brings, at least to some extent, a socially relevant moral imperative to religious literacy that may be found somewhat lacking from public religious education after the dissolution of confessionalism in religious education. Discussion The issue of religious literacy and social sustainability carries the question of how to maintain (or establish) the core of religious education while making it more engaging and relevant to public life in modern societies. As stated, the concept of sustainability and its development includes bio-physical/ environmental, economic and social domains (Vallance et al., 2011) that are intertwined and should not be looked at only in isolation, nor without an understanding of the cultural layers dismantling efforts for the common good, as these domains are not recognized as having a coercive enough imperative to support the above aims. For instance, according to Watts and Peluso (2013), the ‘techno-scientific aspects of the sustainability imperative’ need to be supported with a dialogue with metaphors, stories or symbols as the other partner to sustainability (Cameron, Mulligan, & Wheatley, 2007; Hahn, 2002) that ‘resonate’ with the individual and collective experiences of life today. They claim that this dialogue provides clues as to how to make abstract concerns about global nature ‘out there’ relevant locally and in everyday contexts of maintenance sustainability, but also that it can give institutions the mandate to make decisions and act upon them to further sustainability in modern societies (Watts & Peluso, 2013). Thus, religious education in 21st century public education should provide tools for citizens to not only navigate but also take initiative for the public good on the basis of ability in religious literacy. However, connecting the aspect of religion and religious literacy to sustainability and civic engagement is not without ambiguities. On the one hand, the ‘secularist’ placement of religion in the private sphere does not encourage or positively view the ‘meddling’ of religion in civic matters (Arthur et al., 2010) due to ideological reasons or to historical and current examples of injustice, misuse of power and monopoly over truth. On the other hand, religion has also been connected with the positive advancement of public issues and the pursuit of social justice in recent history. If we are to find a proper space for religious literacy in modern education and to staple its relevance to sustainability, the critical societal engagement aspect should be included in the onset of

Theologies, Religion and Literacy 145 literacy about religion. This question should not be looked at in terms of how RE as a subject should support social sustainability per se, but rather how its key objectives, themes and contents relate and contribute to building socially sustainable lifestyles and societies that are also critical and literate. Pedagogy is a ‘teaching and learning relationship that creates the potential for building learning conditions leading to full and equitable social participation’ (New London Group, 1996, p. 60). The questions surrounding the sustainability of lifestyles and societies, including aspects such as the distribution and availability of material and immaterial resources, social harmony, justice and capital, are among the most pressing challenges of the 21st century. Similarly to religion, the question of sustainability includes a normative aspect. According to Scoones, creating conditions for sustainability and development is essentially and inevitably a normative struggle that is rooted in political and moral choices (Scoones, 2016, p. 309) that are made globally, societally and at the level of the individual citizen. If public education is to bridge the literacy gap in relation to religion and the fundamental challenges of the societies of today, the minimum requirement should be to cross the bridge from education to contemporary theology and contemporary study of religion to understand how these respective academic disciplines have elaborated and conceptualized these ‘wicked’ and ‘persistent’ problems in their justification of topics, scientific methods of knowledge production, and evaluation and theorizing of interdisciplinary outcomes. It can be argued that this development would also lead to more engaging, relevant, sound – and sustainable – religious literacy. References Arthur, J., Gearon, L., & Sears, A. (2010). Education, politics, and religion: Reconciling the civil and the sacred in education. New York, NY: Routledge. Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Folke, C. (2003). Introduction. In F. Berkes, J. Colding, & C. Folke (Eds.), Navigating social-ecological systems: Building resilience for complexity and change (pp. 1–30). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Berliner, D. (2013). Effects of inequality and poverty vs. teachers and schooling on America’s youth. Teachers College Record, 115(12), 1–26. Biesta, G., & Hannam, P. (Eds.). (2020). Religion and education: The forgotten dimensions of religious education? Leiden: Brill. Brundtland report (1987). Our Common future. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development. United Nations. Cameron, J., Mulligan, M., & Wheatley, V. (2007). Building a place-responsive society through inclusive local projects and networks. Local Environment, 9(2), 147–163. Comber, B. (1994). Critical literacy: An introduction to Australian debates and perspectives. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 26(6), 655–668. Comber, B. (2015). Critical literacy and social justice. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 58(5), 362–367. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.370 Comber, B., & Kamler, B. (2004). Getting out of deficit: Pedagogies of reconnection. Teaching Education, 15(3), 293–310. Copley, T. (2008). Teaching religion: Sixty years of religious education in England and Wales. Exeter: University of Exeter Press.

146  Martin Ubani Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st century teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), 300–314. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487105285962 Dell, R., & Rand, D. A. (2001). Energy storage — A key technology for global energy sustainability. Journal of Power Sources, 100(1), 2–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0378-7753(01)00894-1 Dillard, J., Dujon, V., & Brennan, E. (2013). Introduction to social sustainability. A multilevel approach to social inclusion. In V. Dujon, J. Dillard, & E. Brennan (Eds.), Social sustainability: A multilevel approach to social inclusion (pp. 1–14). London: Routledge. Dinham, A. (2020). Religion and belief literacy: Reconnecting a chain of learning. Bristol: Policy Press. Dinham, A., & Francis, M. (Eds.). (2015). Religious literacy in policy and practice. Bristol: Bristol University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1t89c7n Dujon, V., Dillard, J., & Brennan, E. (Eds.). (2013). Social sustainability: A multilevel approach to social inclusion. New York, NY: Routledge. Freathy, R., & Davis, A. (2019). Theology in multi-faith religious education: A taboo to be broken? Research Papers in Education, 34(6), 749–768. Geisinger, K. (2016). 21st century skills: What are they and how do we assess them? Applied Measurement in Education, 29(4), 245–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 08957347.2016.1209207 Gündüzalp, S. (2021). 21 century skills for sustainable education: Prediction level of teachers’ information literacy skills on their digital literacy skills. Discourse and Communication for Sustainable Education, 12(1), 85–101. Hahn, E. (2002). Towards ecological urban restructuring: A challenging new ecocultural approach. Ekistics, 69(412–414), 103–115. Hallamaa, J., Tervo-Niemelä, K., & Peltomäki, I. (2021). Teologia eletyn uskonnon tulkkina: normatiivisuus ja uudistuvat metodit. Suomalaisen teologisen kirjallisuusseuran julkaisuja 298. Helsinki: Suomalainen teologinen kirjallisuusseura. Hirsch, E. (1987). Cultural literacy: What every American needs to know. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Hjelm, T. (2020). Mapping the discursive study of religion. Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 88(4), 1002–1025. https://doi.org/10.1093/jaarel/lfaa045 Ives, C. D., & Kidwell, J. (2019). Religion and social values for sustainability. Sustainability Science, 14, 1355–1362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00657-0 Jenkins, W. (2008). Global ethics, Christian theology, and the challenge of sustainability. Worldviews, 12(2/3), 197–217. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/ 43809389 Kimanen, A. (2022). Enhancing informed empathy as a key to promoting social justice in religious education classes. Journal of Religious Education. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s40839-022-00159-9 Luke, A. (1988). Literacy, textbooks and ideology. London: Falmer Press. Luke, A. (2004). Two takes on the critical. In B. Norton, & K. Toohey (Eds.), Critical pedagogies and language learning (pp. 21–31). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Luke, A. (2012). Critical literacy: Foundational notes. Theory into Practice, 51(1), 4–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2012.636324 Luke, A. (2014). Defining critical literacy. In Z. Pandya, & J. Avila (Eds.), Moving critical literacies forward: A new look at praxis across contexts (pp. 19–31). New York and London: Routledge.

Theologies, Religion and Literacy 147 Luke, A. (2018). Regrounding critical literacy: Representation, facts and reality. In E. Ortlieb (Ed.), Theoretical models and processes of literacy (pp. 349–361). New York, NY: Routledge. Luke, A., & Freebody, P. (1999). Further notes on the four resources model. Practically Primary, 4(2), 5–8. Moore, D. L. (2014). Overcoming religious illiteracy: Expanding the boundaries of religious education. Religious Education, 109(4), 379–389. NCCBE (2014). National core curriculum for basic education. Helsinki: Finnish National Agency for Education. New London Group (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60–92. Niemi, H. (2021). Education reforms for equity and quality: An analysis from an educational ecosystem perspective with reference to Finnish educational transformations. CEPS Journal, 11(2), 13–35. Niemi, H., & Multisilta, J. (2016). Digital storytelling promoting twenty-first century skills and student engagement. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 25(4), 451–468. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2015.1074610 Pandya, J., & Avila, J. (Eds.). (2014). Moving critical literacies forward: A new look at praxis across contexts. New York and London: Routledge. Parker, S. (2020). Religious literacy: Spaces of teaching and learning about religion and belief. Journal of Beliefs & Values, 41(2), 129–131. Prothero, S. (2007). Religious literacy: what every American needs to know – And doesn’t. New York, NY: Harper. Scoones, I. (2007). Sustainability. Development in Practice, 17(4/5), 589–596. http:// www.jstor.org/stable/25548257 Scoones, I. (2016). The politics of sustainability and development. Annual Review of Environmental Resources, 41, 293–319. Serafini, F. (2012). Expanding the four resources model: Reading visual and multimodal texts. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 7(2), 150–164. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/1554480X.2012.656347 Taira, T. (2020). The historicization of “religion” and the devastation of study of religion departments: Siamese twins or contingent acquaintances? Implicit Religion, 22(3–4), 291–308. Ubani, M. (2017). Contextualising the contribution of RE scholarly communities to the development of RE in Finland over recent decades. NordDidactica, 1, 87–108. Ubani, M. (2019). Religion and multiculturalism in Finnish public schools. The secularist – culturalist transition. In M. Ubani, I. Rissanen, & S. Poulter (Eds.), Contextualising dialogue, pluralism and secularisation. Cases analyses on Finnish public education. Münster: Waxmann. Ubani, M. (2021). Religious literacy as a 21st century skill for all teachers. In E. Kuusisto, M. Ubani, A. Toom, & P. Nokelainen (Eds.), Good teachers for tomorrow’s schools: Purpose, values, and talents in education (Vol. 16, pp. 166–191). Leiden: Brill Sense. Ubani, M. (2023). Religious literacy and the Finnish RE curriculum. In K. Flensner, W. Kardemark, & D. Enstedt (Eds.), Religious literacy and education in the Nordic countries. Münster: Waxmann. Ubani, M., Poulter, S., & Rissanen, I. (2021). Transition in RE in Finland. In O. Franck & P. Thalén (Eds.), Religious education in a post-secular age (pp. 99–122). London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47503-1_6

148  Martin Ubani UN General Assembly (1983). Process of preparation of the environmental perspective to the year 2000 and beyond, 19 December, A/RES/38/161. Retrieved February16, 2022 from https://www.refworld.org/docid/3b00f22810.html United Nations (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. UN General Assembly, A/RES/70/1, October 21. Vallance, S., Perkins, H. C., & Dixon, J. E. (2011). What is social sustainability? A clarification of concepts. Geoforum, 42(3), 342–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. geoforum.2011.01.002 Vermeer, P. (2012). Meta-concepts, thinking skills and religious education. British Journal of Religious Education, 34(3), 333–347. Watts, M., & Peluso, N. (2013). Resource violence. In C. Death (Ed.), Critical environmental politics (pp. 194–97). London: Routledge.

11 ‘And Our Little Ones Shall Dwell’ Is There Space for Religion in Finnish Early Childhood Education and Care? Saila Poulter and Arniika Kuusisto Introduction To understand churches as places of lived religion, it is necessary to integrate dimensions of space, body and time into a concept of learning (Leonhard, 2017, p. 214) The act of giving children open access to a chapel, to a sacred place, is one way of being hospitable to them as spiritual beings (Sagberg, 2015, p. 93) This chapter aims to merge perspectives from two commonly separated fields and disciplinary discussions, namely from children’s geographies, on the one hand, and Religious or Worldview Education, on the other, in order to examine the contested ‘space’ for religion in societal Early Childhood Education and Care in Finland. We investigate learning related to the concept of space as a pedagogical opportunity to make religion understood by young children in increasingly secular societal educational contexts. As Fuglseth (2017, p. 154) notes, children today rarely encounter religious expressions, or only chance upon them indirectly through a kind of mediatized presentation of textbooks, the internet or a teacher who has a detached attitude towards religion. This ‘indirectisation’ (Fuglseth, 2017, p. 151) represents a theoretical and distant way of teaching and learning about religion in which there is no actual direct or physical meeting point with or, as we conceptualize it here, space for religion, in order to understand what religion is and what kinds of meanings it may have for individuals or groups. Children’s geographies as a field of study pays attention to the ways in which ‘space’ is understood in relation to children and childhood in changing sociocultural contexts (Strandell, Haikkola, & Kullman, 2012, pp. 10–11). When investigating young children and their learning in diverse settings, it is vital to ask what kind of experiences are attached to different spaces and what kind of practices and pedagogies are applied to these spaces for learning. When talking about the teaching of young children regarding religions and worldviews, the DOI: 10.4324/9781003265696-13

150  Saila Poulter and Arniika Kuusisto question about religious space or sacred space in particular becomes a study issue (see also, e.g., Kilpeläinen, 2022). As Ylikörkkö (2022) points out, in the everyday life of ECEC settings, spaces of child participation are shaped in encounters between children and teachers. In these encounters, the spaces of child participation can take many shapes, which are defined by the surrounding culture, institutions and resources which either enable or obstruct the child’s initiatives. By ECEC, we refer here to the societal care and education provision for the 0–5-year-old age group in the Finnish context. Religious Education (RE) is a relatively broad field of study which involves looking into instruction on religion that typically takes place in formal educational settings. However, the ECEC contexts are widely underrepresented in the research taking place in the field (see, however, Kuusisto, 2022). Due to different educational approaches in pre-primary (ages 0–5) and compulsory education (ages 6–18), there are no separate subjects taught in Finnish ECEC. Rather, children are entitled to gain versatile experiences in different learning areas, which are not implemented separately but use integrative pedagogical activities that enable a broad exploration of spaces, things and phenomena (EDUFI, 2022). Worldview Education as a notion is broader than RE and is often used in national policy documents and research to highlight the inclusion of non-religious worldviews in the curriculum. This is also the case with the National ECEC Curriculum in Finland, which has employed the term since the most recent revision. In this chapter, we will explore the meanings, metaphors and material dimensions of space linked to education concerning religions and worldviews in an ECEC setting. In exploring the notion of space, we also find it necessary to discuss it in relation to the perception one has of a child – the view of the child – as well as to philosophical reflection about the purpose of education, which consequently informs the particular pedagogical ways religions and worldviews can be approached in educational practice. We argue that in order to develop an understanding of religion as a part of the civic skills that are necessary in secular and diverse educational settings, children would require direct encounters and participatory spaces in order to engage with religion. This, we believe, is possible to achieve in the context of secular education in applying the ideas of performative religious education, which is about ‘performing’, not ‘doing’ religion (see Roebben & Welling, 2021). In a broad sense, the aim of this chapter is to offer insights to rethink increasingly inclusive and socially and culturally sustainable religious and worldview education (see Raivio, Skaremyr, & Kuusisto, 2022) that does not reduce religion to a mere sociological category or object of study. We conclude the chapter by discussing the challenges of professionalism that educators face in developing such inclusive and sustainable ‘space-thinking’ in religious and worldview education. Societal context Although many of the matters examined here are indeed timely in the global context, the present analysis takes its particular empirical perspective from the Finnish societal setting and its ECEC system. We will thus begin by briefly

‘And Our Little Ones Shall Dwell’ 151 introducing the societal and conceptual background of religious and worldview education in Finnish ECEC in order to ground our investigation on space better. There is an ongoing scholarly debate on the concept of worldview, both internationally and in Finland (e.g. Bråten, 2021; Thalén, 2021). Before this more substantial conceptual discussion, worldview as a notion was first introduced as an umbrella term to replace ‘religion’ with the intent of using a more inclusive term that would also cover non-religious worldviews. This has also raised a fundamental debate on whether the notion of worldview is conceptually strong enough to be adopted as a key paradigm in the Finnish religious education tradition (Ubani, Poulter, & Rissanen, 2020). Inevitably, the conceptual change from religion to a worldview has not just been linguistic but is also fundamentally epistemological and pedagogical. This has had a notable effect on educational policies at both national and municipal levels internationally. According to the current Finnish national curriculum for ECEC (EDUFI, 2022), different worldview backgrounds of families should be taken into account in everyday encounters and in pedagogical planning, and educators are supposed to foster the individual identities of children. This attempt at inclusive treatment for both religious and non-religious outlooks on life has raised much anxiety among educators about how pedagogically to deal with different worldviews in practice in a non-confessional and non-binding way. The recent national evaluation reports on the quality of ECEC in Finland show that educators lack pedagogical tools to fully implement worldview education (Poulter, Lamminmäki-Vartia, & Castillo, 2021). The studies also show that locally set curricula typically lack concrete means to achieve national curricular standards (Tainio & Kallioniemi, 2019). Moreover, the conceptual change has happened as part of wider sociocultural changes, as Finnish society is changing rapidly towards an increasingly diverse religious landscape (Illman, Ketola, Latvio & Sohlberg, 2017), with a high number of people who can be identified as religious ‘nones’ or atheists and ‘seekers’ (Ketola, 2020; Strhan & Shillitoe, 2019). As the religious landscape is constantly evolving and the need for understanding different worldviews is growing, the concept of ‘worldview’ attempts to open up new possibilities for non-binary educational approaches as well as dialogue between religious and non-religious outlooks on life (Bråten, 2021). Importantly, when talking about a child’s personal worldview, one should not compare it with the binary logic of religiosity and non-religiosity, since no child is born with a worldview but develops within multiple social, emotional, cultural and spiritual encounters throughout life. Children, religion and space There is a growing interest in space and spatial theories in different fields of education (e.g. Larsen & Beech, 2014; von Brömssen, 2017). Space and spatiality hold multiple meanings: space understood as a physical category or material object is only one way of understanding it. The so-called spatial turn in

152  Saila Poulter and Arniika Kuusisto philosophical inquiry provides a perspective to understand space not as a geographical but as a cultural phenomenon to see how meaning making evolves and develops through cultural processes (Heimbrock, 2017). We elaborate upon space here as metaphorical, socially constructed meaning and as a material sense with regard to the discussion of worldview education of young children. The elaboration here is based on the theoretical and empirical insights gathered in the teacher education research and development project ‘Creating Spaces for Diversity of Worldviews in Early Childhood Education’ (2018–2021) funded by the Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture. The founding idea behind the project was that the worldview plurality present in society at large is also present in ECEC, although often hidden and downplayed. The aim of the project was to study and develop ECEC teachers’ and student teachers’ professionalism related to worldviews and to create pedagogical models in order to encounter religions and worldviews in education (Poulter et al., 2021). In the project, teachers’ lack of professionalism towards worldview education was approached from within a praxeological paradigm (Poulter, Kuusisto, & Lamminmäki-Vartia, 2022) with the aim of supporting teachers’ thinking of space as a kind of learning metaphor and a concrete pedagogical approach in implementing worldview education. The concepts of location, place and space have particular social, symbolic and religious meanings and it is difficult to give an accurate definition of them as they intersect with each other and in each individual and collective action their meanings and representations are contested, negotiated and transformed (Rothgangel, von Brömssen, Heimbrock, & Skeie, 2017, pp. 7–8). However, we follow the way in which Ipgrave (2017, pp. 33–34) describes a location as a meeting point for geographical positioning and physical features, place ‘as the meanings and significance afforded to a particular location through human (or divine) interpretation’ and space as ‘the opening up of that place as somewhere things can happen’. Taking the huge diversity of religious traditions into account, different notions may illustrate the best use of, for example, the Hindu festive place, the location of Muslim children praying in the preschool or a graveyard as a space for learning about the cultural dimension of Christianity. Therefore, we will also use the concepts partly interchangeably, understanding space to be a contested but broad concept to analyse religion in education in a symbolic, cultural and material sense. One way to understand space is to consider it as a social product: space is constructed through social interactions and interrelations. Space can be understood as a relational, cultural and symbolic category that includes discursive and imaginary spaces (Lefebvre, 1991). Geographer Edward W. Soja (1996) includes the dimensions of cultural and collective values, norms, symbols and ideologies attached to material space through social meaning making. This is a particularly relevant observation when thinking of religious or sacred spaces in which the key ideas, values and doctrines are represented through religious artifacts, symbols, architecture, music and narratives. When it comes to religion

‘And Our Little Ones Shall Dwell’ 153 and physical religious spaces, there is an additional element of ‘the sacred’ in many religious buildings or spaces where these buildings, or particular sections of them, are seen as holy, even as forms of ‘liminal space’ between the sacred and the mundane. We will discuss the material dimension of space, the way ‘people make religion happen’ (see ter Avest & Bakker, 2017, p. 25), through the pedagogy of sacred space later in this chapter. A concept of a lived space connects the physical, social and cultural dimensions of space. In a lived space, human relations, context-bound matters, personal experiences, emotions, senses and memories play a pivotal role (Sillanpää, 2017). Related to religions and worldviews, Heimbrock (2017, p. 30) points out that the lived space of a child, or the near space of a child, patterns the child’s worldview. Therefore, it could also be argued that children should be able to create all kinds of space, including religious spaces, as their own places, i.e. children’s places, through which it is possible to approach religion from a child’s perspective. In children’s lived spaces, religion and worldviews can intersect with children’s personal experiences and interests without rigidly defining them as either ‘religious’ or ‘secular’. From the point of view of children’s places, there are also many ‘in-betweenspaces’ in ECEC units and their surroundings that could serve for pedagogical purposes. Children’s worldview questions often come up in transition phases like when getting dressed to go outside, or in informal encounters such as during outdoor play. From their lived space perspective, children can find attractive elements in, for instance, hallways, forests or huts, nourishing spirituality accompanied by a sense of wonder. Natural spaces may also offer encounters with the lifespans of animals, for example, in the form of a dead bird or an insect, which may raise thoughts about existence and other life questions. Just as spaces produce social relations, they also contain elements of power and control (Foucault 2007). Space is a site for social and political struggles as space expresses certain historically changing power relations and cultural conceptions (Lefebvre, 1991). The aspect of power and hegemony is important as official policy-level texts hold that Finnish ECEC offers open and inclusive space for engaging with the diversity and plurality of worldviews. However, as Roux (2012) reminds us, safe space is never an automatic state of things, but rather a continuous process and struggle for teachers to maintain a safe space for all individuals. Instead of secular space being hostile to religious stances, secular space as an educational space should serve as a platform for a diversity of worldviews (Poulter, 2021). Here, it is fundamental to ask who selects and decides which spaces are made available for a child group; in that sense, the staff is the power holder in either allowing or obstructing collaboration between religious communities. For equal treatment of worldviews in ECEC, which is the core principle of Finnish worldview education, multiple religious spaces should be used as educational spaces instead of the spaces of the majority’s religion. From a critical point of view, ECEC can be a place for othering minority worldview positions where ‘we-identity’ is constructed against ‘others’, and the

154  Saila Poulter and Arniika Kuusisto same space can become an arena for encountering some children while separating off others (Brandstetter, 2020). However, Brandstetter (2020) argues that to challenge the dominant ways of speaking, breaking up the binary and limited concepts of pluralization and homogenization creates a new possibility to negotiate religious identities and worldview plurality which she calls a third space. From a poststructural and postcolonial perspective, this kind of a third space necessitates the deconstruction of hegemonic knowledge conceptions, discourses and practices that are used to legitimize the oppression of others when encountering differences (Bhabha, 2011; Brandstetter, 2020, p. 106). Brandstetter (2020) encourages opening up a third space in ECEC through teachers’ realization of the limitations of homogenization and pluralization and being, at the same time, aware of the processes of identity discourses and overcoming the interconnected binary positions. In this way, teachers can construct a space where children have an opportunity to relate with a group and be included in its religious plurality and cultural imprinting. Brandstetter further notes that ECEC should be sensitive to cultural and religious identity negotiations, realizing that these processes take place in concrete spaces such as the ECEC, and that these involve power struggles, as ECEC cannot be a ‘power-free’ place. Still, she notes, in line with Foucault, that these struggles could be turned into productive dynamics that enable development and can thus be used constructively (Brandstetter, 2020). A secular child? Next, we will elaborate ideas on educational purposes and ways of understanding children. The reason we see this reflection as a necessity is that thinking of the educational aims of ECEC and defining the ways we see children should inform educational thinking in developing a worldview education where children’s diverse identities are respected and where religion is not reduced to a mere sociological object of study, but children are given an opportunity to engage with religion in their own spaces. As Ubani (2010, p. 48) notes, the way children may relate to learning about religion can be, for instance, affective, cognitive, social, cultural, moral, psychological, existential, religious or physical, which reminds us about the holistic nature of ECEC. The concept of a view of the child draws up fundamental and philosophical perceptions of ways of understanding a human being, the purpose of education and the educability of a child. Lea Pulkkinen (2018, p. 7) has stated: ‘The view of the child is not something that can be prescribed to be completed. It is constructed through a personal process of becoming more aware. This awareness is supported by discussing the matter and by analysing situations from the perspective of the view of the child. Mutual aims are found from this platform’. Furthermore, the perception one has of a child is connected to one’s worldview and the view of human beings that derives from that worldview. This concerns how the individual or a community perceives the nature and origin of human beings, the aims and goals of a human

‘And Our Little Ones Shall Dwell’ 155 life as well as the role that an individual has in relation to other people and the environment. Concerning children in particular, the view of children and childhood with regard to adults and adulthood also becomes relevant. Different religious and philosophical worldviews uphold the different views that are connected to them, as do scientific disciplines or societal stakeholders. Developmental psychology, for instance, contains the view of childhood as a stage of becoming into something, whereas the socio-cultural approach to learning highlights the importance of understanding cultural and societal matters when we try to understand a child. Again, some Christian worldviews have had a dualistic way of understanding children. On the one hand, a child is seen as part of inherent sin and so education is needed to uproot evil while, on the other hand, children and a child-like faith is considered an ideal illustration of what it means to be a good Christian. In the Finnish ECEC, the current educational approach is based on sociocultural views where children are seen as interacting actively with the environment, communities, values, norms, habits, spaces and cultures (Kangas, Lastikka, & Karlsson, 2021). This pedagogical vision goes hand in hand with holistic ideas of education, as it combines knowledge, skills, actions, emotions, sensory perceptions, bodily experiences and thinking in learning that can happen everywhere and all the time (EDUFI, 2022). According to Sagberg (2015, p. 140), central to holistic education is the quest for meaning, taking the whole person into consideration and studying how various contexts shape and give meaning to life. These pedagogical principles also apply to worldview education. The professional and pedagogical understanding of ‘the whole child’ also needs to include the child’s worldview (see also Raivio et al., 2022). Founded on this, in order to develop a new conceptual and methodological understanding of ECEC, the idea of ‘the whole child’ must be further scrutinized in the light of the societal plurality of worldviews. When thinking about the child’s viewpoint, one also comes across the question of the purpose of education and this should also be reflected in relation to education concerning religions and worldviews. Educational philosopher Gert Biesta is well known for his three-fold conceptualization of education functioning in three different domains, namely qualification, socialization and subjectification, which help to reflect purposefulness in education (Biesta, 2014). The idea behind exploring the question ‘What is education for?’ is to help children position themselves differently in relation to the world and to open up new ways of being in and with the world (Biesta & Hannam 2020). Poulter and Castillo (2022) have interpreted Biesta’s conceptualization to be to investigate the educational aims of Finnish religious and worldview education in fostering a child to be(come) a subject. They argue that children need holistically oriented teachers to help them connect religious and worldview elements with children’s personal life experiences. Educators’ personal views on the child and perceptions of childhood are of significant importance in determining how they encounter each child. Examples would be whether a child is seen (and possibly thereby treated) as a ‘religious minority child’ who

156  Saila Poulter and Arniika Kuusisto is perhaps somewhat lacking in ‘full’ Finnishness, or whether a child’s upbringing at home is seen as ‘too religious’ and thus not healthy for a child. Ylikörkkö (2022) has argued that in encounters between a child and a teacher, the spaces of child participation can take many shapes. These spaces are demarcated by the surrounding culture, institutions and resources, which either enable or obstruct the child’s initiatives (Ylikörkkö, 2022). As the purpose of worldview education is to support children’s own meaning-making processes and to leave space for worldview subjectification (Poulter & Castillo, 2022), they should be given space to explore things that are not controlled or that they are interested in. However, subjectification is not an individualistic project and can only occur when encountering the ‘other’ in dialogical space (Poulter & Castillo, 2022). Metaphorically speaking, to enter into dialogue with other children and educators who are willing to share the same kind of liminal space – to acknowledge having ‘a third’ in the conversation – means the presence of transcendence through which children can experience and find their subjectivity (Värri, 2004; 2014). Therefore, when considering different educational environments and religious spaces as one possibility of learning about religions, one must not forget that what really matters is the encounter and interplay between an adult and a child: it has significance for the direction of the child’s spiritual life (Sagberg, 2015, p. 39). The risk in impartial religious and worldview education in today’s secular setting is a pedagogical approach that promotes participation by observation only and detaches religion from its direct encounters. This mode of action finds very little connections or similar experiences with the lived spaces of children. Fuglseth (2017, p. 157) argues that Bildung theory is based on the idea of an independent subject and that complete impartiality in teaching cannot establish independent, ego-active persons. This ‘indirectisation’, a commentary-based way of teaching about religions, lacks location as no physical or direct embodied experiences are involved (Fuglseth, 2017). That is why, in this chapter, we argue that children should have a right to such education that would provide them with meaningful experiences with religion. The pedagogy of sacred space In Finland, visits of ECEC child groups in particular to Evangelical Lutheran Churches around Christmas or Easter times have long been a part of the traditional collaboration between societal educational units and local church actors. At present, these traditions have, to a certain extent, been questioned in both Finland and in neighbouring Sweden, where, for instance, end of the year Christmas celebrations have, in many local ECEC and school settings, been arranged in church spaces – even despite the presently largely secularized programme contents. The arguments for breaking these traditions have come both from stakeholders of humanist initiatives and spokespersons of multiculturalism, who argue for the acknowledgement of a broader range of traditions and sacred spaces than merely the (secular) Lutheran mainstream.

‘And Our Little Ones Shall Dwell’ 157 However, the aim of the project Creating Spaces for Diversity of Worldviews in Early Childhood Education was to develop an inclusive approach, which makes the diversity of worldview traditions, not just the majority’s worldview, the starting point for thinking of different religious and non-religious spaces as a valuable resource for learning in ECEC.1 Therefore, visiting sacred spaces outside specific religious events with no need for any child to be exempted on the grounds of a different worldview is seen as a part of implementing the educational aims of the National Curriculum (EDUFI, 2022). Furthermore, collaboration with religious communities and parents is seen as a positive way to enrich worldview education (National Board of Education, 2021). From a holistic viewpoint, we argue that children should be given opportunities to explore religious spaces in all their authenticity and to investigate religion in various concrete contexts. The aim would be to create a conversation with religion, which is also to be understood in terms of values, norms, traditions, narratives and beliefs. This exploration should also be related to a child’s own life and should find ways to connect with the child’s personal experiences and questions. According to Sagberg (2015, p. 19), this is the precise aim of the holistic approach, namely a world where things somehow connect. Lefebvre (1991) states that space is multimodal in that it allows for the use of the body and all the senses when perceiving space. Multimodality is crucial in the learning of young children, as children learn through play, touching, hearing, tasting, smelling, seeing and feeling – using all the senses, the body and children’s own interests in exploring. In this way, sacred spaces are rich educational environments as they offer a platform for experiential learning. As Leonhard (2017, p. 214) notes, an experiential exploration of sacred spaces can be an appropriate way of learning from as well as learning about religions, but also learning with religion, for instance, learning to know how rituals are practised in particular religious traditions. The pedagogy of sacred space (sakralraumpädagogik, e.g., Plum, de Wildt, & Gerhards, 2020) refers to a concrete method of investigating religions from an experiential, holistic approach in actual buildings. The method has its origins in church pedagogy, but due to its inter-religious and dialogical approach, it introduces the possibility of using various sacred spaces to learn from different religions. It is often thought that children are too young to understand religion in its multiple dimensions in a sacred space. However, exploring the material aspects of space and concrete objects helps children to grasp the idea of religion and religious experience (Poulter, Lahtinen, Lyhykäinen, & YliKoski-Mustonen, 2021). Dalevi (2015) also connects the pedagogy of sacred space to aesthetic education since aesthetic elements are present in sacred spaces through paintings, architecture, artifacts, light and music. Performative religious education is a particular didactic approach which is participatory, context-bound, situated learning in authentic situations. Performativity allows for participatory and meaningful learning while observing religious practice and investigating religious space. As Roebben and Welling (2020) point out, it is not about ‘doing’ religion, it is rather about ‘performing’

158  Saila Poulter and Arniika Kuusisto religion and inviting children to do so as well. Riegel and Kindermann (2017) state that the aim is to bridge the experiential gap of children where religion is concerned, and it can contribute to a stronger lived experience of religions (see also Kindermann & Riegel 2018). To give just a few examples, to learn with religion in a sacred space can relate to different areas of learning, such as music education (listening to religious songs or sacred music), language education (listening to the reading of sacred texts, studying letters and writing in different languages like Hebrew and Arabic), physical education (climbing, crawling or doing somersaults on a carpet), art education (learning about colours, architecture and the styles and materials of paintings and sculptures) and mathematics education (counting candles, window panes or the height of a dome). Educational space related to worldviews in ECEC can be perceived as a rich yet complex web of relations and meanings, as worldview education allows one to encounter different ways of perceiving the world. First, it requires ethical sensitivity to engage oneself in the diverse worldviews of children, parents and colleagues. A teacher’s sensitivity to different worldviews can be seen as a part of professional competence (Rissanen, Kuusisto, & Kuusisto, 2016). Professionally, it requires answering questions about how to create spaces to support children’s worldview formation and worldview subjectification. As Pirner (2018) argues, education concerning religion(s) initiates the experiencing of religion, which is different from religious experience or practising religion. Hannam (2018) argues that children living in today’s secular world need to understand the dimension of ‘the religious’ in religion and what it means to live life with a religious orientation. Worldview education in non-denominational state education is not merely concerned with acquiring information about religion or worldviews, but about understanding in depth what religion is, including a sense of what religious experience is (Pirner, 2018, p. 44). Discussion In this chapter, we have investigated ‘space-thinking’ as a particular notion of making religion understood by children in an educational context that is increasingly secular and diverse. To conclude, we will discuss these ideas in connection with the challenges recognized in professional development among ECEC educators. Here, space can also be used as a metaphor for teachers reflecting on their subjective stances towards religion and whether it is possible to give children the necessary space for diverse notions of worldviews. For us as teacher educators, it is important that ECEC is approached with critical reflexivity towards the specific cultural contexts, pedagogical traditions, governance and the unavoidability of the normativity of values and the image of the child. There is a need to look at the societal and educational space that children are part of and to recognize the inbuilt ideological tensions. These pressures concern whether space can be given for holistic growth and worldview formation and at the same time whether religious elements can be approved as belonging to childhood today.

‘And Our Little Ones Shall Dwell’ 159 Raivio et al. (2022) note that in ECEC there is a challenge to include children’s home religions and worldviews in actions that aim towards inclusiveness. The diversity of children is often approached from perspectives which seem to either neglect or overemphasize religious or worldview aspects of identity. What is typical about current Nordic religiosity is that Protestant Christianity has gradually been reduced to a cultural phenomenon, while religious minorities are often ‘religionized’ so that the cultural or ethnic elements in religious worldviews are easily interpreted as religious (Ubani, Rissanen, & Poulter, 2019). Furthermore, the ways in which nation-construction such as ‘Finnishness’ is perceived – as inclusive or exclusive on the broad spectrum of home traditions – also influences understandings of ‘us’ and ‘them’ in ECEC (Kuusisto & Garvis, 2020; Kuusisto, Poulter, & Harju-Luukkainen, 2021; Poulter et al., 2016; Riitaoja et al., 2010). The key issue relates to teacher professionalism and the ways teachers develop their professional knowledge and professional epistemologies (CampbellBarr, 2019; Urban, 2008). Formosinho and Oliveira-Formosinho (2012) also highlight the contextual and collaborative nature of professional development. Investigating the practical reality of ECEC and social relations in specific situations can support teachers’ professional development (Fochi, 2019). From the educator’s point of view, dominant secular discourses do not necessarily support the development of professional capabilities in worldview education. Moreover, the space for professional growth has been identified as complex, simultaneous, overlapping and ‘messy’ negotiations actualized through tensions and questions (Lamminmäki-Vartia, Poulter, & Kuusisto, 2020; Poulter et al., 2021). As Raivio et al. (2022) argue, ECEC has all the requirements of being an ethical, caring community, which highlights the need to pay attention to the communal processes of professional thinking and practice. It is clear that issues related to growing diversity challenge teachers’ professionalism and create a need for new knowledge in teacher education. ECEC teachers need pedagogical tools for implementing inclusive education in order to create learning environments in which children’s holistic growth and worldview development can be supported (Poulter et al., 2021). Instead of taking the issue purely as a question of individual teacher’s professional competence concerning worldview reflexivity, more emphasis should be placed on structural, societal and organizational aspects of developing an inclusive worldview education that is also culturally sustainable (Poulter & Kavonius, 2023). It is crucial that the linguistic, epistemic and pedagogical shift from religion to worldviews does not erode the rich tradition of religious education. On the other hand, it is also clearly the case that the new diversity present in our social reality influences the ways that the new diversity of worldviews approaches matters in an inclusive and sustainable way. These pedagogical visions should stem from a special knowledge of how young children learn (Poulter et al., 2021). The specific ways of using religious spaces can offer a concrete means to approach spiritual and experiential religion in a meaningful way.

160  Saila Poulter and Arniika Kuusisto Note 1 For videos for pedagogical use produced in the project Creating Spaces for Diversity of Worldviews in Early Childhood Education, see: Adventuring in the Mosque: https://aoe.fi/#/materiaali/1837 Visiting the Orthodox Church: https://aoe.fi/#/materiaali/1840

Bibliography Bhabha, B. (2011). The location of culture. London: Routledge. Biesta, G. (2014). The beautiful risk of education. London: Paradigm Publishers. Biesta, G., & Hannam, P. (2020). Religion and education: The forgotten dimensions of religious education? Leiden: Brille. Brandstetter, B. (2020). Identity negotiations in early childhood – The kindergarten as a central place for cultural and religious Encounters. In E. Aslan (Ed.), Migration, religion and early childhood education (pp. 101–114). Vienna: Springer. Bråten, O. M. H. (2021). Non-binary worldviews in education. British Journal of Religious Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/01416200.2021.1901653 Campbell-Barr, V. (2019). Professional knowledges for early childhood education and care. Journal of Childhood Studies, 44(1), 134–146. Dalevi, S. (2015) Kunskapen i kyrkorummet. Hur kyrkopedagogik skapar bredare förståelse av religion för skolelever. Prismet. Retrieved December 14, 2021 from http://kau.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:877403/FULLTEXT01.pdf EDUFI (2022) National core curriculum for Early Childhood Education and Care 2022. Finnish National Agency for Education. Retrieved April 13, 2022 from https://eperusteet.opintopolku.fi/eperusteet-service/api/dokumentit/8274670 Fochi, P. (2019). Pedagogical documentation as a strategy to develop praxeological knowledge: The case of the observatory of childhood culture. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 27(3), 334–345. Formosinho, J., & Oliveira-Formosinho, J. (2012). Towards a social science of the social: The contribution of praxeological research. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 20(4), 591–606. Foucault, M. (2007). The language of space. In J. W. Crampton & S. Elden (Eds.), Space, knowledge and power: Foucault and geography, (pp. 163–167). London: Routledge. Fuglseth, K. (2017). No location: The problem of indirect encounters with religion in secular Schools. In M. Rothgangel, K. von Brömssen, H.-G. Heimbrock, & G. Skeie (Eds.), Location, space and place in religious education (pp. 151–161). Münster: Waxmann. Hannam, P. (2018). Religious education and the public sphere. London: Routledge. Heimbrock, L. (2017). A phenomenological approach. In M. Rothgangel, K. von Brömssen, H.-G. Heimbrock, & G. Skeie (Eds.), Location, space and place in religious education (pp. 29–32). Münster: Waxmann. Illman, R., Ketola, K., Latvio, R., & Sohlberg, J. (Eds.) (2017). Johdanto. Monien uskontojen ja katsomusten Suomi (pp. 7–11). Church Research Institute. Retrieved from https://evl.fi/documents/1327140/45386794/Ktk+-+Monien+uskontojen+ ja+katsomusten+Suomi/c8c8d8be-e49b-5998-3539-6b2a29a4903d Ipgrave, J. (2017). Location, place and Space. In M. Rothgangel, K. von Brömssen, H.-G. Heimbrock, & G. Skeie (Eds.), Location, space and place in religious education (pp. 33–38). Münster: Waxmann.

‘And Our Little Ones Shall Dwell’ 161 Kangas, J., Lastikka, A.-L., & Karlsson, L. (2021). Voimauttava varhaiskasvatus: Leikkivä, osalli-nen ja hyvinvoiva lapsi. Helsinki: Otava. Ketola, K. (2020). Uskonnolliset Identiteetit ja Uskomusmaailma Moninaistuvat. In H. Salomäki, H. M. Hytönen, K. Ketola, V.-M. Salminen, & J. Sohlberg (Eds.), Usko Arjessa ja Juhlassa. Suomen Evankelis-Luterilainen Kirkko Vuosina 2016-2019 (pp. 67–89). Vaasa: Grano. Kilpeläinen, A-E. (2022) ‘“Lintu emon siiven alla”: Kirkkotilassa toteutettava vauvamusiikkitoiminta Suomen ja Tanskan evankelisluterilaisissa kirkoissa’. Academic dissertation. Helsinki: University of Helsinki. http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-951-51-7880-0 Kindermann, K. & Riegel, U. (2018). Experiencing churches as spiritual and religious places: A study on children’s emotions in church buildings during scholastic field trips. British Journal of Religious Education, 40(2), 136–147. https://doi.org/10. 1080/01416200.2016.1209458 Kuusisto, A. (2020). Monikulttuurinen luokkahuone kolmantena tilana? Kasvatus, 51(2), 204–214. Kuusisto, A., & Garvis, S. (2020). Editorial: Superdiversity and the Nordic Model in ECEC. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 21(4), 279–283. https://doi. org/10.1177/1463949120983619 Kuusisto, A., Poulter, S., & Harju-Luukkainen, H. (2021). Worldviews and National Values in Swedish, Norwegian and Finnish Early Childhood Education and Care Curricula. International Research in Early Childhood Education, 11(2), 41–62. https://doi.org/10.26180/16935091.v1 Kuusisto, A. (Ed.) (2022). The Routledge international handbook of the place of religion in Early Childhood Education and Care. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Lamminmäki-Vartia, S., Poulter, S., & Kuusisto, A. (2020). The learning trajectory of emerging professionalism: A Finnish student teacher negotiating world-view education and early childhood education and care superdiversity. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 21(4), 297–311. https://doi.org/10.1177/1463949120961598 Larsen, M., & Beech, J. (2014). Spatial theorizing in comparative and international education research. Comparative Education Review, 58(2), 191–214. https://doi. org/10.1086/675499 Lefebvre, H. (1991) [1974]). The production of space. Oxford: Blackwell. Leonhard, S. (2017). Church pedagogy: Exploring churches in religious education. In M. Rothgangel, K. von Brömssen, H.-G. Heimbrock, & G. Skeie (Eds.), Location, space and place in religious education (pp. 209–216). Münster: Waxmann. National Board of Education (2021). Katsomuskasvatus varhaiskasvatuksessa ja esiopetuksessa [Worldview Education in ECEC and Preschool Education]. Retrieved April 4, 2022 from https://www.oph.fi/fi/katsomuskasvatus-varhaiskasvatuksessaja-esiopetuksessa Pirner, M. L. (2018). Experiencing religion, religious experience and media experience: Explorations of an intricate relationship in the context of religious education. In U. Riegel, E.-V. Leven, & D. Fleming (Eds.), Religious experience and experiencing religion in religious education (pp. 43–60). Münster: Waxmann. Plum, R. J. J. M., de Wildt, K., & Gerhards, A. (2020) ‘Sakralraumtransformation – Über die Verortung und das Relationale des Sakralen: auf der Suche nach einem progressiven Begriff von Ort des Sakralen’. Das Magazin für Kunst – Kultur – Theologie – Ästhetik 22/Heft 124. Poulter, S. (2021). Julkinen koulu, yksityinen uskonto? Sekulaari koulu kasvatuksellisena tilana. Teologinen Aikakauskirja, 5/2021, 459–467. Retrieved from http://hdl. handle.net/10138/341105

162  Saila Poulter and Arniika Kuusisto Poulter, S., & Castillo, K. (2022). Subjectification as an educational goal in religious and worldview education in early childhood education and care. In A. Kuusisto (Ed.), Routledge international handbook of the place of religion in ECEC (pp. 47–60). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Poulter, S., & Kavonius, M. (2023). Katsomusreflektiivisyys opettajan professionaalisuuden ulottuvuutena. Kasvatus & Aika, 17(1), 74–92. https://doi.org/10.33350/ ka.119383 Poulter, S., Kuusisto, A., & Lamminmäki-Vartia, S. (2022). Developing praxeological understanding in teacher education: A case of worldview education in Finnish ECEC. In H., Harju-Luukkainen, J. Kangas, & S., Garvis (Eds.), Finnish Early Childhood Education and Care: A Multi-theoretical perspective on research and practice (pp. 55–68). Cham: Springer International Publishing. Poulter, S., Lahtinen, D., Lyhykäinen, K., & Yli-Koski-Mustonen, S. (2021). Lapsi sakraalitilassa: Kokemus katsomuskasvatuksen ytimessä. In S. Poulter, M. Ubani, M. Laine, & A. Kallioniemi (Eds.), Lapsenkokoinen katsomuskasvatus (pp. 167–188). Helsinki: Lasten Keskus. Poulter, S., Lamminmäki-Vartia, S., & Castillo, K. (2021). Monikatsomukselliset oppimisen tilat varhaiskasvatuksessa: Opettajan katsomuksellista osaamista kehittämässä [Developing Teacher Professionalism]. Helsinki: Helsingin yliopisto. Retrieved April 23, 2022 from http://hdl.handle.net/10138/337816 Poulter, S., Riitaoja, A-L., & Kuusisto, A. (2016). Thinking multicultural education ‘otherwise’ – From a secularist construction towards a plurality of epistemologies and worldviews. Globalisation, societies and education, 14(1), 68–86. https://doi. org/10.1080/14767724.2014.989964 Pulkkinen, L. (Ed.) (2018). Kohti yhteistä lapsikäsitystä. Työpaperi 12/2018. Helsinki: Terveyden ja hyvinvoinnin laitos (THL). Retrieved May 5, 2022 from https://jyx. jyu.fi/bitstream/handle/123456789/66226/URN_ISBN_978-952-343-086-0. pdf?sequence=1 Raivio, M., Skaremyr, E., & Kuusisto, A. (2022). Caring for worldviews in early childhood education: Theoretical and analytical tool for socially sustainable communities of care. Sustainability, 14(7), 3815. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14073815 Riegel, U., & Kindermann, K. (2017). Field trips to the church: Theoretical framework, empirical findings, didactic perspectives. Münster/New York: Waxmann. Riitaoja, A-L., Poulter, S., & Kuusisto, A. (2010). Worldviews and Multicultural Education in the Finnish Context: A Critical Philosophical Approach to Theory and Practices. Finnish Journal of Ethnicity and Migration, 5(3), 87–95. http://www. etmu.fi /fjem/ Rissanen, I., Kuusisto, E., & Kuusisto, A. (2016). Developing teachers’ intercultural sensitivity: Case study on a pilot course in Finnish teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 59, 446–456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.07.018 Roebben, B., & Welling, K. (2021). Performative religious education. Chances and challenges of a concept in European teacher education. In F. Schweitzer, & P. Schreiner (Eds.), International knowledge transfer in religious education (pp. 91–105). Münster/New York: Waxmann. Rothgangel, M., von Brömssen, K., Heimbrock, H.-G., & Skeie, G. (2017). Introduction. In M. Rothgangel, K. von Brömssen, H-G. Heimbrock, & G. Skeie (Eds.), Location, space and place in religious education (pp. 7–12). Münster: Waxmann. Roux, C. (2012). A search for caring and safe spaces. In C. Roux (Ed.), Safe spaces: Human rights education in diverse contexts. Critical Issues in the Future of Learning and Teaching (Vol. 5, pp. 29–50). Leiden: Sense/Brill.

‘And Our Little Ones Shall Dwell’ 163 Sagberg, S. (2015). Holistic religious education: Is it possible? The complex web of religion, spirituality and morality. Münster: Waxmann. Sillanpää, T. (2017). Muistetun lapsuuden maantiede – Päiväkotimuistot lapsuuden maantieteen ja muistitietotutkimuksen leikkauspinnassa. Kasvatus & Aika, 11(3), 70–79. Soja, E. (1996). Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and other real-and-imagined places. Oxford: Blackwell. Strandell, H., Haikkola, L., & Kullman, K. (2012). Lapsuuden muuttuvat tilat. Helsinki: Vastapaino. Strhan, A., & Shillitoe, R. (2019). The stickiness of non-religion? Intergenerational transmission and the formation of non-religious identities in childhood. Sociology, 53(6), 1094–1110. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038519855307 Tainio, L., & Kallioniemi, A. (2019) Koulujen monet kielet ja uskonnot. Selvitys vähemmistöäidinkielten ja -uskontojen sekä suomi ja ruotsi toisena kielenä opetuksen tilanteesta eri koulutusasteilla [Many Languages and Religions at School]. Valtioneuvoston selvitys- ja tutkimustoiminnan julkaisusarja 11/2019. Helsinki: Valtioneuvosto. ter Avest, I., & Bakker, C. (2017). Theoretical and methodological aspects of the concepts of place and Space. In M. Rothgangel, K. von Brömssen, H.-G. Heimbrock, & G. Skeie (Eds.), Location, space and place in religious education (pp. 21–28). Münster: Waxmann. Thalén, P. (2021). World view instead of religion? In O. Franck, & P. Thalén (Eds.), Religious education in a post-secular age: Case studies from Europe (pp. 157–178). London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3030-47503-1_9 Ubani, M. (2010). Lapsen kokonaisvaltaisuus uskontokasvatuksessa. In M. Ubani, A. Kallioniemi, & J. Luodeslampi (Eds.), Kokonaisvaltainen kasvatus, lapsi ja uskonto (pp. 39–53). Helsinki: Lasten Keskus. Ubani, M., Poulter, S., & Rissanen, I. (2020). Transition in RE in Finland. In O. Franc, & P. Thalén (Eds.), Religious education in a post-secular age: Case studies from Europe (pp. 99–122). London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-030-47503-1_6 Ubani, M., Rissanen, I., & Poulter, S. (Eds.) (2019). Contextualising dialogue, secularisation and pluralism: Religion in Finnish public education. Münster: Waxmann. Urban, M. (2008). Dealing with uncertainty: Challenges and possibilities for the early childhood profession. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 16(2), 135–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/13502930802141584 Värri, V. M. (2004). Transsendentin Merkitys Kasvatuksessa. In R. Jaatinen, P. Kaikkonen, & J. Lehtovaara (Eds.), Opettajuudesta ja kielikasvatuksesta (pp. 15–25). Tampere: Tampere University Press. Värri, V.-M. (2014). Hyvä kasvatus – kasvatus hyvään. Academic Dissertation (Unpublished doctoral dissertation or master’s thesis). University of Tampere, Tampere. von Brömssen, K. (2017). Socio-spatial theories – A short Introduction. In M. Rothgangel, K. von Brömssen, H.-G. Heimbrock, & G. Skeie (Eds.), Location, space and place in religious education (pp. 15–20). Münster: Waxmann. Ylikörkkö, E.-M. (2022) Lapsen osallisuuden tilan muotoutuminen lapsen ja opettajan välisissä kohtaamisissa. Journal of Early Childhood Education Research, 11(2), 72–98. https://journal.fi/jecer/article/view/115435

Part III

Religions, Worldviews, Education Pedagogy and Practice

12 Academic and Moral Obligations in Teachers’ Work and Teacher Education Auli Toom and Jukka Husu

Introduction Teachers’ work is a demanding ‘thinking practice’ (see Lampert, 1998), and teachers need a variety of academic and moral capabilities to complete their work. Teachers are key persons in supporting pupil learning and enhancing developments and innovations in schools (Toom, Pietarinen, Soini, & Pyhältö, 2017). They are also in a central position to build the ethos of a school and support the construction of pupils’ worldviews. Increasing diversity among pupils as well as developments and changes in schools put teachers in new situations and challenge them in a variety of ways. While teachers experience societal changes in the daily life of their classrooms, they are also the ones who educate and socialise new generations to take part in such a changing society. Teachers’ capabilities and qualities as educators in general are essential factors impacting student development, and many developments in classrooms and school communities depend on teachers. Teachers need a variety of academic capabilities, but equally important they also need strong moral foundations in their work, as teacher’s work is fundamentally moral by nature. This is related both to educating pupils together in the classroom and continuously making a variety of pedagogical decisions (cf. Shavelson, 1973; Tiilikainen, Toom, Lepola, & Husu, 2019), but it is also related to educating pupils in a sensitive manner and accounting for their own and their families’ worldviews. These conditions set high demands for pre- and in-service teacher education and for teachers’ personal and role requirements throughout their careers. The quality of pre- and in-service teacher education in cultivating teachers’ academic and moral capabilities is of great importance. Academic teacher education – at its best – provides foundational expertise for teacher’s work. In addition, teachers’ continuous professional learning, supported by various induction and mentoring programmes, is fundamental to this learning process (Mena & Clarke, 2021).

DOI: 10.4324/9781003265696-15

168  Auli Toom and Jukka Husu The core characteristics of teachers’ work Teaching is demanding practical and academic work done in multiple and demanding social contexts, and it involves collaborating and interacting with pupils, colleagues, parents and many extended stakeholders (Lampert, 1998; Toom, 2017). While teachers’ work includes systematic and wide-ranging anticipation of school education and curriculum, it also includes specific planning and preparation for classroom instruction and interactions with pupils. In line with this simultaneous twofold task, teachers support the learning and growth of individual pupils and do so also at a collective level. The general aim of basic education is to educate capable and responsible human beings and citizens through educative everyday life at schools (see, e.g. Finnish National Core Curriculum for Basic Education [FNCCBE], 2014). In addition, the aim is to support the development of pupils’ diverse worldviews in concert with the education provided by parents and guardians at home. Teachers’ work involves constant problem solving and decision-making in versatile and continuously changing interactive situations (Shavelson, 1973; Tiilikainen et al., 2019). They take into consideration the best interests of the pupils, their characteristics and worldviews both individually and collectively, which greatly influences teachers’ decision-making. The key duties in teacher’s work are educational and curriculum work as well as pedagogical innovations and school development in multi-professional collaboration with colleagues (Leana, 2011; Pyhältö, Pietarinen, & Soini, 2014; Toom et al., 2017), parents and guardians as well as external stakeholders. Teachers’ sensitivity and understanding of pupils and their diverse backgrounds is essential. Changes in society and school influence significantly teachers’ work and demand that teachers change and adapt accordingly. Teachers’ professional responsibilities are high and demanding, but teacher’s work is also relatively autonomous depending on the context (Day, 2021). Teacher’s work presupposes an ethical code of conduct and professional integrity (Tirri, 1999; Tirri & Kuusisto, 2022) in classroom interactions and the school community as well as in the societal context. Working in the midst of constant changes, incompleteness and uncertainties of educational and instructional work is the bottom line of teaching profession. Current research has identified several essential aspects of teachers’ work and schools, which reflect societal changes and increasing diversity. They involve questions related to changes in instructional and learning environments, especially curriculum making and implementation (Pyhältö et al., 2014), learning-focused and engaging pedagogical practices, pupils’ diversity understood broadly (Dervin, Paavola, & Talib, 2013), increasing special educational needs among pupils, concerns related to pupils’ learning outcomes as well as academic and social engagement, well-being and marginalisation. While the topics reflect certainly broader societal changes and fractures, they are met and realised by teachers’ professional actions in the everyday life of schools. Pupils are increasingly heterogeneous and from diverse backgrounds. Diversity in schools is both a positive quality and a challenge, and it clearly assumes a variety of new practices in schools in terms of teaching and learning

Academic and Moral Obligations 169 and leadership (Harju-Luukkainen, Kuukka, Paavola, & Tarnanen, 2015). Together with increased globalisation, the position of diverse minority groups in education and schools is extremely important at the moment. It is essential to consider and care for these groups systematically and to be deeply aware of the intersectionalities related to these issues to avoid weakening minority groups’ possibilities and futures (Anuik & Gillies, 2012; Madden, 2015; PIONEERED 2021–2024). Research emphasises the importance of centrality of pupils’ learning and participation in instruction as well as teachers’ central role in supporting and facilitating pupils’ learning. This is also reflected in the basic education curricula worldwide. In addition to the importance of pupils learning domain and subject-specific skills, research also highlights the need for teachers to provide instruction in generic skills and support student learning in general. The learning of such skills includes, e.g. critical thinking, self- and co-regulation, collaboration and understanding various perspectives and opinions (FNCCBE, 2014; Griffin, Care, & McGaw, 2012; Muukkonen et al., 2019). It is essential that all pedagogical activities are organised from the viewpoint of pupil learning in a way that allows for pupil participation and agency. Earlier research has found that teachers’ versatile support is related to pupils’ increased goalorientedness, efficacy as a pupil and capabilities for self-regulation (e.g. Toom & Pyhältö, 2013). Learning-focused teaching and assessment methods have been found to be related to pupils’ meaningful learning, agency (Rajala, 2016) and engagement as well as to quality of learning in general. Pupils perceive enactment and participation in learning and pedagogical practices as highly relevant in their everyday schoolwork. Teachers’ professional capabilities: Academic and moral capabilities in focus In line with the characteristics of teachers’ work and current questions and challenges pertaining to it, it is important to consider the capabilities required for teachers to meet the challenges of such demanding work. There exist various theorizations and empirical studies on teacher capabilities and characteristics from different viewpoints and levels (see Toom, 2017). There does not exist any single, coherent research-based structure or conception of teacher’s core capabilities, even if it is possible to identify certain common aspects in several studies. Some researchers consider teachers’ capabilities broadly based on the entirety of teacher’s work while others focus on teacher capabilities, especially on classroom interaction and pupil learning. Some emphasise cognitive aspects and knowledge, whereas others emphasise skills and competencies. Teacher capabilities are often considered as individual characteristics, although collective expertise is perceived as highly essential and an essential resource in teacher’s work (Leana, 2011; Vangrieken, Dochy, Raes, & Kyndt, 2015), which could be utilized extensively in a variety of ways (e.g. OECD, 2019; UNESCO, 2021).

170  Auli Toom and Jukka Husu Teachers’ professional capabilities are integrative and consist of knowledge, skills and dispositions to act (Blömeke, Gustafsson, & Shavelson, 2015; Westera, 2001). Pantic and Wubbels (2010) have suggested that teachers’ professional competence includes four aspects: 1) values and education; 2) understanding of the educational system and developing it; 3) content knowledge, pedagogy and curriculum; and 4) self-evaluation and professional development. Baumert and Kunter (2006), for their part, argue that teachers’ professional capabilities cover four dimensions: 1) professional beliefs, values, personal theories, normative preferences and goals; 2) declarative and procedural knowledge covering content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge; 3) motivational orientations; and 4) metacognitive skills and professional self-regulation. Shulman (1987) has identified seven aspects of teachers’ practical knowledge: 1) knowledge of goals and values in education and their historical roots; 2) knowledge of the context of teaching (pupils, educational institution, community, society); 3) knowledge of curriculum; 4) knowledge of pupils and their characteristics; 5) content knowledge; 6) general pedagogical knowledge (covering broad principles of teaching and classroom management strategies); and 7) pedagogical content knowledge, meaning a crucial amalgam between content and pedagogy. Finally, Soini, Pietarinen, Toom, and Pyhältö (2016) have posited that the core of teachers’ professional capabilities consists of expertise in learning and instruction, interaction, well-being and school development. Each of these various aspects of teaching is essential to a teacher’s professional contexts: in classroom interaction and in the professional community. With this expertise, teachers can guide and support pupils’ learning and growth in pedagogically reasonable ways, develop in the profession individually and together with others, make pedagogical innovations and promote school development, and enhance pupils’, colleagues’ and their own well-being. Many theories and empirical studies on the teacher’s key capabilities identify the moral dimensions of teaching, professional ethics and values as essential parts of teacher’s work. More specifically, this means having clear ethical principles in the profession, being aware of moral issues in teaching, having skills to handle them and be capable of acting in various situations in practice. This means taking the best possible care of pupils and their growth both socially as a group and as individuals (Tirri & Husu, 2002). This also covers the aspect of worldviews of pupils and how they are handled respectfully as part of learning and teaching in school (see, e.g., Chapter 9 of this book). It is important to elaborate on teachers’ professional capabilities and what should be learned during teacher education and in the profession, but it is also important to consider how teachers learn and develop their expertise when progressing from novice to expert teachers. Extensive research exists on the development of teachers’ expertise in various phases of their careers, comparisons of the classroom behaviour of early career teachers and expert teachers and teaching expertise in relation to experts in other professions

Academic and Moral Obligations 171 (Berliner, 1994; Huberman, 1993). Currently, the challenges and workload experienced by early career teachers especially in the classroom impact their interactions with students and work as a whole. Early career teachers perceive needing versatile social support for the development of their expertise and to meet the various practical challenges of their work (Heikonen, Pietarinen, Pyhalto, Toom, & Soini, 2016; Meristo, 2016). Early career teachers find it challenging to act in crisis situations, to manage pupils’ multi-professional care, to differentiate instruction, to deal with all the administrative work and pupil assessment and to collaborate meaningfully with parents (Heikonen et al., 2016). Teacher capabilities can also be considered from the viewpoint of adaptive and routine expertise. Routine experts manage a spectrum of core capabilities that they develop throughout their careers. Adaptive experts tend to change their core capabilities and broaden and structure their expertise continuously. Routine expertise means that a teacher maintains core capabilities throughout the career, whereas adaptive expertise emphasises continuous learning, innovativeness and professional agency (van Tartwijk, Zwart, & Wubbels, 2017). Teacher education for the diverse schools and diverse worldviews From the viewpoint of teachers’ work and capabilities and required expertise, it is natural to consider what kind of pre- and in-service teacher education should be, where it should be organised and how it should be organised pedagogically to enable and support the learning of professional capabilities as well as acting in teacher’s work in increasingly diverse contexts. There does not exist only one right, reasonable or justified way to organise teacher education (Zeichner, 1983), but it is essential that the education programme is pedagogically aligned with a broad organising theme and goals. Both in pre- and in-service teacher education, it is important to focus on supporting professional agency for teacher learning in a way that allows teachers to act in the profession throughout their career (Toom, Pyhältö, Pietarinen, & Soini, 2021). It is not always possible, though, to link teacher education to current professional challenges, structures of the educational system or characteristics and details of the current national core curriculum for basic education (cf. Barnett, 1994; Korthagen, 2004; Pantic & Wubbels, 2010). In organising and developing of teacher education, it is essential to understand what teacher learning and learning of essential teacher capabilities are as processes (see, e.g., Ball & Forzani, 2009) and keep them in focus. Rapidly and quickly changing societies as broad contexts for schools challenge teachers’ expertise in the profession. A versatile and increasingly complex working environment assumes strengthening teachers’ professional agency (Clandinin & Husu, 2017; Toom et al., 2017) both during in-service teacher education (Edwards, 2017) and throughout teacher career (Belfi, Gielen, De Fraine, Verschueren, & Meredith, 2015; Biesta & Tedder, 2007). There is

172  Auli Toom and Jukka Husu evidence that teachers’ professional agency promotes the psycho-social wellbeing of pupils as well as educational equity and equality within the school (Flecha & Soler, 2013; Florian & Spratt, 2013). This same applies to the student teachers: a supportive and respectful learning environment in teacher education is associated with capabilities for reflection and creating a collaborative learning environment (Soini, Pietarinen, Toom, & Pyhältö, 2015), as well as their sense of responsibility and understanding of equity and equality (Chubbuck & Zembylas, 2016; Flessner & Payne, 2017; Kelchtermans & Vanassche, 2017). Increasing diversity in society and schools highlights the ethical-moral aspects of instruction and their changing requirements in various situations. It is an essential societal and educational task of teacher education to strengthen teacher capabilities to respond to the demands for a diverse, plural and equal society (Avalos & Razquin, 2017; Bruno-Jofre & Scott Johnston, 2014; Cochran-Smith, Barnatt, Lahann, Shakman, & Terrell, 2009; McNamara & McNicholl, 2016; Paine, Blömeke, & Aydarova, 2016, 2017; PIONEERED, 2021–2024). Researchers often use the concept of moral work of teaching (Sanger & Osguthorpe, 2013) when describing these issues intertwined closely with teacher profession (Day, 2021). The theme is not new (Biesta & Burbules, 2003; Sanger, 2017), but cultivating it intentionally and systematically as a genuine element of the teacher profession in pre-service teacher education is surprisingly rare. Broad goals and aims set for institutional education and schooling (Cook-Sather & Baker-Doyle, 2017) call for explicating ethical-moral questions and challenges to a more central position both in pre-service teacher education (Boylan, 2017; Cook, 2017; Thornberg, 2017) and in various forms of in-service teacher education (Oberle, Domitrovichc, Meyersc, & Weissberg, 2016). Noticing diverse pupils means also taking care of them: caring education and instruction (Noddings, 2005, 2010) considers possibilities for promoting solicitude and well-being comprehensively both during pre-service teacher education (Kim & Schallert, 2011) and in schools (Eldor & Shoshani, 2016; Isenbarger & Zembylas, 2006; Schussler & Collins, 2006; Smith & Lopez, 2016). Increasing requirements and demands towards the teacher profession are clearly emerging in pre- and in-service teacher education (Boylan & Woolsey, 2015; Clandinin & Husu, 2017; Kelchtermans & Deketelaere, 2016). The pressure that changes in the schools and their surroundings set for teacher education is especially realised in the contexts, curricular structures, goals, contents and pedagogies of teacher education. Solutions concerning the contexts are two-way (Labaree, 1997; Moon, 2016; Payne & Zeichner, 2017): the weakening of the structures and characteristics of academic teacher education has led to the situation in which teacher education takes place in real school contexts. On the other hand, another paradigm aims at developing collaboration between academic teacher education and schools considering their specific characteristics. Grossman & Horder (2016) have pointed out that most teacher education still takes place in a university context or is led by

Academic and Moral Obligations 173 universities, even though several variations in teacher education approaches exist at the international level. The empirical evidence related to teacher education also supports the academic teacher education (Gatti & Catalano, 2015; Zeichner, 2016). The pressure for the development of teacher education taking place in university is continuously growing (Ellis & McNicholl, 2015; Gatti, 2016; Paine et al., 2017; Zygmunt & Clark, 2016). The reasons behind these developments vary but growing societal heterogeneity, diversity and segregation are all driving changes in teacher education. The possibilities for promoting societal and collective equity and equality in schools and their practices (Thompson, 2013; see also PIONEERED, 2021–2024), as well as ways to strengthen these capabilities and practices, should take place already in teacher education (Ellis & McGuire, 2017; Grudnoff et al., 2016; Kretchmar & Zeichner, 2016; Zeichner, Payne, & Brayko, 2015, 2016). It is noteworthy that there are ambitions for the development of teacher education to respond to regional needs in collaboration with families and local contexts and surroundings (Boyle-Baise & McIntyre, 2008; Payne & Zeichner, 2017). The varying practices of pre- and inservice teacher education (Deed, 2017; Kelchtermans & Vanassche, 2017; Liu, Miller, & Jahng, 2016; Sherin & van Es, 2012) create opportunities for teacher education in terms of societal equity and equality. Diverse learners and their families also challenge the composition of teacher communities in schools: how do we take care of sufficient diversity among teachers and how teacher selection (Klassen, Durksen, Patterson, & Rowett, 2017; Mitchell & Carrigan Wooten, 2017) and recruitment of teacher educators (Payne & Zeichner, 2017) support these aims. Continuum from pre-service to in-service teacher education and support for capabilities in the teacher profession There does not exist only one right way to organise pre- or -in-service teacher education (Payne & Zeichner, 2017; Zeichner, 1983), but it is essential that the education be systematic and coherent and serves teachers’ learning needs. It is fundamental to support such teacher learning that provides capabilities for the teacher profession throughout the career. It is not reasonable to organise teacher education only from the perspective of current professional challenges, educational system structures or basic education curricula (cf. Barnett, 1994; Korthagen, 2004; Pantic & Wubbels, 2010). When developing pre- and in-service teacher education, it is essential to understand what teacher learning is about (see Ball & Forzani, 2009; Toom, 2017). An even more challenging question is, which capabilities to focus on during pre-service teacher education, and which capabilities teachers can – and is reasonable to – learn after some years of teaching (Husu & Clandinin, 2017). This may especially be the case related to moral aspects of teaching and understanding thoroughly the worldview dimensions intertwined in teachers’ work. This essentially raises the question about learning academic, moral,

174  Auli Toom and Jukka Husu practical and situational capabilities during in-service teacher education (cf. Darling-Hammond, Wei, & Johnson, 2009; Ellis & McNicholl, 2015; Gatti, 2016; Kelchtermans & Vanassche, 2017; Kumashiro, 2010). This challenges answering questions concerning how the needs for in-service teacher education are defined, how they are targeted and in which career phases they take place. It is also essential to consider what kind of roles various institutions and communities have in in-service teacher education. Academic teacher education institutions at universities have an essential and justified responsibility to produce, modify and deliver academic knowledge for teacher education. Pupils’ personal needs in terms of their growth, development and worldviews at different times change in accordance with changes and developments in the surrounding society. Also, the learning environments, methods and facilities change. All such changes are reflected in teacher capabilities, but also in the collective capabilities of schools. It is of vital importance that teacher education institutions are anchored in research and utilise it in a variety of ways in the education they provide. A school’s practical expertise plays a central role in pre-service teacher education and could even play a more central role during in-service education. Schools have a great deal of such potential that is not fully utilised in pre- and in-service teacher education. At their best, schools engage in impressive and significant innovative pedagogical development, model teacher collaboration, build networked expert communities, support teachers’ and principals’ informal learning, do curriculum work and create learning materials. This versatile array of expertise and capacity could be utilised more extensively. In addition to academic teacher education institutions and schools, many local communities, organisations and NGOs have a growing role and responsibility in pre- and in-service teacher education (cf. Darling-Hammond, 2006; Kretchmar & Zeichner, 2016). The established dichotomous division between academic and theoretical and practical elements of teaching is not enough as such; increasing diversity in instruction and schools calls for broadening the approaches and perspectives. Teacher learning takes place in various communities and networks in a variety of ways, making them significant resources for pre- and in-service teacher education. Both pre- and in-service teacher education should be more tightly connected to surrounding communities. Urban metropolitan areas differ from smaller cities and towns, and this is essential to consider in teacher education. The full spectrum of social, cultural and economic aspects related to teaching is increasing all the time, and grasping this local diversity is an essential challenge for truly timely pre- and in-service teacher education (cf. Moon, 2016; Seidl & Friend, 2002). When academic teacher education institutions, schools as practical actors and versatile communities with networked, collective and contextual expertise share the joint goal of educating teachers, they can build meaningful education and support for teachers that none of them could do alone. They all have expertise and resources that are relevant to teacher education. This kind of model of teacher education challenges all actors to consider how teachers could be supported in the best possible way.

Academic and Moral Obligations 175 Discussion Changed understanding of pupils’ learning goals in basic education, increasingly diverse pupils with diverse worldviews and learning-focused instruction challenge teachers and teacher education (see Husu & Toom, 2016). Due to these changes and requirements, pre- and in-service teacher education, its’ relevance and continuums need to be reconsidered. The responsible actors related to teacher education could be reconsidered. Academic teacher education institutions, schools and surrounding communities can together contribute much more than any of them do alone. This is especially related to the relevance of teacher education to teachers’ work. The rapid changes in schools and with pupils with diverse backgrounds may be brought genuinely to teacher education. New teacher education models and support could tackle and mitigate the challenges that current models and practices have faced. Teacher learning takes place in institutional teacher education, and informally in teachers’ work, interactions and networks (cf. Heikkinen & Aho, 2015; Vermunt & Endedijk, 2011). When transitioning from a pre-service teacher education emphasising a reflective and critical approach to collaborative learning at the workplace, teachers can experience the difference quite radical. Teachers may also find that through informal learning, they learn a variety of aspects of teachers work that their education did not provide (Heikkinen & Aho, 2015; cf. Hiebert, Morris, Berk, & Jansen, 2007). New teachers’ transition to working life is a critical phase, and teachers face extensively the demands of their work. The needs of diverse pupils and families are areas in which early career teachers would benefit from advice and support. Mentoring is essential, and a lack of it can result in serious challenges for early career teachers (cf. Heikkinen & Aho, 2015; Heikonen et al., 2016). Early career teachers’ support systems are of vital importance (cf. Eisenschmidt, 2006; Meristo, 2016). Teachers need support for their learning and development throughout their careers, and these needs vary during different career phases. For these reasons, it is necessary to organise in-service education and support as a genuine part of teachers’ work. Teachers should have the possibility to steer their own professional development together with their peers and principals in the school community where they work. This could help promote teachers’ meaningful learning and help them receive such social support that would truly have an impact on teachers’ work in the classroom and professional community (see Ilomäki, Lakkala, Toom, & Muukkonen, 2017), and it would further pupils’ learning and development as well. Peers are important resources for teacher learning, and teachers benefit from each other significantly (cf. Leana, 2011; Vangrieken et al., 2015). Within these various perspectives, many possibilities exist for building meaningful and relevant education and support for teacher learning and development. Funding This chapter has been prepared in association with the PIONEERED project, which has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 101004392.

176  Auli Toom and Jukka Husu References Anuik, J., & Gillies, C. L. (2012). Indigenous knowledge in post-secondary educators’ practices: Nourishing the learning spirit. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 42(1), 63–79. Avalos, B., & Razquin, P. (2017). The role of policy as a shaping influence on teacher education and teacher educators: Neoliberalism and its forms. In D. J. Clandinin, & J. Husu (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of research on teacher education (Vol. 2, pp. 1117–1132). London: Sage. Ball, D. L., & Forzani, F. (2009). The work of teaching and the challenge for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 60, 497–511. Barnett, R. (1994). The limits of competence: Knowledge, higher education and society. Buckingham: Open University Press. Baumert, J., & Kunter, M. (2006). Stichwort: Professionelle Kompetenz von Lehrkräften. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 9(4), 469–520. Belfi, B., Gielen, S., De Fraine, B., Verschueren, K., & Meredith, C. (2015). Schoolbased social capital: The missing link between schools’ socioeconomic composition and collective teacher efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 45, 33–44. Berliner, D. C. (1994). Expertise: The wonder of exemplary performances. In J. N. Mangieri, & C. C. Block (Eds.), Creating powerful thinking in teachers and students (pp. 161–186). Forth Worth, TX: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Biesta, G. J. J., & Burbules, N. C. (2003). Pragmatism and educational research. Latham, MD: Roweman & Littlefield Pubishers. Biesta, G., & Tedder, M. (2007). Agency and learning in the lifecourse: Towards an ecological perspective. Studies in the Education of Adults, 39(2), 132–149. Blömeke, S., Gustafsson, J., & Shavelson, R. J. (2015). Beyond dichotomies: Competence viewed as a continuum. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 223(1), 3–13. https://doi. org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000194 Boylan, M. (2017). Disrupting oppressive views and practices through critical teacher education: turning to post-structuralist ethics. In D. J. Clandinin, & J. Husu (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of research on teacher education (Vol. 1, 369–383). London: Sage. Boylan, M., & Woolsey, I. (2015). Teacher education for social justice: Mapping identity spaces. Teaching and Teacher Education, 46, 62–71. Boyle-Baise, M., & McIntyre, D. J. (2008). What kind of experience? Preparing teachers in PDS or community settings. In M. Cochran-Smith, S. Feiman-Nemser, & D. J. McIntyre (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (3rd ed., pp. 307–329). New York, NY: Routledge. Bruno-Jofre, R., & Scott Johnston, J. (2014). Teacher education in a transnational world. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Chubbuck, S., & Zembylas, M. (2016). Social justice and teacher education: Context, theory, and practice. In J. Loughran, & M. L. Hamilton (Eds.), International handbook of teacher education (Vol. 2, pp. 463–501). Dordrecht: Springer. Clandinin, D. J., & Husu, J. (Eds.). (2017). The SAGE handbook of research on teacher education (Vols. 1 and 2). London: Sage. Cochran-Smith, M., Barnatt, J., Lahann, R., Shakman, K., & Terrell, D. (2009). Teacher education for social justice: Critiquing the critiques. In W. Ayres, T. Quinn, & D. Stovall (Eds.), The handbook of social justice in education (pp. 625–639). London, England: Taylor & Francis.

Academic and Moral Obligations 177 Cook-Sather, A., & Baker-Doyle, K. (2017). Developing teachers’ capacity for moral reasoning and imagination in teacher education. In D. J. Clandinin, & J. Husu (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of research on teacher education (Vol. 1, 354–368). London: Sage. Cook-Sather, A., & Baker-Doyle, K. (2017). Realizing moral purpose and resisting demoralization in teaching. In D. J. Clandinin, & J. Husu (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of research on teacher education (Vol. 1). London: Sage. Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Powerful teacher education: Lessons from exemplary programs. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons. Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R. C., & Johnson, C. M. (2012). Teacher preparation and teacher learning: A changing policy landscape. In G. Sykes, B. Schneider, & D. N. Plank (Eds.), Handbook of education policy research (pp. 613–636). New York, NY: Routledge. Day, C. (2021). The new professionalism? How good teachers continue to teach to their best and well in challenging reform contexts. In E. Kuusisto, M. Ubani, P. Nokelainen, & A. Toom (Eds.), Good teachers for tomorrow’s schools: Purpose, values, and talents in education (pp. 37–56). Leiden: Brill. Deed, G. (2017). Adapting to the virtual campus: Transitions in teacher educator work and identity. In D. J. Clandinin, & J. Husu (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of research on teacher education (Vol. 2). London: Sage. Dervin, F., Paavola, H., & Talib, M. (2013). Kohti kasvatuksellista monimuotoisuutta? Monikulttuurinen ja interkulttuurinen kasvatus suomalaisessa koulussa ja opettajankoulutuksessa. Kasvatus, 44(3), 241–244. Edwards, A. (2017). The dialectic of person and practice: How cultural-historical accounts of agency can inform teacher education. In D. J. Clandinin, & J. Husu (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of research on teacher education (Vol. 1). London: Sage. Eisenschmidt, E. (2006). Implementation of induction year for novice teachers in Estonia. Dissertations on Social Sciences 25. Tallinn University. Eldor, L., & Shoshani, A. (2016). Caring relationships in school staff: Exploring the link between compassion and teacher work engagement. Teaching and Teacher Education, 59(1), 126–136. Ellis, V., & McGuire, M. (2017). Teacher education pedagogies based on critical approaches: Learning to challenge and change prevailing educational practices. In D. J. Clandinin, & J. Husu (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of research on teacher education, 2 (pp. 594–608). London: Sage. Ellis, V., & McNicholl, J. (2015). Transforming teacher education: Reconfiguring the academic work. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. Flecha, R., & Soler, M. (2013). Turning difficulties into possibilities: Engaging Roma families and students in school through dialogic learning. Cambridge Journal of Education, 43(4), 451–465. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2013. 819068 Flessner, R., & Payne, K. (2017). The impact of social theories on agency in teacher education. In D. J. Clandinin, & J. Husu (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of research on teacher education (Vol. 1, pp. 286−300). London: Sage. Florian, L., & Spratt, J. (2013). Enacting inclusion: A framework for interrogating inclusive practice. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 28(2), 119–135. FNCCBE (Finnish National Core Curriculum for Basic Education) (2014). Helsinki: Finnish National Agency for Education. Retrieved from https://www.oph.fi/en/ education-and-qualifications/national-core-curriculum-basic-education

178  Auli Toom and Jukka Husu Gatti, L. (2016). Toward a framework of resources for learning to teach: Rethinking us teacher preparation. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Gatti, L., & Catalano, T. (2015). The business of learning to teach: A critical metaphor analysis of one teacher’s journey. Teaching and Teacher Education, 45, 149–160. Griffin, P., Care, E., & McGaw, B. (2012). The changing role of education and schools. In P. Griffin, B. McGaw, & E. Care (Eds.), Assessment and teaching of twenty-first century skills (pp. 17–66). Heidelberg: Springer. Grossman, P., & Horder, S. (2016). Effective teacher? Student self-evaluation of development and progress on a teacher education programme. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 40(4), 447–465. Grudnoff, L., Haigh, M., Hill, M., Cochran-Smith, M., Ell, F., & Ludlow, L. (2016). Rethinking initial teacher education: Preparing teachers for schools in low socioeconomic communities in New Zealand. Journal of Education for Teaching, 42(4), 451–467. Harju-Luukkainen, H., Kuukka, K., Paavola, H., & Tarnanen, M. (2015). Vähemmistöjen asema koulutuksessa. Teoksessa N. Ouakrim-Soivio, A. Rinkinen & T. Karjalainen (toim.), Tulevaisuuden peruskoulu (s. 58–65). Opetus- ja kulttuuriministeriön julkaisuja 2015:8. Heikkinen, H. L. T., & Aho, J. (2015). Ope (ei) saa oppia. Opettajankoulutuksen jatkumon kehittaminen. Jyvaskylä: Jyvaskylän yliopisto. Koulutuksen tutkimuslaitos. Heikonen, L., Pietarinen, J., Pyhalto, K., Toom, A., & Soini, T. (2016). Early career teachers’ sense of professional agency in the classroom: Associations with turnover intentions and perceived inadequacy in teacher student interaction. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2016.1169505 Hiebert, J., Morris, A. K., Berk, D., & Jansen, A. (2007). Preparing teachers to learn from teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(1), 47–61. Huberman, M. (1993). The lives of teachers. London: Cassell Villiers House. Husu, J., & Clandinin, D. P. S. P. J. 2017. Pushing boundaries for research in teacher education: Making teacher education matter. In D. J. Clandinin, & J. Husu (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of research on teacher education (Vol. 2). London: Sage. Husu, J., & Toom, A.-M. H. (2016). Opettajat ja opettajankoulutus – Suuntia tulevaan. Selvitys ajankohtaisesta opettaja- ja opettajankoulutustutkimuksesta opettajankoulutuksen kehittämisohjelman laatimisen tueksi. Helsinki: Opetus- ja kulttuuriministeriö. Opetus- ja kulttuuriministeriön julkaisuja 33. Ilomäki, L., Lakkala, M., Toom, A., & Muukkonen, H. (2017). Teacher learning within a multinational project in an upper secondary school. Education Research International. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/1614262 Isenbarger, L., & Zembylas, M. (2006). The emotional labour of caring in teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 120–134. Kelchtermans, G., & Deketelaere, A. (2016). The emotional dimension in becoming a teacher. In J. Loughran, & M. L. Hamilton (Eds.), International handbook of teacher education (Vol. 2, pp. 429–461). Dordrecht: Springer. Kelchtermans, G., & Vanassche, E. (2017). Micropolitics in the education of teachers: Power, negotiation, and professional development. In D. J. Clandinin, & J. Husu (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of research on teacher education (Vol. 1, pp. 441 –456). London: Sage. Kim, M., & Schallert, D. (2011). Building caring relationships between a teacher and students in a teacher preparation program word-by-word, moment-by-moment. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 1059–1067.

Academic and Moral Obligations 179 Klassen, R., Durksen, T., Patterson, F., & Rowett, E. (2017). Filtering functions of assessment for selection into initial teacher education programs. In D. J. Clandinin, & J. Husu (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of research on teacher education (Vol. 2, pp. 893–909). London: Sage. Korthagen, F. A. J. (2004). In search of the essence of a good teacher: Towards a more holistic approach in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 77–97. Kretchmar, K., & Zeichner, K. (2016). Teacher prep 3.0: A vision for teacher education to impact social transformation. Journal of Education for Teaching, 42(4), 417–433. Kumashiro, K. (2010). Seeing the bigger picture: Troubling movements to end teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1–2), 56–65. Labaree, D. F. (1997). Public goods, private goods: The American struggle over educational goals. American Educational Research Journal, 34(1), 39–81. Lampert, M. (1998). Studying teaching as a thinking practice. In J. Greeno, & S. G. Goldman (Eds.), Thinking practices (pp. 53–78). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Leana, C. (2011). The missing link in school reform. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 9(4), 30–35. Liu, K., Miller, R., & Jahng, K. E. (2016). Participatory media for teacher professional development: Toward a self-sustainable and democratic community of practice. Educational Review, 68(4), 420–443. Madden, B. (2015). Pedagogical pathways for indigenous education with/in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 51, 1–15. McNamara, O., & McNicholl, J. (2016). Poverty discourses in teacher education: Understanding policies, effects and attitudes. Journal of Education for Teaching, 42(4), 374–377. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2016.1215545 Mena, J., & Clarke, A. (2021). Teacher induction and mentoring: Supporting beginning teachers. Switzerland: Springer – Palgrave MacMillan. Meristo, M. (2016). Personal and contextual factors shaping novice teachers’ early professional career. Tallinn: Tallinn University. Mitchell, R., Carrigan Wooten, S., Landry-Thomas, K., & Mitchell, A. C. (2017). Recruitment and retention of traditionally underrepresented students in teacher education. In D. J. Clandinin, & J. Husu (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 491–508). London: Sage. Moon, B. (2016). New directions for the reform of university-based teacher education. In B. Moon (Ed.), Do universities have a role in the education and training of teachers? An international analysis of policy and practice (pp. 251–262). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Muukkonen, H., Lakkala, M., Lahti-Nuuttila, P., Ilomäki, L., Karlgren, K., & Toom, A. (2019). Assessing the development of collaborative knowledge work competence: Scales for higher education course contexts. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2019.1647284 Noddings, N. (2005). The challenge to care in schools, an alternative approach to education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Noddings, N. (2010). Moral education in an age of globalization. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 42(4), 390–396. Oberle, E., Domitrovichc, C. E., Meyersc, D. C., & Weissberg, R. P. (2016). Establishing systemic social and emotional learning approaches in schools: A framework for schoolwide implementation. Cambridge Journal of Education, 46(3), 277–297.

180  Auli Toom and Jukka Husu OECD (2019). TALIS 2018 results (volume I). Teachers and school leaders as lifelong learners. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/1d0bc92a-en Paine, L., Aydarova, O., & Syahril, I. (2017). Globalization and teacher education. In D. J. Clandinin, & J. Husu (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of research on teacher education (Vol. 2, pp. 1133–1148). London: Sage. Paine, L., Blömeke, S., & Aydarova, O. (2016). Teachers and teaching in the context of globalization. In D. H. Gitomer, & C. A. Bell (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching (5th ed., pp. 717–786). Washington, DC: AERA. Pantic, N., & Wubbels, T. (2010). Teacher competencies as a basis for teacher education – Views of Serbian teachers and teacher educators. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 694–703. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.10.005 Payne, K., & Zeichner, K. (2017). Multiple voices and participants in teacher education. In D. J. Clandinin, & J. Husu (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of research on teacher education (Vol. 2). London: Sage. PIONEERED: Pioneering Policies and Practices Tackling Educational Inequalities in Europe (2021-24). Retrieved from https://www.pioneered-project.eu/about/ key-facts Pyhältö, K., Pietarinen, J., & Soini, T. (2014). Comprehensive school teachers’ professional agency in large-scale educational change. Journal of Educational Change, 15(3), 303–325. Rajala, A. (2016). Toward an agency-centered pedagogy - A teacher’s journey of expanding the context of school learning. Helsinki: Department of Teacher Education, University of Helsinki. Sanger, M. (2017). Teacher beliefs, teacher education, and the moral work of teaching. In D. J. Clandinin, & J. Husu (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of research on teacher education (Vol. 1, pp. 339–353). London: Sage. Sanger, M., & Osguthorpe, R. (Eds.). (2013). The moral work of teaching and teacher education: Preparing and supporting practitioners. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Schussler, D., & Collins, A. (2006). An empirical exploration of the who, what, and how schools care. Teachers College Record, 108(7), 1460–1495. Seidl, B., & Friend, G. (2002). Leaving authority at the door: Equal-status communitybased experiences and the preparation of teachers for diverse classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 421–433. Shavelson, R. (1973). What is a basic teaching skill? Journal of Teacher Education, 24, 144–151. Sherin, M. G., & van Es, E. A. (2012). Effects of video club participation on teachers’ professional vision. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 20–37. Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–21. Smith, E., & Lopez, P. (2016). Collaboration for a curriculum of caring: The zeitgeist is right. Psychology in the Schools, 53(3), 270–285. Soini, T., Pietarinen, J., Toom, A., & Pyhältö, K. (2015). What contributes to first-year student teachers’ sense of professional agency in the classroom? Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 21(6), 641–659. Soini, T., Pietarinen, J., Toom, A., & Pyhältö, K. (2016). Haluanko, osaanko ja pystynkö oppimaan taitavasti yhdessä muiden kanssa? Opettajan ammatillisen toimijuuden kehittyminen. In H. Cantell & A. Kallioniemi (Eds.), Kansankynttilä keinulaudalla – Miten tulevaisuudessa opitaan ja opetetaan? (pp. 53–75). Jyväskylä: PS-Kustannus.

Academic and Moral Obligations 181 van Tartwijk, J., Zwart, R., & Wubbels, T. (2017). Developing teachers’ competences with the focus on adaptive expertise in teaching. In D. J. Clandinin, & J. Husu (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of research on teacher education (Vol. 2, pp. 820–835). London: Sage. Thompson, P. (2013). Learner-centered education and “cultural translation”. International Journal of Educational Development, 33, 48–58. Thornberg, R. (2017). Social constructivist approach to moral reasoning and behavior in teacher education. In D. J. Clandinin, & J. Husu (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of research on teacher education. London: Sage. Tiilikainen, M., Toom, A., Lepola, J., & Husu, J. (2019). Reconstructing choice, reason and disposition in teachers’ practical theories of teaching (PTs). Teaching and Teacher Education, 79, 124–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.12.011 Tirri, K. (1999). Opettajan ammattietiikka [Teacher’s professional ethics]. Helsinki: WSOY. Tirri, K., & Husu, J. (2002). Care and responsibility in “the best interest of the child”: Relational voices of ethical dilemmas in teaching. Teachers and Teaching, 8(1), 65–80. Tirri, K., & Kuusisto, E. (2022). Teachers’ professional ethics: Theoretical frameworks and empirical research from Finland. Leiden: Brill. Toom, A. (2017). Teacher’s professional and pedagogical competencies: A complex divide between teacher’s work, teacher knowledge and teacher education. In D. J. Clandinin, & J. Husu (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of research on teacher education (Vol. 2, pp. 803–819). London: Sage. Toom, A., Pietarinen, J., Soini, T., & Pyhältö, K. (2017). How does the learning environment in teacher education cultivate first year student teachers’ sense of professional agency in the professional community? Teaching and Teacher Education, 63, 126–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.12.013 Toom, A., & Pyhältö, K. (2013). Opetus koulun arjessa: Osallistavan pedagogiikan ja oppilaiden oppimisprosessiin kiinnittymisen välisestä suhteesta. In T. K. Pyhältö, & E. Vitikka (Eds.), Oppiminen ja pedagogiset käytännöt varhaiskasvatuksesta perusopetukseen. Oppaat ja käsikirjat (pp. 79–92). Helsinki: Opetushallitus. Toom, A., Pyhältö, K., Pietarinen, J., & Soini, T. (2021). Professional agency for learning as a key for developing teachers’ competencies? Education Sciences, 11. https:// doi.org/10.3390/educsci11070324 UNESCO (2021). Reimagining our futures together: A new social contract for education. Report from the International Commission on the Future of Education. Vangrieken, K., Dochy, F., Raes, E., & Kyndt, E. (2015). Teacher collaboration: A systematic review. Educational Research Review, 15, 17–40. Vermunt, J. D., & Endedijk, M. D. (2011). Patterns in teacher learning in different phases of the professional career. Learning and Individual Differences, 21, 294–302. Westera, W. (2001). Competences in education: A confusion of tongues. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 33(1), 75–88. Zeichner, K. (2016). Independent teacher education programs: Apocryphal claims, illusory evidence. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center Brief. Zeichner, K. A. (1983). Alternative paradigms of teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 34(3), 3–9. Zeichner, K., Bowman, M., Guillen, L., & Napolitan, K. (2016). Engaging and working in solidarity with local communities in preparing the teachers of their children. Journal of Teacher Education, 67(4), 277–290. Zeichner, K., Payne, K. A., & Brayko, K. (2015). Democratizing teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 66(2), 122–135. Zygmunt, E., & Clark, P. (2016). Transforming teacher education for social justice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

13 Inclusive Education from the Perspective of Teachers’ Professional Ethics The Case of Finnish Teachers Kirsi Tirri and Elina Kuusisto Introduction This chapter discusses the current challenges to Finnish teachers’ professional ethics in the context of inclusive education. Finnish teachers are ethical professionals whose value base rests upon ethical codes and the Comenius oath. Furthermore, each school community in Finland is committed to shared values that steer its actions. In Finnish schools, the national curriculum and municipal- and school-based curricula represent such shared values and include the educational goals for schools (FNBE, 2016). School-based curricula allow each school to define its own values in more detail. In turn, the current challenges in Finland concern equality and equal opportunities for education in society. In this chapter, we analyze the concepts of inclusion, equality, and equity from Finnish and international perspectives. We adhere to a broad international definition of inclusion as referring to “nondiscriminating education for all”. This definition creates room for the large diversity of students in Finnish schools, including, for example, immigrant students and gifted students, in addition to students with special needs. We emphasize the importance of ethical sensitivity in teacher’s professional ethics and conduct for teachers’ ability to address the needs of both their different learners and their families. The goal of teaching is to treat students equally, and we discuss four different ways to understand equality in Finnish educational history and policy. Moreover, we present the concept of equity used in current Finnish educational policy, which comprises two important dimensions: inclusion and fairness. Today, the concept of equity has replaced the concept of equality in attempts to address inclusion. In this chapter, we conclude that teachers’ professional ethics call for education that is inclusively offered to all and that provides every student with equal access to quality schooling. Teachers’ professional ethics advocate ethical sensitivity with a social justice orientation in order to help educators recognize and reduce group and individual barriers among students and thereby promote students’ educational opportunities.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003265696-16

Inclusive Education 183 Teachers’ professional ethics Ethical codes

Codes of ethics and conduct are important features of many professions that provide services to society, including, medical doctors, lawyers, and psychologists. Teachers belong to this group of professions, offering their service to society in the field of education. Moreover, the presence of codes of ethics and conduct signifies the established professionalization of teaching. More than 50 countries around the world use established codes of conduct or ethics for their teachers; some codes oversee the whole nation’s teachers, while other nations utilize a suite of codes established by state or district organizations (Forster, 2019). Codes for teachers’ professional conduct were published in the United States as early as the 1950s and 1970s, while in Europe they became more popular during the 1990s. Such codes have been seen as an attempt to resolve the tension between autonomy and control in teachers’ work. For example, Terhart (1998) proposes that the compilation of teacher’s ethical codes in Germany was a compromise between idealizing the teacher’s personality and the strict standardization of teaching. The emphasis on and idealization of teachers’ personalities in professional ethics can cause the profession to be seen as a vocation in which only certain types of people can succeed. This kind of idealization can be viewed as a form of control, where teachers are made to feel guilty and inadequate if they fail to conform to this ideal. At the other end of the spectrum, teachers’ work is controlled by standardization and the detailed definition of professional duties. In this case, the evaluation of teachers’ work becomes the primary means of controlling teachers (Terhart, 1998). In Finland, teachers enjoy extensive freedom in their work, which is not controlled by any form of external evaluation. Finnish teachers are viewed as ethical professionals with the competence to reflect on their own work and develop in the profession with the help of pre-service and in-service education (Sahlberg, 2011; Tirri, 2014). In 1998, Finland became the first Nordic country to publish ethical codes for teachers. In the first published version of the Finnish codes, the values of human worth, honesty, justice, and freedom were identified as the main values underlying teachers’ professional ethics (Trade Union of Education in Finland, 1998). In empirical studies conducted in Finland, these values have been used by teachers and principals in schools to deal with sensitive and critical incidents in teaching (Tirri, 2010). An updated version of the values and ethical principles of Finnish teachers was published in 2010 (Trade Union of Education in Finland, 2010). These Finnish codes differ markedly from those used in the United States and Europe in their purpose and emphases. The codes are purposely formulated in an extremely loose manner such that they are applicable to the work of all kinds of teachers. Nevertheless, the codes clearly demonstrate the current ideal of a “generic

184  Kirsi Tirri and Elina Kuusisto teacher”, where teachers of all subjects and grade levels are viewed as professional educators (Tirri, 2010). The current Finnish ethical codes for teachers specify their underlying conception of humankind and the virtues derived from this conception: human dignity, truthfulness, justice, responsibility, and freedom. According to the codes, “teachers must respect every person, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, gender diversity, appearance, age, religion, social standing, origin, opinions, abilities and achievements” (Trade Union of Education in Finland, 2010). The purpose of the codes is not to provide concrete advice for ethical action but to remind teachers of the principles to which they are committed in their profession. Ethical codes can be seen as the “conscience of the profession” (van Nuland, 2009, p. 7). According to Foster, ethical expectations for the teaching profession often hold teachers to a higher moral standard than ordinary citizens. These ethical expectations are known as the profession’s “role morality” (Forster, 2019, p. 3). Teachers’ actions and attitudes are evaluated as morally good or bad, virtuous, or reprehensible according to whether they help or hinder the realization of the “best interest of a child” (Tirri & Husu, 2002) and the well-being of society. Foster argues that a code of ethics or conduct for teaching ought to be a clear reflection of the profession’s role morality that identifies at least some of these commonly shared expectations and aims (Forster, 2019, p. 3). Teachers are primarily committed to their students, but they also make commitments to their employers, the state, the local community, parents, and colleagues. It is important to understand the similarities and differences between codes of ethics and codes of conduct in teaching (Maxwell & Schwimmer, 2016). Codes of ethics like those utilized in Finland are aspirational, identifying values, ideals, and expectations in the teaching profession. Codes of conduct, on the other hand, are regulatory and provide comprehensive guidelines and prohibitions (Foster, 2019). Codes of ethics and conduct each contain limitations that should be acknowledged; moreover, such codes must be reviewed regularly. Furthermore, it is important to ensure that ethical codes are relevant when new ethical issues arise, such as challenges related to new media, digital life, climate change, broad liberal shifts in social morality, and advancements in educational research (Foster, 2019, p. 5). Tirri has identified some of the key current issues in Finnish education that require special ethical sensitivity from the teacher. These issues are related to the gender, religion, and nationalities of students. Teachers’ ethical codes acknowledge the current plurality in Finnish society and advise teachers to equally respect parents’ cultures and worldviews and ensure they do not become the basis for discrimination (Tirri, 2022). Our empirical results indicate that Finnish teachers are willing to encounter diversity in their teaching in general but exhibit fewer positive attitudes toward certain worldviews and religions, for example, Islam (Rissanen, Kuusisto, & Tirri, 2015; Tirri, Rissanen, & Kuusisto, 2017). We also found that female teachers and more experienced teachers display a stronger orientation toward promoting commonality and

Inclusive Education 185 teaching about diversity than do male educators and novice teachers. Moreover, according to our findings, Finnish teachers’ attitudes to Islam and Muslim students are most strongly influenced by their previous involvement with other cultures and with Muslims (Rissanen et al., 2015; Tirri et al., 2017). Comenius oath

In professional occupations, one way to demonstrate commitment is by swearing an oath of office. By swearing such an oath, the novice demonstrates their willingness to commit to the goals and ethical values of the profession. For instance, medical doctors take the Hippocratic oath during their graduation. In 2017, the Finnish Ethical Committee for the Teaching Profession developed an oath for teachers, named the Comenius’ oath (Trade Union of Education in Finland, 2017) after the 17th century educational philosopher Johan Comenius (1592–1670). Comenius is viewed as the founder of didactics, and his teaching doctrine is crystallized in the best-known textbook on the topic, the Didacta Magna, published in 1657. The English version of this book (Comenius, 1896) is available for download on the Internet. The goal of the Comenius oath is to emphasize professional ethics as part of a teacher’s professional identity. The oath underscores, for example, a teacher’s duty always to act with justice, care, and truthfulness to enhance equality and equity in learning. By taking the oath, a teacher also pledges to advance the development of each student according to their tendencies. Furthermore, a teacher promises to respect the privacy and integrity of children. Finally, the oath commits teachers to protecting students’ right to develop in an environment free from political and economic indoctrination to allow them to form their own political and worldviews. Like teachers’ ethical codes, the oath is intended for all teachers, from early education to adult education. The oath, which is an ethical guide without juridical obligations, is aptly suited to educational professionals who work autonomously and who are trusted by society. Ethical challenges for teachers in inclusive education Inclusion in the Finnish context

The current educational climate in Finland promotes inclusive education (Tirri & Laine, 2017a). Inclusion can be defined in both narrow and broad ways (Ainscow et al., 2006). Narrow definitions promote the inclusion of specific groups of students, such as disabled students. In the Finnish context, the narrow definition can be seen in the emphasis on the needs of students with disabilities and learning problems instead of those of gifted students, for example (Tirri & Kuusisto, 2013). By contrast, broad definitions of inclusion focus on diversity and the manner in which schools respond to differences among all

186  Kirsi Tirri and Elina Kuusisto students (Armstrong, Armstrong, & Spandagou, 2011, p. 31). In this chapter, we follow the UNESCO Salamanca Statement on inclusion: The guiding principle that informs this framework is that schools should accommodate all children regardless of their physical, intellectual, social, linguistic, or other conditions. This should include disabled and gifted children, street and working children, children from remote or nomadic populations, children from linguistic, ethnic, or cultural minorities and children from other disadvantaged or marginalized areas and groups. (UNESCO, 1994) This broad definition used by UNESCO and also adhered to by other Finnish researchers views inclusion as non-discriminatory quality education for all (Saloviita, 2015; Tirri & Laine, 2017a; UNESCO, 2009). Consequently, it allows us to include gifted students and their needs in the discussion on inclusion and to discuss the ethical challenges of inclusion that teachers must reflect on as ethical professionals (Tirri & Laine, 2017b). Ethical sensitivity in implementing inclusive education

In inclusive schools, ethical sensitivity is at the core of teachers’ professionalism when they encounter diversity in students, parents, colleagues, school staff, and other networks (Tirri & Kuusisto, 2019). Ethical sensitivity means that a teacher is able to recognize the ethical aspects of situations and visualize and anticipate possible solutions to ethical problems and their consequences (Narvaez & Endicott, 2009). Rest (1983) modelled ethical behavior through four skills: ethical sensitivity, ethical judgement, ethical motivation, and ethical action (Narvaez & Endicott, 2009), of which ethical sensitivity can be regarded as the most important in the teaching profession, since it is required in both identifying ethical challenges and solving them (Ronkainen, Kuusisto, Eisenschmidt, & Tirri, 2021). In diverse and inclusive schools, it is important for teachers to consider that ethical sensitivity includes culture-invariant and culture-dependent factors. Caring by connecting to others has been found to be the main characteristic of ethical sensitivity across cultures, indicating that a caring attitude offers a solid basis for ethical conduct in teaching (Gholami, Kuusisto, & Tirri, 2015; Ronkainen et al., 2021). Instead, taking the perspective of others seems to be an example of the culture-dependent nature of ethical sensitivity. For example, in Finland and Estonia, taking the perspective of others is associated with both caring and identification of the consequences of actions and options (Ronkainen et al., 2021), while in Iranian culture this does not seem to be the case. In Iran and similar cultures, the perspectives of others can be conditioned by collectivistic values, and individual’s perspectives can be ignored when they are in conflict with Islamic or other shared values, since accepting such values and meanings is prioritized in social interactions (Gholami et al., 2015, p. 902).

Inclusive Education 187 Thus, in diverse school settings, ethical sensitivity relates to the importance of self-reflection and continuous learning as part of a teacher’s professional ethics. Ethical sensitivity offers an important framework for teachers to balance between justice, care, and truthfulness in all encounters involving professional ethics and decision-making (Oser, 1991). Equality and equity as guiding principles in inclusive education and teachers’ professional ethics Equality in educational policy in Finland

The current major challenge in teachers’ professional ethics is to find ways of making good education inclusive for all students (Ainscow, 2020; FNBE 2016; United Nations, 2015). In Finnish educational policy, equality has always been the leading principle for realizing high-quality education (Simola, Kauko, Varjo, Kalalahti, & Sahlström, 2017; Tirri & Kuusisto, 2013). In Finnish educational history, four different ways of interpreting equality can be identified: conservative, liberal, radical, and individual (Kalalahti & Varjo, 2012; Simola et al., 2017). Conservative equality means that legislation offers formal equality of opportunities (Kalalahti & Varjo, 2012). For example, in 1921, elementary education became compulsory for all children in Finland, but, due to challenges in building school networks and finding qualified teachers, this policy was not fully implemented until 1957 (Simola et al., 2017). In turn, liberal equality refers to a situation where good education is guaranteed to every citizen, thus indicating equality of opportunities (Kalalahti & Varjo, 2012). Radical equality, by contrast, “is associated with the democratic ideal of social justice [and] demands of equality of results” (Espinoza, 2007, p. 346). Such an interpretation of equality rose to prominence in Finland in the 1960s, leading to the abolition of the previous dual-track educational system (elementary education for all, grammar school for higher social classes) and the establishment of the nine-year comprehensive school offering free education of supposedly identical quality to all children (Simola et al., 2017). Recently, in 2021, free compulsory education was further expanded to upper-secondary education to support, in particular, those young people most at risk of marginalization and social exclusion (Kuusisto, Laine, & Rissanen, 2021). Finally, individual equality emerged in Finnish educational policy in the 1990s along with a specific interest in freedom of choice and individualism, indicating the expectation that teachers consider and respond to individual differences and needs. For teacher ethics, these four interpretations of equality have offered a strong ethical basis and ethos for enhancing the learning of all children and for addressing the disadvantages arising from some students’ backgrounds. The results of the implementation of these principles of equality can also be seen in Finland’s PISA ranking scores, where, for example, differences in learning outcomes between schools have been far smaller than in many other countries (see, e.g., OECD, 2018).

188  Kirsi Tirri and Elina Kuusisto Equity in educational policy in Finland and abroad

In the 2000s, equity became a priority in Finnish political and educational discourses. For example, equity legislation was passed (Yhdenvertaisuuslaki, 2004, 2014), and equity was acknowledged in various curricula (FNBE, 2004, 2014). To illustrate these processes, the National core curriculum for basic education 2004 (FNBE, 2004) mentioned equality (tasa-arvo) 22 times and equity (yhdenvertaisuus) twice. Ten years later, however, equality was referred to 50 times and equity 69 times (FNBE, 2014). In the FNBE, equality refers to equality between females and males (mentioned explicitly 15 times in FNBE, 2014) and to the provision of the same opportunities for education regardless of sex or gender, religion or worldview, nationality or ethnicity, socio-economic status or region, and abilities or disabilities (FNBE, 2014). In turn, equity denotes the equal value of each person and the importance of individually addressing their educational needs, since equity does not mean sameness (FNBE, 2014, p. 28). These underpinnings highlight the role of a social-justice orientation in teachers’ professional ethics and understanding of the societal significance of schooling. In the international literature, equality and equity have been found to be rather confusing concepts with vague applications and overlapping definitions (Espinoza, 2007). In this respect, equity is especially challenging. Nevertheless, despite its ambiguity, the term has largely replaced equality in educational studies, also in Finland (see Honkasilta, Ahtiainen, Hienonen, & Jahnukainen, 2019). Equity has a long history as a financial concept, referring to the ownership of assets. In addition, in the field of social psychology and moral philosophy, Deutsch (1975) identified equity as being the most suitable principle of justice when pursuing economic productivity and the maximization of production. Furthermore, Espinoza (2007) states that “the fundamental idea underlying the ‘equity’ theory is that fairness in social relationships occurs when rewards, punishments and resources are allocated in proportion to one’s input or contributions” (p. 348). Thus, equity is associated with a meritocracy where the distribution of justice is based on ability, inputs, and achievements. In teachers’ work, this could mean that teachers compare their students’ possible merits or deficiencies and distribute justice based on this comparison or that teachers allocate awards and other benefits to those students who have best achieved the goals of the curriculum. Nonetheless, such a definition or view of equity has not been emphasized in recent educational policies, since it fails to consider the different needs and possible disadvantaged circumstances of diverse students that should be addressed through education, which is, after all, at the core of Finnish teachers’ professional ethics. The OECD (Field, Kuczera, & Pont, 2007) was among the first organizations to apply equity in a new way as the main goal of education by defining it as consisting of two dimensions: inclusion and fairness. In this context, inclusion means that a basic minimum standard of education is guaranteed to

Inclusive Education 189 all (cf. liberal equality), while fairness means that socio-economic barriers to education are reduced (cf. radical and individual equality). Thus, equity entails directing special attention to learners who are potentially at risk of marginalization, exclusion, or underachievement (Ainscow, 2020) and whose unequal starting points, such as disadvantages related to social-economic status, gender, ethnicity, or race, are to be compensated for (UIS, 2018). This could also be termed a social justice approach to equity that covers both group-level effects and individual circumstances and which “sometimes leads to the acceptance of unequal distributions” (Buchholtz, Stuart, & Frønes, 2020, p. 21). In Finnish schools, this has meant, for example, the application of positive discrimination and the distribution of extra resources to schools that are located in challenging areas (Honkasilta et al., 2019). Nonetheless, while the Finnish educational system provides a solid foundation for teachers’ professional ethics by offering free education to all children, including materials, warm meals, transportation, remedial education, and special education, to diminish economic, regional, and social class differences between the students, in recent years, the ideals of equality and equity have been jeopardized by the lack of resources provided to teachers (Honkasilta et al., 2019). As students with diverse giftedness profiles and disadvantaged backgrounds should study together in the same classroom, special resources are required for multi-professional collaboration in a collective school culture where individual teachers are not left alone to respond to the individual needs of students (Honkasilta et al., 2019; Mäkinen, 2013; Saloviita, 2015). Meeting these challenges requires not only teacher- or school-level considerations but also input from the educational policy on the municipal and national levels as well as in teacher education. In sum, teachers’ professional ethics call both for education that is inclusively offered to all and for every student to enjoy equal access to quality schooling. Teachers’ professional ethics advocate ethical sensitivity with a social justice orientation to recognize and reduce group- and individual-level barriers among the students. For example, when implicit belief systems or mindsets are not acknowledged and possibly changed, members of certain (ethnic) groups might be stereotyped, thereby hindering their learning (Aronson, Fried, & Good, 2002; Rissanen, Kuusisto, Hanhimäki, & Tirri, 2018a, 2018b; Rissanen, Kuusisto, Tuominen, & Tirri, 2019). Teachers’ ethics also imply a differentiated approach to teaching to meet students’ individual needs. Thus, it is important to consider individual circumstances, inputs and merits alike when deciding whether a student with learning difficulties requires special education or a gifted student would benefit from more challenging or enriched tasks (Ainscow, 2020; Tirri & Laine, 2017a, 2017b). Concluding remarks This chapter explored inclusive education in Finland from the perspective of teachers’ professional ethics. The codes of ethics and the Comenius oath provide all teachers in Finland with a common value base and ethical direction.

190  Kirsi Tirri and Elina Kuusisto Moreover, the chapter identified current challenges for teacher’s ethics, which include questions of equality and equal opportunities for education. Furthermore, this chapter discussed the concepts of inclusion, equality, and equity, which are essential notions for understanding Finnish education and the national and international debate on these themes. In particular, issues related to gender, nationality, and religion call for ethical sensitivity from teachers to allow them to treat every student with justice, care, and truthfulness. According to our empirical studies, Finnish teachers experience greater challenges in their ethical conduct toward Muslim students than towards students from other religions and worldviews. Thus, teachers require education in intercultural and interreligious sensitivity in every grade and subject to help them treat students from different religious backgrounds fairly. Teachers play an important societal role in advancing social justice and lifelong learning for all. However, teachers require education for this role at both pre-service and in-service levels to allow them to provide inclusive educational opportunities throughout the world. References Ainscow, M. (2020). Promoting inclusion and equity in education: Lessons from international experiences. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 6(1), 7–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/20020317.2020.1729587 Ainscow, M., Booth, T., Dyson, A., Farrell, P., Frankham, J., Gallannaugh, F., … Smith, R. (2006). Improving schools, developing inclusion. New York, NY: Routledge. Armstrong, D., Armstrong, A. C., & Spandagou, I. (2011). Inclusion: By choice or by chance? International Journal of Inclusive Education, 15(1), 29–39. Aronson, J., Fried, C. B., & Good, C. (2002). Reducing the effects of stereotype threat on African American college students by shaping theories of intelligence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 113–125. https://doi.org/10.1006/ jesp.2001.1491 Buchholtz, N., Stuart, A., & Frønes, T. S. (2020). Equity, equality and diversity— Putting educational justice in the Nordic model to a test. In T. S. Frønes, A. Pettersen, J. Radišić, & N. Buchholtz (Eds.), Equity, equality and diversity in the Nordic model of education (pp. 13–41). Berlin: Springer. Comenius, J. A. (1896). The great didactic of John Amos Comenius (Didacta Magna) (M. W. Keatinge, Trans., Ed.). Adam & Charles Black (Original text 1657). Retrieved May 4, 2021 from https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Great_ Didactic_of_John_Amos_Comenius.html?id=sE9MAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcove r&source=kp_read_button#v=onepage&q&f=false Deutsch, M. (1975). Equity, equality, and need: What determines which value will be used as the basis of distributive justice? Journal of Social Issues, 31(3), 137–149. Espinoza, O. (2007). Solving the equity–equality conceptual dilemma: A new model for analysis of the educational process. Educational Research, 49(4), 343–363. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131880701717198 Field, S., Kuczera, M., & Pont, B. (2007). No more failures: Ten steps to equity in education. Paris: OECD. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/education/school/ nomorefailurestenstepstoequityineducation.htm

Inclusive Education 191 FNBE (2004). Perusopetuksen opetussuunnitelman perusteet 2004 [National core curriculum for basic education 2004]. Finnish National Board of Education. Retrieved March 8, 2022 from https://www.oph.fi/fi/koulutus-ja-tutkinnot/ perusopetuksen-opetussuunnitelman-perusteet FNBE (2014). Perusopetuksen opetussuunnitelman perusteet 2014 [National core curriculum for basic education 2014]. Finnish National Board of Education. Retrieved March 8, 2022 from https://www.oph.fi/fi/koulutus-ja-tutkinnot/ perusopetuksen-opetussuunnitelman-perusteet FNBE (2016). National core curriculum for basic education 2014. Helsinki: Finnish National Board of Education. Forster, D. J. (2019). Codes of professional ethics and conduct in teaching. In M. Peter (Ed.), Encyclopedia of teacher education. Berlin: Springer. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-981-13-1179-6_159-1 Gholami, K., Kuusisto, E., & Tirri, K. (2015). Is ethical sensitivity in teaching culturally bound? Comparing Finnish and Iranian teachers’ ethical sensitivity. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 45(6), 886–907. https://doi. org/10.1080/03057925.2014.984588 Honkasilta, J., Ahtiainen, R., Hienonen, N., & Jahnukainen, M. (2019). Inclusive and special education and the question of equity in education: The case of Finland. In M. Schuelka, G. Thomas, C. Johnstone, & A. Artiles (Eds.), SAGE handbook of inclusion and diversity in education (pp. 481–495). Thousand Oaks: SAGE. Kalalahti, M., & Varjo, J. (2012). Tasa-arvo ja oikeudenmukaisuus perusopetukseen sijoittumisessa ja valikoitumisessa [equality of opportunity and admission policies in basic education]. Kasvatus & Aika, 6(1), 39–55. Kuusisto, E., Laine, S., & Rissanen, I. (2021). Education of the gifted and talented in Finland. In E. Kuusisto, M. Ubani, P. Nokelainen, & A. Toom (Eds.), Good teachers for tomorrow’s schools – Purpose, values and talents in education (pp. 195–216). Leiden: Brill-Sense. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004465008_011 Mäkinen, M. (2013). Becoming engaged in inclusive practices: Narrative reflections on teaching as descriptors of teachers’ work engagement. Teaching and Teacher Education, 35, 51–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.05.005 Maxwell, B., & Schwimmer, M. (2016). Seeking the elusive ethical base of teacher professionalism in Canadian codes of ethics. Teaching and Teacher Education, 59, 468–480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.07.015 Narvaez, D., & Endicott, L. G. (2009). Ethical sensitivity – Nurturing character in the classroom. Notre Dame, IN: Alliance for Catholic Education Press. OECD (2018). Country note, Finland. Programme for international student assessment (PISA) results from PISA 2018. Paris: OECD. https://www. oecd.org/pisa/ publications/PISA2018_CN_FIN.pdf Oser, F. (1991). Professional morality: A discourse approach (the case of the teaching profession). In W. Kurtines, & J. Gewirtz (Eds.), Handbook of moral behavior and development. 2: Research 1 (pp. 91–228). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Rest, J. R. (1983). Morality. In P. H. Mussen (series Ed.), J. Flavell & E. Markman (Vol. Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Cognitive development (Vol. 5, pp. 556–629). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Rissanen, I., Kuusisto, E., Hanhimäki, E., & Tirri, K. (2018a). Teachers’ implicit meaning systems and their implications for pedagogical thinking and practice: A case study from Finland. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 62(4), 487–500. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2016.1258667

192  Kirsi Tirri and Elina Kuusisto Rissanen, I., Kuusisto, E., Hanhimäki, E., & Tirri, K. (2018b). The implications of teachers’ implicit theories for moral education: A case study from Finland. Journal of Moral Education, 47(1), 63–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240.2017. 1374244 Rissanen, I., Kuusisto, E., & Tirri, K. (2015). Finnish teachers’ attitudes to Muslim students and Muslim student integration. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 54(2), 277–290. https://doi.org/10.1111/jssr.12190 Rissanen, I., Kuusisto, E., Tuominen, M., & Tirri, K. (2019). In search of a growth mindset pedagogy: A case study of one teacher’s classroom practices in a Finnish elementary school. Teaching and Teacher Education, 77, 204–213. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.10.002 Ronkainen, R., Kuusisto, E., Eisenschmidt, E., & Tirri, K. (2021). Ethical sensitivity of Finnish and Estonian teachers. Journal of Moral Education. https://doi.org/10. 1080/03057240.2021.1960491 Sahlberg, P. (2011). Finnish Lessons: What can the world learn from educational change in Finland? New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Saloviita, T. (2015). Measuring pre-service teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education: Psychometric properties of the TAIS scale. Teaching and Teacher Education, 52, 66–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.09.003 Simola, H., Kauko, J., Varjo, J., Kalalahti, M., & Sahlström, F. (2017). Dynamics in education politics – Understanding and explaining the Finnish case. New York, NY: Routledge. Terhart, E. (1998). Formalised codes of ethics for teachers: Between professional autonomy and administrative control. European Journal of Education, 33(4), 433–444. Tirri, K. (2010). Teachers’ values underlying their professional ethics. In T. Lovat, R. Toomey, & Clement, N (Eds.), International research handbook on values education and student well-being (pp.153–163). Berlin: Springer. Tirri, K. (2014). The last 40 years in Finnish teacher education. Journal of Education for Teaching, 40(5), 600–609. Tirri, K. (2022). The value base of teacher’s professional ethics: The case of Finland. In T. Lovat, R. Toomey, & Clement, N (Eds.), International research handbook on values education and student well-being (pp. 153–161). Berlin: Springer. Tirri, K., & Husu, J. (2002). Care and responsibility in ‘the best interest of the child’: Relational voices of ethical dilemmas in teaching. Teachers and Teaching, 8(1), 65–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540600120110574. Tirri, K., & Kuusisto, E. (2013). How Finland serves gifted and talented pupils. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 36(1), 84–96. Tirri, K., & Kuusisto, E. (2019). Opettajan ammattietiikkaa oppimassa [Learning teachers’ professional ethics]. Gaudeamus Tirri, K., & Laine, S. (2017a). Inclusive education in teacher education. In D. J. Clandinin, & J. Husu (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of research on teacher education (Vol. 2, pp. 761–776). Thousand Oaks: SAGE. Tirri, K., & Laine, S. (2017b). Ethical challenges in inclusive education: The case of gifted students. In A. Gaweski (Ed.), Ethics, equity, and inclusive education. International perspectives on inclusive education (Vol. 9, pp. 239–257). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing. Tirri, K., Rissanen, I., & Kuusisto, E. (2017). Finnish Teachers and diversity: The case of muslim students. In D. K. Sharpes (Ed.), Handbook on comparative and international studies in education (pp. 475–494) (International Perspectives on Educational Policy, Research, and Practice). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.

Inclusive Education 193 Trade Union of Education in Finland. (1998). Code of ethics for Finnish teachers. Trade Union of Education in Finland (2010). Ethical principles of teaching. Retrieved January 5, 2021 from https://www.oaj.fi/en/education/ethical-principlesof-teaching/teachers-values-and-ethical-principles/ Trade Union of Education in Finland (2017). Comenius oath. Retrieved January 5, 2021 from https://www.oaj.fi/en/education/ethical-principles-of-teaching/ comenius-oath-for-teachers/ UIS [UNESCO Institute of Statistics] (2018). Handbook on Measuring Equity in Education. Retrieved from http://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/ handbook-measuring-equity-education-2018-en.pdf UNESCO (1994). The Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs education. In World conference on special needs education: access and quality. Salamanca, Spain, June 7–10, 1994. UNESCO (2009). Policy guidelines on inclusion in education. Retrieved from http:// unesdoc.UNESCO.org/images/0017/001778/177849e.pdf United Nations (2015). General Assembly Resolution A/RES/70/1. Transforming Our World, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Retrieved from https:// sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld/publication van Nuland, S. (2009). Teacher codes. Learning from experience. Retrieved from https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=50b82c023b b5ae5999ff87bd4e82a66e020c82d8 Yhdenvertaisuuslaki [Equity law]. (21/2004). Retrieved from https://www.finlex.fi/ fi/laki/alkup/2004/20040021 Yhdenvertaisuuslaki [Equity law]. (1325/2014). Retrieved from https://www.finlex. fi/fi/laki/alkup/2014/20141325

14 Worldview Transformation in and through Education Mapping the Nexus of Climate Education and Worldview Education Inkeri Rissanen, Essi Aarnio-Linnanvuori, and Anette Mansikka-aho Introduction Climate change and other environmental questions constitute a global crisis that challenges human societies worldwide. As awareness of these serious problems grows, the topic is increasingly discussed in educational documents and research. According to UNESCO (2021), 92 percent of policy and curriculum documents mentioned environment or climate change in one way or another, even though the extent of their inclusion is usually slight. There is in education research a mounting interest in comprehending climate change as a topic in education and in contemplating the most effective ways of implementing successful climate change education (Monroe, Plate, Oxarart, Bowers, & Chaves, 2019; Reid, 2019). Education researchers aware of the acute nature of ecological crises increasingly stress the necessity to promote worldview transformation in and through education policy and practice (Andreotti et al., 2018; Cantell, Tolppanen, Aarnio-Linnanvuori, & Lehtonen, 2019; Värri, 2018; Zilliacus & Wolff, 2021). Worldview transformation can be understood as “a major change in deep-rooted ways of viewing the world that results in long-lasting changes in individuals’ sense of self, their perception of their relationship to the world, and even their entire way of being” (Zilliacus & Wolff, 2021) and is generally deemed necessary in the face of climate change and ecological crisis by those with doubts about the sufficiency of technological solutions (Berzonsky & Moser, 2017; Van Egmond & Vries, 2011). Furthermore, researchers who map the beliefs, values, and attitudes associated with pro-environmental thinking and behavior typically call for pedagogical means to promote worldviews that correlate with environmental lifestyles and would be “effective in bringing individuals and groups into deeper environmental understandings and value commitments” (Taylor, Wright, & LeVasseur, 2020, p. 52). However, students’ indoctrination into any organized ideology or worldview is typically avoided in European public schools espousing liberal educational values such as personal autonomy, critical openness, rational morality, DOI: 10.4324/9781003265696-17

Worldview Transformation in and through Education 195 respect for diversity, and avoidance of supporting any definition of the conception of good. Liberal educational values entail an ideal of neutrality, which implies a preference for moral education that does not promote the inculcation of any specific values or worldview but develops the capacity for moral reasoning (Halstead, 1996; van der Kooij, de Ruyter, & Miedema, 2015). Furthermore, the liberal paradigm has for some time also dominated the scholarly field of religious and worldview education (see, e.g., Moulin, 2009), and the calls for worldview transformation or enforcement through education mostly come from outside this research field. Entirely contrary to developing means for effective value enforcement, or openly promoting worldview transformations, scholars of worldview education have been concerned with developing liberal approaches that would ensure the “neutrality” or “impartiality” of worldview education (see, e.g., Jackson & Everington, 2017). Religious or worldview education in public schooling in European liberal democracies assumes many forms, but generally the direction of development has been from socialization into shared worldviews toward individual autonomous worldview construction and the celebration of worldview pluralism, or toward objective knowledge-based teaching that distances itself from any aims related to students’ life questions and identity development. The high ideals of impartiality have led scholars to ask, for instance, how to teach morality without influencing the students’ worldviews (van der Kooij et al., 2015). A widely used way of categorizing approaches to religious education centers around the question of whether the purpose is to learn a religion, learn from a religion or learn about a religion, a distinction originally formulated by Michael Grimmitt (1987). Liberal religious education takes the form of teaching about and from worldviews, whereas learning a religion refers to confessional teaching and learning an organized worldview from the inside, with the purpose of strengthening the commitment to a particular tradition (Hull, 2002; van der Kooij, de Ruyter, & Miedema, 2017). Liberal religious and worldview education has mainstreamed in the public education systems of liberal pluralizing democracies. Approaches emphasizing learning about worldviews focus on examining religions and worldviews from the outside with historical and descriptive emphases, without necessarily dealing with students’ life-worlds. In learning from approaches, however, children as learners become the center of attention. The purpose is not to socialize them into a worldview, but to take their personal experiences into account and help them to reflect on existential and ethical questions by learning from (several) worldviews (Hella & Wright, 2009; Jackson, 2004; Teece, 2010; Wright, 2004). Autonomy is valued over the practices of enculturation, and the focus is on the social aims of education – the promotion of inclusion and social cohesion (Barnes, 2007; Jackson & Everington, 2017). Even though mainstream educational thinking in European multicultural democracies is still shaped by the liberal paradigm, the universality of its ideological groundings is increasingly also being challenged. Critics point out how these principles have developed into a closed and hegemonic worldview.

196  Inkeri Rissanen et al. Efforts to recognize worldview diversity under the liberal paradigm have often been superficial, and ideals of the political and religious impartiality of education have suppressed educators’ awareness of the cultural, ideological, and value-laden nature of all education. Scholars familiar with non-western educational traditions and knowledge systems emphasize in particular that the kind of neutral ground where everyone can meet and autonomously develop their moral reasoning does not exist, and efforts to promote inclusion without deconstructing the ideological hegemonies and deep-rooted monoculturalism in education are doomed to fail (Andreotti, 2015; Poulter, Riitaoja, & Kuusisto, 2015; Revell, 2012; Wright, 2004). Furthermore, as mentioned above, pleas for rethinking the core, purpose, and worldview groundings of all education in the face of climate change and eco-crisis are increasingly made by education scholars (see, e.g., Laininen, 2019; Kaukko, Kemmis, Heikkinen, Kiilakoski, & Haswell, 2021; Toh & Cawagas, 2010; Värri, 2018; Zilliacus & Wolff, 2021). According to Värri (2018), there is a need to deconstruct the taken-for-granted nature of deep cultural structures that serve as the ground for unsustainable lifestyles – and for the education that reproduces them. The ecological crisis calls for a problematization of the ways in which current education systems produce moral subjects who continue to rely on worldviews based on a distorted relationship to nature (Värri, 2018). Along the same lines, Andreotti et al. (2018) argue that the current pressing problems of humanity should not be seen only as methodological or epistemological challenges (and solvable by better policies or more data and information), but as ontological challenges of being, which means that education needs to focus on addressing how we exist in relation to each other and the planet. Learning to exist and imagine “otherwise” is vital (Andreotti et al., 2018). From these perspectives, the focus of religious and worldview education scholarship on apologetic efforts to defend the continuing relevance and legitimacy of teaching about religions and worldviews in liberal education, as well as in social cohesion and inclusion as the key societal questions to which religious and worldview education should contribute, seems rather outdated. The calls for worldview deconstruction and reconstruction in education systems also imply a chance for religious and worldview education scholars to step from the margins to participate in core education debates. These visions push toward worldview education that does not remain on the margins of instruction under one particular school subject, but is attached to and intertwined with critical analysis and transformation of the worldview basis of public education. However, the different levels of worldview education – from education policy to school culture and classroom instruction in particular subjects – have rarely been analyzed jointly as the constituents of holistic worldview education in school (Rissanen & Poulter, 2023; Zilliacus & Wolff, 2021). In this chapter, we take and promote that kind of broad perspective on religious and worldview education. Above, we presented ideas of the necessity for worldview transformation in and through education as the ground

Worldview Transformation in and through Education 197 for truly effective environmental and climate change education and discussed how these ideas challenge liberal educational thinking. Next, we will continue to elucidate the nexus of religious/worldview education and climate change education by presenting and discussing the links from worldviews to environmental behavior and thinking, as well as the role of values and worldviews in environmental and climate change education. Finally, we will return to the ideas presented at the beginning and discuss enablers of and barriers to worldview transformation in education. Religions, worldviews, and environmental behavior There is a considerable amount of research on the associations between different worldviews and pro- or anti-environmental thinking and attitudes. The questions of the relationship between religion and care for the natural world have been researched for decades. Taylor et al. (2020) identify three typical claims in this literature. First, monotheistic (Abrahamic) religions are claimed to promote anti-environmental behavior and thinking, mostly due to promoting anthropocentric assumptions of the superior value and authority of human beings and their entitlement to dominance in the natural world. The second claim is that the religions of Asian origin may also promote anthropocentricism, and in addition to that, their tendency to view this world as a place of suffering and to search for religious rescue may have negative consequences for their environmental care. The third claim relates to seeing indigenous traditions and spiritualities as more respectful of non-human organisms (Taylor et al., 2020). There is a degree of truth to all these claims, but research also has shown that the truth about the relationship between religion and environmentalism is much more varied and complex. It is not religion or religiosity per se that is associated with pro- or anti-environmentalism, but particular beliefs, values, and attitudes attached to different organized worldviews (Preston & Baimel, 2021; Taylor et al., 2020). Religious fundamentalism, dogmatism, and the rigid thinking styles attached to them predict anti-environmentalism, as do certain beliefs that are more common among religious individuals, such as a belief in a just world in which justice inevitably will prevail, as well as a belief in the approaching apocalypse. Religiosity may also “protect” against environmental concerns since it helps people to cope with distressing facts (Michaels, Hao, Smirnov, & Kulkarni, 2021; Preston & Baimel, 2021; Preston & Shin, 2022). On the other hand, spirituality and stewardship beliefs (seeing taking care of the earth as a God-given responsibility) are associated with pro-environmentalism, and it should also be noted that the involvement of religious organizations and leaders in working toward sustainable development is constantly increasing (Preston & Baimel, 2021; Preston & Shin, 2022; Taylor et al., 2020). In other words, it would be a harsh simplification to make claims about the links between any particular religious tradition and environmentalism. However, there have also been efforts to categorize different worldviews (also

198  Inkeri Rissanen et al. including non-religious worldviews) and to analyze their connection to environmental concern and behavior. de Witt (2015, 2016) categorizes worldviews into traditional, modern, post-modern, and integrative groups. Each worldview group is marked by distinctive epistemological, ontological, axiological, anthropological, and societal visions. Empirical research shows that each of these worldviews has potentials as well as pitfalls with respect to responding to the issue of climate change, but climate concern and sustainable behaviors seem to be more typical among post-moderns and integratives (de Witt, 2015, 2016). Altogether, the literature on the associations between particular worldviews, values, and pro-environmentalism is too vast to be extensively reviewed here, but a brief glimpse suffices to make it clear that it is possible to give educators and educational policy-makers research-based information on what values and worldviews they should promote if they want to support the behaviors needed to save the planet. However, how do climate and environmental educators working in education systems heavily reliant on the liberal educational paradigm understand the worldview and value-laden nature of their work and their own role in shaping the worldviews of their students? Values and worldviews in environmental and climate change education In climate change education, and in the environmental education literature more widely, values and worldviews are considered relevant elements. They form the base on which climate or environmental learning can be made to happen, and to which new information connects (Cantell et al., 2019). Climate change as an existential threat and a signal of the unsustainability of the current lifestyle and culture may raise questions often omitted from learning situations (Selby, 2010). However, research indicates that students are interested in ethical questions related to climate change, also in the context of science education (Tirri, Tolppanen, Aksela, & Kuusisto, 2012). In addition, value-based education was already referred to in the Tbilisi Declaration (UNESCO, 1978) one of the “foundation stones” of environmental education. How, then, do educators treat the value-laden content of environmental education, such as the question of responsibility, in a method that is educational (Jickling, [2005] 2009) and compliant with the liberal educational paradigm? Educators may try to remain neutral but end up revealing their views as elements of the hidden curriculum (Cotton, Winter, & Bailey, 2013). Pluralism, a view that urges the evaluation of different voices in discussions on environmental issues, has been offered as an educational approach that emphasizes democracy, supports free opinion formation, and enhances action competence (Öhman, 2006). To take pluralism seriously, Sund and Öhman (2014) recommend that universal values be seen as part of the education process instead of the aim of it, and they encourage re-politicizing education by allowing the possibility of conflict and making different interests visible. Kopnina and Cherniak (2016), on the other hand, criticize pluralism of anthropocentric views

Worldview Transformation in and through Education 199 and suggest inclusive pluralism, which includes both humans and more-thanhumans inside the circle of equity. Consequently, advocacy for environmental values in the context of education is perilous terrain best approached with openness and passion (Jickling, [2005] 2009; Sund & Öhman, 2014). In an empirical study conducted in Finland, Aarnio-Linnanvuori (2018) found that teaching value-laden environmental content may take subject teachers into an uncomfortable zone. She identified five distinct aspects of teaching environmental responsibility: 1) aiming at neutrality, 2) avoiding controversial issues, 3) normative environmental advocacy, 4) pluralism, and 5) educational advocacy. Teachers expressing an aim for neutrality did not view themselves as value educators but wished to teach only neutral facts. Likewise, some interviewees wished to avoid teaching value-laden themes, especially when the theme was not in their most proficient area. Some considered discussing proenvironmental behavior in everyday lives not to be the responsibility of school, but rather of parents. Some interviewees considered the issue from a normative angle: environmental and sustainable values are embedded to curriculum guidelines; therefore, they ought to be taught. In addition, interviewees expressing pluralist views considered it a teacher’s duty to bring many different opinions and views into value-laden content to endorse critical thinking. At last, interviewees supporting educational advocacy expressed that sustainability-related values can be promoted at school, but the teacher must respect students’ opinions and guarantee them a right to disagree. According to Aarnio-Linnanvuori (2018), confident teachers with an in-depth outlook on education were most likely to adopt the approaches of pluralism or educational advocacy that can be considered pedagogically the most sound. Clearly, there is no one single right method for teaching complex global issues, as the very process of environmental education is complex, holistic, and personal. Each educator has to work to find personally suitable methods for teaching these topics. In climate change education, time ought to be allocated to cross-curricular discussions among the school staff. In addition, teachers need in-service training on these topics, and collective responsibility ought to be promoted over private-sphere responsibility when teaching environmental ethics. As described above, however, many teachers who have been socialized into the paradigm of liberal education wish to remain neutral on value-laden topics and avoid all forms of indoctrination. Yet, how easy or difficult it is to impact students’ worldviews? If stepping out of the realm of liberal neutrality is considered necessary and teachers are encouraged to support worldview transformation in order to enable the development of sustainable lifestyles, what factors would support this? Enablers of and barriers to worldview transformation in education Empirical multidisciplinary research on worldviews and worldview transformation has detected enablers and barriers of worldview development and change. Here, we refer to literature showing that worldview transformation is

200  Inkeri Rissanen et al. more likely to occur among people who understand the changeable, historical, and cultural nature of values, beliefs, and worldviews, and as a result of holistic education in a caring atmosphere. Psychological, sociological, and anthropological research has demonstrated that shared beliefs, values, and attitudes, which often are outside conscious awareness, shape worldviews. Individuals’ understandings of their relationship to the wider social system and to their environment are mostly implicit, since human cognitive and biological processes tend to limit conscious awareness of these things. Furthermore, the human brain is “hard-wired” to disregard information that does not fit into its current (implicit) meaning system and, therefore, to limit transformations in worldview. Thus, when aiming at changes in worldviews, it is necessary to identify and influence the core implicit beliefs that shape individuals’ meaning systems (Plaks, Grant, & Dweck, 2005; Rissanen, Kuusisto, Hanhimäki, & Tirri, 2018; Schlitz, Vieten, & Miller, 2010). It seems that implicit beliefs regarding the fixed versus changeable nature of social reality are particularly significant predictors of change. Retrospective studies by Schlitz et al. (2010) with people who have experienced worldview transformation demonstrate that if a person’s social consciousness and self-awareness are supported by developing an understanding of the cultural, historical, and changeable nature of social systems, even major changes in worldview become possible. The process is bidirectional – the development of social consciousness causes transformations in worldview, which, in turn, stimulate the development of social consciousness (Schlitz et al., 2010). Furthermore, if people’s attention is drawn to “dynamic norms” by giving them evidence of how certain norms (related, for instance, to sustainable lifestyles) change over time, this motivates them to change their own norms as well as their behavior (Sparkman & Walton, 2017). Interventions that focus on teaching about the malleability of the qualities of human groups, with the help of historical examples, have had a powerful and long-lasting impact on the willingness to work toward both personal change and change in the world (Goldenberg, et al., 2017; Goldenberg, Gross, & Halperin, 2021; Rattan & Georgeac, 2017; Rydell, Hugenberg, Ray, & Mackie, 2007). Some smaller case studies also support the idea that perceptions of the constantly changing nature of social reality enable a development toward, for instance, a prosocial worldview. Therefore, students’ awareness of changes in their own beliefs and values can likewise be regarded as key enablers of spiritual, moral, social, and cultural development in worldview education (O’Grady, 2006). Altogether, it seems that perceptions of the malleability of humans, worldviews, and of oneself enable worldview development and change. These perceptions could be supported by evidence-based teaching about malleability as well as self-reflective practices. However, the socio-emotional atmosphere and support for students also play an important role. The prevailing neuroscientific understanding of the synergy of cognitive, emotional, and social development supports the understanding of the importance of holistic education. Ethical

Worldview Transformation in and through Education 201 deliberation and decision-making are secondary to the needs for physical and psychological security and require emotional engagement. Thus, the quality and warmth of the pedagogical relationship also have a significant impact on educating worldviews and values (Mudge, Fleming, & Lovat, 2014; Narvaez, 2008; Schwartz, 2012). Altogether, in addition to the implicit beliefs and the socio-emotional requirements, there certainly are innumerable factors that play a role in enabling worldview transformations. There is a need for empirical research that targets enablers of worldview development and transformations particularly in the context of the climate crisis. Some interesting examples do exist. Canty (2014) researched patterns of people who have experienced the kind of worldview transformation that enables a “shift from a world that is mechanistic, destructive, and egocentric to another that is relational, life affirming, and embedded in the widest understandings of interconnected selves” (Canty, 2014, p. 15). Among the qualities she identified that were common to people willing and able to change their ways of thinking and acting when facing the climate crisis were the factors related to worldviews mentioned earlier in this chapter (e.g., spiritual practice and relationship with the natural world), but also experiences of facing challenges to one’s worldview and an ability to navigate more than one worldview or identity, which enabled the development of a “multicultural self” as a key to facing the ecological crisis in a more resilient and responsive manner (Canty, 2014). Conclusions Recently, scholars of education (e.g., Andreotti et al., 2018; Värri, 2018) have increased their efforts to acknowledge the acute nature of the ecological crisis. They demonstrate how contemporary educational systems reproduce worldviews based on a corrupt relationship to nature and call for a critical evaluation and renewal of the worldview basis of education. The recognition of the need for worldview transformations in a time of climate change challenges the liberal paradigm of (worldview) education. These calls for action are in this chapter read as a call for worldview education scholars to step out of the margins, where a focus on single school subjects has pushed them, and participate in the timely education debates by researching and theorizing holistic worldview education as a multidisciplinary effort. Empirical research has yielded vast knowledge of how particular beliefs, values, and other dimensions of individual and organized worldviews are associated with environmental concern and behavior (Preston & Baimel, 2021; Taylor et al., 2020), but how should this knowledge inform educational policy and practice remains an open and complex question. The pressing problems of humanity seem to push educators to recognize and re-evaluate ideals of liberal educational neutrality. However, more research is needed on the worldview awareness of teachers and other educators that will help to better understand and influence how they recognize and deal with the worldview-laden nature

202  Inkeri Rissanen et al. of environmental and climate education, or what they see as the goal of worldview education in an era of climate change. What kind of worldview transformations should occur and be promoted in contemporary education systems is one topical question that can be discussed from a political and philosophical perspective. However, facts related to whether and how the desired transformations can be supported should be relevant to these discussions. Multidisciplinary empirical research demonstrates that implicit beliefs regarding the changeable, historical, and cultural nature of values and worldviews are the key enablers of individuals’ worldview transformation (Goldenberg et al., 2017, 2021; Schlitz et al., 2010; Sparkman & Walton, 2017; Rattan & Georgeac, 2017; Rydell et al., 2007). These beliefs could be made explicit and supported with evidence of the malleability of humans as individuals and groups. Furthermore, worldview development is most likely to occur in holistic education supporting the development of the person as a whole through warm pedagogical relationships and affording opportunities to practice and negotiate values and norms in different contexts and form multicultural identities (Canty, 2014; Mudge et al., 2014). The complexity of factors influencing the much needed cultural and societal change as well as the educational reforms to support them implies a need for multidisciplinary research. Strengthening collaboration between researchers working in the fields of religious and worldview education, on the one hand, and in the fields of environmental and climate education, on the other, is one important step toward developing worldview conscious and holistic climate change education. Furthermore, psychological and social psychological understanding of the enablers of and barriers to transformation is relevant for the development of effective approaches. The purpose of these suggestions and calls for holistic approaches is not to undermine the importance and value of also developing and researching religious and worldview education as a designated school subject. The research reviewed in this chapter also has many implications for that. For instance, awareness of the links between worldview elements and pro- or anti-environmentalism should be included as an important aspect of critical worldview literacy and might trigger important self-reflective processes. Furthermore, developing an ability to empathize with and navigate between the different ideas of humannature relations or other relevant ontological, epistemological, and anthropological assumptions attached to different wisdom traditions might broaden horizons and feed into the ability to “see otherwise” (Andreotti et al., 2018) or develop “multicultural selves” (Canty, 2014), and, consequently, contribute to worldview transformations. References Aarnio-Linnanvuori, E. (2018). Ympäristö ylittää oppiainerajat: Arvolatautuneisuus ja monialaisuus koulun ympäristöopetuksen haasteina [Environment crosses subject borders: Value-ladenness and interdisciplinarity as challenges for environmental

Worldview Transformation in and through Education 203 education at school]. Doctoral dissertation. Helsinki: Helsingin yliopisto. Retrieved from http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-951-51-3836-1 Andreotti, V. (2015). Global citizenship education otherwise: Pedagogical and theoretical insights. In A. Abdi, L. Shultz, & T. Pillay (Eds.), Decolonizing global citizenship education (pp. 221–230). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Andreotti, V., Stein, S., Sutherland, A., Pashby, K. L., Susa, R., & Amsler, S. (2018). Mobilising different conversations about global justice in education: Toward alternative futures in uncertain times. Policy & Practice: A Development Education Review, 26, 9–41. Barnes, P. (2007). Developing a new post-liberal paradigm for British religious education. Journal of Beliefs and Values, 28(1), 17–32. Cantell, H., Tolppanen, S., Aarnio-Linnanvuori, E., & Lehtonen, A. (2019). Bicycle model on climate change education: Presenting and evaluating a model. Environmental Education Research, 25(5), 717–731. Canty, J. M. (2014). Walking between worlds: Holding multiple worldviews as a key for ecological transformation, International Journal of Transpersonal Studies, 33(4), 15–26. Cotton, D., Winter, J., & Bailey, I. (2013). Researching the hidden curriculum: Intentional and unintended messages. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 37(2), 192–203. Goldenberg, A., Endevelt, K., Ran, S., Dweck, C. S., Gross, J. J., & Halperin, E. (2017). Making intergroup contact more fruitful: Enhancing cooperation between Palestinian and Jewish-Israeli adolescents by fostering beliefs about group malleability. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(1), 3–10. Goldenberg, A., Gross, J. J., & Halperin, E. (2021). The group malleability intervention: Addressing intergroup conflicts by changing perceptions of outgroup malleability. In G. M. Walton, & A. J. Crum (Eds.), Handbook of wise interventions: How social psychology can help people change. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Grimmitt, M. H. (1987). Religious education and human development: The relationship between studying religions and personal, social and moral education. Great Wakening: McCrimmons. Halstead, J. M. (1996). Liberal values and liberal education. In J. M. Halstead, & M. J. Taylor (Eds.), Values in education and education in values (pp. 17–28). London: The Falmer Press. Hull, J. M. (2002). The contribution of religious education to religious freedom: A global perspective. In H. Spinder, J. Taylor, & W. Westerman (Eds.), Committed to Europe’s future: Contributions from education and religious education: A reader (pp. 107–110). Münster: Coordinating Group for Religious Education in Europe (CoGREE) and the Comenius Institute. Jackson, R. (2004). Rethinking religious education and plurality: Issues in diversity and pedagogy. London: Routledge Farmer. Jackson, R., & Everington, J. (2017). Teaching inclusive religious education impartially: An English perspective. British Journal of Religious Education, 39(1), 7–24. Jickling, B. ([2005] 2009). Education and advocacy: A troubling relationship. In E. Johnson, & M. Mappin (Eds.), Environmental education and advocacy changing perspectives of ecology and education (pp. 91–113). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kaukko, M., Kemmis, S., Heikkinen, H. L. T., Kiilakoski, T., & Haswell, N. (2021). Learning to survive amidst nested crises: Can the coronavirus pandemic help us

204  Inkeri Rissanen et al. change educational practices to prepare for the impending eco-crisis? Environmental Education Research, 27(11), 1559–1573. van der Kooij, J. C., de Ruyter, D. J., & Miedema, S. (2015). Can we teach morality without influencing the worldview of students? Journal of Religious Education, 63, 79–93. van der Kooij, J. C., de Ruyter, D., & Miedema, S. (2017). The merits of using “Worldview” in religious education. Religious Education, 112(2), 172–184. Kopnina, H., & Cherniak, B. (2016). Neoliberalism and justice in education for sustainable development: A call for inclusive pluralism. Environmental Education Research, 22(6), 827–841. Laininen, E. (2019). Transforming our worldview towards a sustainable future. In J. Cook (Ed.), Sustainability, human well-being, and the future of education (pp. 161–200). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. Michaels, J. L., Hao, F., Smirnov, J., & Kulkarni, I. (2021). Beyond stewardship and dominion? Towards a social psychological explanation of the relationship between religious attitudes and environmental concern. Environmental Politics, 3(4), 622–643. Monroe, M. C., Plate, R. R., Oxarart, A., Bowers, A., & Chaves, W. A. (2019). Identifying effective climate change education strategies: A systematic review of the research. Environmental Education Research, 25(6), 791–812. Moulin, D. (2009). A too liberal religious education? A thought experiment for teachers and theorists. British Journal of Religious Education, 31(2), 153–165. Mudge, P., Fleming, D., & Lovat, T. (2014). The potential impact of the neurosciences on religious and spiritual education: Ramifying from the impact on values education. Journal of Beliefs & Values, 35(2), 144–154. Narvaez, D. (2008). Human flourishing and moral development: Cognitive and neurobiological perspectives of virtue development. In L. P. Nucci, & D. Narvaez (Eds.), Handbook of moral and character education (pp. 310–327). New York, NY: Routledge. Öhman, J. (2006). Pluralism and criticism in environmental education and education for sustainable development: A practical understanding. Environmental Education Research, 12(2), 149–163. O’Grady, K. (2006). The development of beliefs and values in early adolescence: a case study through religious education pedagogy. International Journal of Children’s Spirituality, 11(3), 315–327. Plaks, J. E., Grant, H., & Dweck, C. S. (2005). Violations of implicit theories and the sense of prediction and control: Implications for motivated person perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 245–262. Poulter, S., Riitaoja, A.-L., & Kuusisto, A. (2015). Thinking multicultural education ‘Otherwise’– from a secularist construction towards a plurality of epistemologies and worldviews. Globalization, Societies, Education, 14(1), 68–86. Preston, J., & Baimel, A. (2021). Towards a psychology of religion and the environment. Current Opinion in Psychology, 40, 145–149. Preston, J. L., & Shin, F. (2022) Opposing effects of spirituality and religious fundamentalism on environmental attitudes, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2022.101772 Rattan, A., & Georgeac, O. A. M. (2017). Understanding intergroup relations through the lens of implicit theories (mindsets) of malleability. Social & Personality Psychology Compass, 11(4), e12305.

Worldview Transformation in and through Education 205 Reid, A. (2019). Climate change education and research: Possibilities and potentials versus problems and perils? Environmental Education Research, 25(6), 767–790. Revell, L. (2012). Islam and education: The manipulation and misrepresentation of a religion. Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books. Rissanen, I., Kuusisto, E., Hanhimäki, E., & Tirri, K. (2018). The implications of teachers’ implicit theories for moral education: A case study from Finland. Journal of Moral Education, 47, 63–77. Rissanen, I., & Poulter, S. (2023). Religions and worldviews as “the problem” in Finnish schools. In M. Thrupp, P. Seppänen, J. Kauko, & S. Kosunen (Eds.), Finland’s famous education system - Unvarnished insights into Finnish schooling Berlin: Springer Rydell, R. J., Hugenberg, K., Ray, D., & Mackie, D. M. (2007). Implicit theories about groups and stereotyping: The role of group entitativity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(4), 549–558. Schlitz, M. M., Vieten, C., & Miller, E. M. (2010). Worldview transformation and the development of social consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 17(7–8), 18–36. Schwartz, S. H. (2012). Values and religion in adolescent development: Cross-national and comparative evidence. In Values, religion, and culture in adolescent development (pp. 97–122). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Selby, D. (2010). ‘Go, go, go, said the bird’: Sustainability-related education in interesting times. In F. Kagawa, & D. Selby (Eds.), Education and climate change: Living and learning in interesting times (pp. 35–54). New York, NY: Routledge. Sparkman, G., & Walton, G. M. (2017). Dynamic norms promote sustainable behavior, even if it is counternormative. Psychological science, 28(11), 1663–1674. Sund, L., & Öhman, J. (2014). On the need to repoliticise environmental and sustainability education: Rethinking the postpolitical consensus. Environmental Education Research, 20(5), 639–659. Taylor, B., Wright, J., & LeVasseur, T. (2020). Dark green humility: Religious, psychological, and affective attributes of proenvironmental behaviors. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 10, 41–56. Teece, G. M. (2010). Is it learning about and from religion, religions or religious education? And is it any wonder some teachers don’t get it? British Journal of Religious Education, 32(2), 93–103. Tirri, K., Tolppanen, S., Aksela, M., & Kuusisto, E. (2012). A cross-cultural study of gifted Students’ scientific, societal and moral questions concerning science. Education Research International, 2012, 673645. Toh, S. H., & Cawagas, V. F. (2010). Transforming the ecological crisis: Challenges for faith and interfaith education in interesting times. In F. Kagawa, & D. Selby (Eds.), Education and climate change: Living and learning in interesting times (pp. 175–196). New York, NY: Routledge. UNESCO (1978). The Tbilisi Declaration. Connect. UNESCO-UNEP Environmental Education Newsletter. Vol. III, No. 1. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco. org/images/0015/001563/156393eb.pdf UNESCO (2021). Learn for our planet: A global review of how environmental issues are integrated in education. UNESCO. Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ ark:/48223/pf0000377362 Van Egmond, N. D., & Vries, D. (2011). Sustainability: The search for the integral worldview. Futures, 43(8), 853–867.

206  Inkeri Rissanen et al. Värri, V.-M. (2018). Kasvatus ekokriisin aikakaudella [Education at a time of ecocrisis]. Tampere: Vastapaino. de Witt, A. (2015). Climate change and the clash of worldviews: An exploration of how to move forward in a polarized debate. Zygon, 50, 906–921. de Witt, A., de Boer, J., Hedlund, N., & Osseweijer, P. (2016). A new tool to map the major worldviews in the Netherlands and USA, and explore how they relate to climate change. Environmental Science & Policy, 63, 101–112. Wright, A. (2004). Religion, education and post-modernity. London: Routledge Falmer. Zilliacus, H., & Wolff, L. (2021). Climate change and worldview transformation in Finnish education policy. In P. William (Ed.), Oxford Research encyclopedia of education. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/ acrefore/9780190264093.013.1676

15 Teaching Climate Issues in Finnish Upper Secondary School Science Subjects Jari Lavonen and Kalle Juuti

Introduction The global mean temperature has increased by about 1°C in the last 150 years (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2021). This warming affects the whole climate system, leading to, for example, changes in the distribution of precipitation, including drought and storms, a rise in the global sea level and a decrease in the total amount of ice and snow. This phenomenon is called global climate change. The recent rise in the global mean temperature is due to an increase in greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide and methane, in the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases are capable of trapping solar radiation energy within the atmosphere as the energy flux from the sun is larger than the flux leaving the Earth. The increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is a consequence of human activities in the industrial era, such as the burning of fossil fuels used to produce energy, logging, agriculture and the production of raw materials such as steel and concrete. According to climate projections by climate models, that is, computer programs simulating the climate system, global climate change will continue throughout this century, and the higher the greenhouse gas emissions, the greater the effects will be. Climate education aims to support students in understanding the causes and consequences of this ongoing climate change and thereby in understanding both urgent and long-term needs for climate change mitigation and adaptation. Science and technology knowledge is not enough to mitigate or adapt to climate change; a change in value orientations is needed, e.g. how the world and the benefits it offers are understood (Zilliacus & Wolff, 2021). Therefore, the old scientific worldview, which emphasises ‘thinking and acting like natural scientists’ (Solomon & Aikenhead, 1994; Yager, 1996), is no longer enough as a view to climate education. In particular, societal values as part of the worldview and thinking and acting responsibly become more important. Mitigation of climate change is one of the great global challenges, alongside biodiversity loss, global pandemics and shortages of fresh water and food, with no simple solutions (Incropera, 2015). Climate change shapes the environment and future, and thus policymakers seek to prevent undesirable changes DOI: 10.4324/9781003265696-18

208  Jari Lavonen and Kalle Juuti through environmental and education policies (United Nations, 2015). In policy documents, sustainability has been integrated as one of the leading principles and has also been adopted in the Finnish national-level core curriculum for secondary education (EDUFI, 2019). However, it is not clear how to implement the above aims in teaching practices. According to Deng (2020), several problems must be solved while planning to teach these policies. He asked, ‘How would content [that relates to the climate issues in our case] be interpreted and transformed in ways that allow content to open manifold opportunities for the cultivation of human capabilities or powers (abilities, dispositions, ways of thinking, understanding worlds) for all students?’ (Deng, 2020, p. 32). Thus, teaching climate issues requires consideration of how students’ value system and societal values as part of this worldview can be cultivated (cf. van Egmond & De Vries, 2011). Climate education has been considered a massive challenge (Hinesjeffrey, McCartneyand, & Wible, 2013). While the physical basics for global warming are rather simple, the mitigation of climate change requires an understanding of climate change as a multidisciplinary phenomenon in which, in addition to the aspects of the natural sciences, the perspectives of the social sciences, engineering, economics and education must be considered. This approach requires individuals to have a wide range of competences, such as creative and critical thinking and socio-emotional skills, and they also must value climate change mitigation and a sustainable way of living (Hestness, McGinnis, & Breslyn, 2015). This chapter aims to introduce how project-based learning (PBL) could be used at the upper secondary level to support students in achieving curriculum aims related to climate change and its mitigation. Furthermore, we discuss the potential of PBL on climate change in supporting students in constructing a broad worldview, which includes societal values and emphasises thinking and acting responsibly for society and the environment. Climate education as a global challenge Climate change and its mitigation are interdisciplinary phenomena, and their understanding requires knowledge of science, technology, economics, social science and psychology as well as related skills and values. For example, reducing the amount of carbon dioxide in energy production and in the manufacturing of products requires an understanding of issues related to society and the economy, in addition to science and technological knowledge. Moreover, associated values in this field relate to, for example, the environment, sustainability and global justice. In addition to individual decisions, national-level decisions on measures such as legislation and taxation are needed. Even though such decisions are knowledge based, values and worldviews are the central drivers of the decisions. The importance of teaching climate change and its mitigation is emphasised in curriculum documents (e.g. EDUFI, 2019). However, these topics

Teaching Climate Issues in Finnish Upper Secondary School 209 are challenging to teach and learn. The climate change issues are not necessarily engaging for young people because of their interdisciplinary, multifaceted, complex and scary nature. A special challenge is that the teaching of climate change typically aims to influence students’ behaviours and values. Therefore, the teaching of climate change and its mitigation requires reformed pedagogical approaches and improved education methods (Hestness et al., 2015). Pedagogy that supports students’ own construction of knowledge and worldviews is needed. Stratton, Hagevik, Feldman, and Bloom (2015) recognised two teacherrelated challenges in climate education. First, in many countries, there is a lack of competent science teachers, especially those with qualifications in physics. Second, science teachers lack knowledge related to climate change and the necessary associated pedagogical competences, especially knowledge related to the teaching and learning of values and ethics in the context of climate change and its mitigation. In addition to teacher competence-related challenges, Favier, Van Gorp, Cyvin, and Cyvin (2021) listed several curriculumand school practice-related climate education challenges. They argue that there is no common understanding of what should be focused in climate education because of its multidisciplinary nature. Therefore, climate education also requires interdisciplinary approaches. Consequently, attempts to enhance climate education can lead to broader educational change, for example, towards cross-curricular education, such as science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education, and enquiry-based pedagogical approaches, the diffusion of technologies in classrooms and stronger connections between education and local stakeholders. Although the problems associated with climate change and climate education can be daunting, descriptions of the challenges related to the teaching and learning of climate change and different research-based pedagogical approaches to climate education have been developed. For example, Stratton et al. (2015) introduced seven themes with regard to making progress in climate education. To achieve such progress, bridges should be created between the systems of the built, natural, economic and political worlds, all within the contexts of distinct societies and cultures. They proposed a multidisciplinary approach that considered district-based approaches, needs and assessment criteria. Science teaching should connect and build natural environments and provide a new epistemic and pedagogical approach aligned with sustainability goals. Based on an extensive literature review, Cantell, Tolppanen, AarnioLinnanvuori, and Lehtonen (2019) developed a climate education ‘bicycle model’ metaphor. Their bicycle metaphor emphasised the importance of the following aspects in climate education: climate-related knowledge, thinking skills, values, identity, worldview, action, motivation, participation, future orientation, hope and other emotions and operational barriers metaphorically connected to the parts of a bicycle. According to a systematic review of articles in the EBSCOhost database, Monroe, Plate, Oxarart, Bowers, and Chaves (2019) identified two effective

210  Jari Lavonen and Kalle Juuti general approaches to climate education. The first approach focuses on personally relevant and meaningful information, while the second approach focuses on using active and engaging pedagogical approaches. Effective pedagogical approaches engage students in deliberative discussions, guide students to interact with scientists, address climate change-related misconceptions and guide students in PBL within the classroom and also at the school and community levels. Rousell and Cutter-Mackenzie-Knowles (2020) called for new forms of climate education that directly involved young people in responding to the scientific, social, ethical and political complexities of climate change. PBL could be such a new form of teaching. PBL guides students to ask relevant questions related to the complex phenomenon, to critically search for information according to those questions and then analyse and present the information such that it can be applied in different situations. Jorgenson, Stephens, and White (2019) recommended, based on their systematic review, that environmental educators and researchers work together to develop and adopt innovations that save energy and raw materials. Here, too, PBL can serve as a pedagogical frame. In this case, the starting point for working and learning is a challenge or problem, which is addressed by finding ideas, making prototypes and evaluating these ideas and prototypes. The end result of this work is knowledge or a new way of working to solve environmental problems. Climate education in the upper secondary school curriculum Even though the term climate change is mentioned only a few times in the Finnish upper secondary school curriculum (Zilliacus & Wolff, 2021), it connects the importance of mitigating climate change in line with the schools’ value system: ‘… the need for a sustainable lifestyle and building of a knowledge base for an economy that promotes the environment and the well-being of its citizens’ (FINEDU, 2019). The upper secondary school curriculum emphasises, in its general part, the importance of students’ global responsibility in the sustainable use of natural resources and in the mitigation of climate change. This can be interpreted that national-level curriculum documents imply that teaching should cultivate students’ worldviews valuing climate change mitigation. Furthermore, upper secondary education encourages responsible empowerment as well as international cooperation and global citizenship in line with the UN Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development (FINEDU, 2019; United Nations, 2015). Climate change and its mitigation are also emphasised as part of transversal competence descriptions in the upper secondary curriculum (FINEDU, 2019), and ‘Ethics and Environmental Competence’ is one of the transversal competence aims. According to the competence’s description, students should evaluate and plan their activities from the point of view of ethics and responsibility, and they should learn the basics of the ecological, economic, social and cultural dimensions of sustainable living and their interdependencies.

Teaching Climate Issues in Finnish Upper Secondary School 211 Moreover, students should understand or become aware of the importance of the sustainable use of natural resources and the basics of globalisation and how it affects the ability of people living in different circumstances to lead a sustainable lifestyle, in line with the goals of the UN Agenda 2030 (United Nations, 2015). Moreover, students should reflect on and strengthen their own contributions and the necessary partnerships for a sustainable future. Climate education is also emphasised as part of ‘Interaction Competence’, ‘Interdisciplinary and Creative Competences’ and ‘Global and Cultural Competence’ descriptions. In line with the ‘value base’, general aims and aims for transversal competences in the curriculum (FINEDU, 2019), different school subjects highlight the importance of learning climate competences, including those needed for the mitigation of climate change. Students should become familiar with climate-related knowledge and skills, such as the following:

• Man-made ecosystem changes and solutions to environmental problems (Biology, p. 238)

• Changes in the environment and their solutions: mechanisms of climate

change and the reasons for and consequences of climate change (Geography, p. 245) • The impact of energy production on the environment and climate change (Physics, p. 253) • The solutions offered by chemistry to various environmental challenges, such as climate change and the adequacy of natural resources (Chemistry, p. 260) • Ethical issues related to the environment and nature (Philosophy, p. 271) • World-changing developmental processes, such as the new media environment, technological development and climate change (Civics, p. 322) Teaching climate education through PBL PBL has its origins in John Dewey’s experiments in his laboratory school in Chicago (Mayhew & Edwards, 1965), and it has been suggested as one of the pedagogical approaches for climate education (Jorgenson et al., 2019; Monroe et al., 2019; Rousell & Cutter-Mackenzie-Knowles, 2020). In PBL, 1) students create concrete project outcomes, 2) aims and objectives of the project are directly related to the disciplinary curriculum, 3) students answer the driving question that represents the project aim, 4) students are guided in active knowledge processing, 5) students work in collaboration, 6) students apply digital tools and 7) students work with artefacts. Students are directed to participate in problem-centred and meaningful learning that continues over several lessons, that is, a project that helps students integrate knowledge with their previous knowledge while working in a small group. The project aims for concrete output, which can be, for example, a report, a video, a poster or a presentation created with educational

212  Jari Lavonen and Kalle Juuti technology (Blumenfeld, Fishman, Krajcik, Marx, & Soloway, 2000; Krajcik & Shin, 2015). PBL should focus on questions that students also find meaningful (Krajcik & Shin, 2015). Therefore, PBL has the potential to cultivate an integrative worldview where students have possibilities, for example, to reflect and consider existential concerns alongside scientific principles (de Witt, 2015) and interconnect modern thinking dichotomies such as reason and emotion (Lehtonen, Salonen, Cantell, & Ruittanen, 2018). In what follows, we present a lesson vignette related to the sustainability and climate theme, which proceeds according to the principles of PBL. After the lesson vignette, we reflect on the possibilities of PBL in implementing climate education in upper secondary school science. PBL lesson vignette

The teacher begins the lesson by introducing the topic: ‘During the next five lessons, we will look at issues related to energy, energy resources and climate. In practice, we will look up information on the internet as part of PBL’. The teacher shows pictures and/or headlines in newspapers about a drought and its increase, as well as rains/storms and their increase. The teacher asks the students what they observed in the pictures. A student replies, ‘Rainfall and drought are increasing at the same time on Earth’. The teacher says that the aim of the next five lessons will be to find out why storms, heavy rainfall and drought are increasing on Earth at the same time and how these phenomena are related to climate changes. Moreover, the teacher explains that they will analyse how they can mitigate climate change and that the driving question of the next five lessons is: ‘What can I do to mitigate climate change?’ [It could also be ‘How can I prevent climate change/help achieve the carbon neutrality target?’] The teacher directs students to form groups of three to four and asks them to draw up questions in an online learning environment that can be used to acquire knowledge about the phenomenon and get an answer to the driving question. [In this case, the lesson is organised through Zoom or Teams, and the students are directed to breakout rooms.] The teacher asks the students to consider what kind of additional information they need to answer the driving question and asks questions to help the students orient themselves in their questioning:

• What do you already know about the topic? • What do you want to find out by studying the phenomenon? In what way

should the question you ask be changed to make it clear to everyone what phenomenon you are going to investigate? • Based on the question, is it clear what kind of knowledge you are seeking and where you intend to acquire it? • What are you seeking to learn as you figure it out? The students begin to pose questions in small groups, and the teacher guides the students’ work. The teacher discusses the students’ questions with them and asks them the above questions.

Teaching Climate Issues in Finnish Upper Secondary School 213 The students elaborate on questions related to climate change (e.g. What kinds of activities could mitigate climate change? What are the consequences of climate change? Why should we, here in the North, worry about climate change?). When the teacher finds that each group has written questions for an online learning environment, he or she announces that they will continue to the next phase. The teacher first asks the students to categorise the questions in an e-learning environment in a meaningful way. The teacher says, ‘Once you have categorised the questions, present them to the other groups and discuss the classifications of each group. Draw up a common classification that you will present to the others’. The teacher asks the students to select questions that can be used to search for an answer to the driving question. The teacher shows the instructions on a PowerPoint slide as follows: 1 Classify the questions you have prepared in a meaningful way (5–8 min). 2 Get together with one of the other groups and present your classifications to each other (5–8 min). 3 Compare classifications and draw up a common classification (5 min). 4 Present your own classification, namely, the grading criterion, and a few examples of each classification to the other students. The groups present to the whole class a classification criterion and examples of questions and justify why the questions are fitting for the phenomenon under consideration or move the process forward. For example, the questions are clustered into the following groups:

• What does climate change mean? • What is its consequence or cause? • What kind of examples/consequences are associated with climate change, and how can they be reduced?

• What methods can be used to mitigate or prevent climate change? • What kind of ethical considerations and values are related to climate change? The teacher next states, ‘We will start researching climate change based on questions. First, we’ll select a question/questions that will help us to clarify the reasons behind climate change. Later, we will look at other issues, such as how to mitigate climate change’. The teacher continues, ‘Let’s agree on the way the data will be researched and reported. The report can be, for example, a written report, a video or a PowerPoint presentation’. There are separate instructions for the project output. The students begin to acquire knowledge in line with the questions. The teacher follows and guides the acquisition and processing of knowledge. The teacher guides the students through appropriate questions, asking questions such as the following:

• What is your research question? Have you acted in a way that led you to the answer to the question?

• What kind of search words are you planning to use on the internet? Do they lead you to answer the question you asked? Why? Why not?

214  Jari Lavonen and Kalle Juuti

• What kind of model have you created for the greenhouse effect? What is its rep-

resentation like? How could this model be used for explaining climate change?

• Why did you end up with this representation? Could there have been other possible representations?

At the beginning of the next lesson, each group presents their results to another group in the class. After the presentations, a class discussion is held with the aim of concluding the students’ outcomes. Reflection on the possibilities of PBL to implement climate education that supports students’ worldview construction

PBL is characterised by the same features that are characteristic of working life projects. The project has aims and stages and ends with a concrete outcome, which can be, for example, a report, a video or a presentation. PBL cannot be defined by presenting a simple description of its progress as the PBL model is flexible. PBL is defined by its characteristics. The first characteristics are those of any given project, such as aims, stages and concrete outcomes (Krajcik & Shin, 2015). PBL design is based on the aims and objectives described in the curriculum. This second characteristic of PBL is covered in more depth in the Discussion section. Before the PBL activity, students should have a basic understanding of the concepts of energy and substances, such as the principle of energy conservation, and there are energies of different types, including internal energy (associated with internal structure and temperature), the energy associated with light and the transformation of energy in everyday processes, such as in the production of materials and artefacts, and issues related to large-scale energy production. The topics below are studied as part of PBL: • The concept of energy, what energy is and the first law of thermodynamics • The principle of energy conservation, energy types, power and the second law of thermodynamics • Large-scale energy production in various power plants, small-scale energy production and energy resources • The indirect and direct use of energy, the conservation of energy/energy resources and raw materials and recycling from the perspectives of the first and second laws of thermodynamics • Individual and society-related energy issues and ethics and values related to the production and use of energy • The greenhouse effect and how it is related to climate change The driving question guides PBL. It expresses the overall aim of learning. It gives students hints about the core ideas and practices that they will be working on during the learning period. The driving question contextualises learning and shows the orientation or focus related to the phenomena under study. The driving question guides students in learning about climate change and its

Teaching Climate Issues in Finnish Upper Secondary School 215 mitigation. It guides them, for example, to study the impact that a person’s choices can have on achieving carbon neutrality goals. It guides them to pay attention to heating, air conditioning, preparing and storing food, moving, etc. Asking a relevant driving question leads students to pose questions and design their studies. As mentioned, the driving question contextualises their learning. The driving question is thus the third key feature of PBL since the question constitutes an anchoring element through which students study the phenomenon. The driving question guides students to explore, leads them to ask additional questions and connects the lessons to each other. Fourth, students are active in learning. This feature of PBL involves the idea that students’ previous knowledge and experiences of the field of the phenomenon under consideration are featured in their learning. They come up, for example, when students formulate research questions, make observations or internet searches and compile summaries. All of these activities are guided by the students’ prior knowledge and values. It is crucial that the teacher elicits students’ previous knowledge for review and offers possibilities for students to reflect on existential concerns and modern thinking dichotomies while constructing the outcomes (cf. de Witt, 2015; Lehtonen et al., 2018). After all, it is well known that many of the beliefs of students are partly contradictory to the principles held by science. Moreover, this feature of PBL involves the idea that students actively process information and knowledge and reflect on their values through reading, making observations, discussing and creating artefacts. In PBL, students are active knowledge builders. Their activity also includes reflection on their own learning. Students are guided to analyse what they have learned in the direction of the driving question and what still needs to be learned. Reflection is a general concept for those cognitive and affective functions by which an individual seeks to elucidate their experiences to construct knowledge or find new perspectives. With reflection, students make their thinking and learning visible to themselves and others. It is an exploration and awareness of the basics of one’s thinking and action – first-hand insight. The reflexive process involves recalling experiences to the mind and recounting or telling others. During PBL, students use artefacts to present their own and group thinking and activities within and between groups. As the teacher tours the class, they ask students what they have done up to that point and what they plan to do next. The questions are meant to support student reflection. The teacher’s questioning helps students become aware of their own actions and develop their actions based on their own reflections and feedback. Consequently, the students are also able to apply their previous experience in new situations. Fifth, students actively interact and collaborate during PBL. Students construct knowledge based on their previous understandings and experiences by interacting with other students, such as by asking questions, exchanging ideas, complementing the views of others, justifying their own views, linking concepts to other concepts and talking aloud about observations or conclusions.

216  Jari Lavonen and Kalle Juuti This interaction between students is similar to reflecting on different perspectives and testing claims or developing solutions based on information and data, which is part of the work of scientists and engineers. Furthermore, this collaboration and shared knowledge building enable students to reflect on and understand different societal values and make connections between them. The sixth principle is that different learning tools are integrated into the learning, such as digital tools, which can acquire and process different information, datasets and models or simulate phenomena. This information can be represented and processed in a variety of ways. Macro and micro models explaining phenomena can be illustrated, and their dynamics can be elucidated through various simulations. An online learning environment or a common online document is suitable for taking notes and sketching patterns of phenomena and sharing information. Seventh, working with concrete artefacts, texts, videos or patterns is integrated into PBL. Such artefacts include, for example, a list of possible research questions or a representation of a model describing the phenomenon under consideration. The purpose of producing artefacts is to inspire students to engage in processes similar to those that researchers are excited about when conducting research. Interacting with artefacts is a common thing conducive to learning and is emphasised in learning models that highlight situational learning. According to these models, learning occurs through interaction with social and cultural contexts and artefacts and participation in activities to create and invent such artefacts (Hakkarainen & Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, 2022). Such models complement models of learning, which state that learning is a cognitive process within the mind. Artefacts also help the teacher evaluate students’ learning process and progress as they make the students’ thinking visible. It is central to PBL that students’ learning should be supported (scaffolded) to enable them to participate in activities in the proximal zone. In the example above, there are several situations in which the teacher guides the learning. For example, in situations that the teacher knows to be challenging for students, they will provide instructions using a PowerPoint slide. The teacher’s guidance entails questioning and supporting students’ reflective thinking. The teacher instructs students to look at a phenomenon or matter being studied from different angles by raising the following questions: What is the information or data you are aiming to use while you conclude? What are you claiming? What do you find important? What kind of evidence would you need to convince others? What is your argument, and how does your evidence support it? Discussion Climate change as such and the pedagogy needed in teaching and learning have been recognised as global challenges. We suggest that PBL could be an appropriate pedagogical approach supportive of the learning of the scientific and societal value-related issues of climate change and its mitigation. PBL

Teaching Climate Issues in Finnish Upper Secondary School 217 could bring together the dichotomies of Western thinking, and therefore it is a plausible approach to support students’ worldview construction. We started this chapter by introducing the aims of and challenges to climate education. We argued that PBL is one of the possible pedagogical approaches that could support upper secondary level students in learning the basics related to climate change and its mitigation, especially the science behind the phenomena and the value-related aspects associated with mitigation. Students should learn to think and act responsibly for society and the environment. We then introduced a lesson vignette as part of a PBL unit and described the pedagogical characteristics of PBL. In the upper secondary school curriculum, the importance of understanding and mitigating climate change is described in the section referred to as the school’s value system. Therefore, climate change and its mitigation are important topics in upper secondary education. They are also analysed in detail in connection with the description of transversal competences: The students evaluate and plan their activities from the starting points of ethics and responsibility. They learn the basics of the ecological, economic, social and cultural dimensions of a sustainable lifestyle and their interdependencies. The students understand why human activity must be adapted to the carrying capacity of natural environments and limited natural resources and their sustainable use. (FINEDU, 2019, translation by the authors) The promotion of sustainable development and climate education is highlighted in the objectives of the subjects, for example, as follows: ‘Environmental changes and their solutions: mechanisms of climate change and the causes and consequences of the current climate change’, ‘the effect of energy production on the environment and climate change’ and ‘The student recognises the solutions offered by chemistry to various environmental challenges, such as climate change and the sufficiency of natural resources’. Overall, the topics of climate education and its mitigation hold great importance in the curriculum and are emphasised in its value system. In the general part of the curriculum, learning is described as taking place in PBL. According to the curriculum, learning is the result of the student’s active and goal-oriented activities. This statement is related to the characteristic features of PBL, according to which the starting point is the goals of the curriculum and the student’s activity in the construction of knowledge. The fact that, in the description of the curriculum, learning takes place in interaction with other students, teachers, experts and communities in different environments is connected to the interactivity and cooperation of project learning. According to the curriculum, while learning, the student interprets, analyses and evaluates material, information or knowledge presented in different formats based on previous experiences and knowledge. In addition, the student develops solutions and creates new types of entities, combining knowledge and skills in

218  Jari Lavonen and Kalle Juuti a new way. This kind of active use of knowledge practices is connected to the feature of project learning, which emphasises the use of knowledge practices. In the learning concept description, the connection between reflectivity and the use of products in learning is also brought up. Moreover, the curriculum’s description of learning environments and teaching, guidance and teaching methods is very close to the features of PBL. According to the curriculum, the learning environment supports interaction and working together. Moreover, digital environments and programs are used as part of the learning environment in a manner characteristic of the subject for acquiring, processing and evaluating information as well as producing and sharing it. There is a consensus that the teaching of climate change issues and its mitigation presents a grand challenge in education (Hinesjeffrey et al., 2013). The national-level core curriculum has the mitigation of climate change as part of its value system. In this chapter, we propose PBL as a potential approach to consider the curriculum’s value system and implement climate education in upper secondary school science subjects to support students’ worldview construction. There is a need for educational design-based projects to better understand students’ learning about climate change and how they can be best prepared to mitigate it (Juuti, Toom, & Kallioniemi, 2012). Acknowledgements We thank the Erasmus+ project ‘Schools Educating for Sustainability: Proposals for and from In-Service Teacher Education’ for supporting the development of sustainable education in science. The study was supported by grants from the Strategic Research Council, Academy of Finland (345264, EduRescue; 312527, Growing Mind; 1340794, Clim Comp) and European Commission/H2020 (952470, SciCar; 4120113, Climademy). References Blumenfeld, P., Fishman, B. J., Krajcik, J., Marx, R. W., & Soloway, E. (2000). Creating usable innovations in systemic reform: Scaling up technology-embedded projectbased science in urban schools. Educational Psychologist, 35, 149–164. https://doi. org/10.1207/S15326985EP3503_2 Cantell, H., Tolppanen, S., Aarnio-Linnanvuori, E., & Lehtonen, A. (2019). Bicycle model on climate education: Presenting and evaluating a model. Environmental Education Research, 25(5), 717–731. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2019. 1570487 de Witt, A. (2015). Climate change and the clash of worldviews: An exploration of how to move forward in a polarized debate. Zygon, 50, 906–921. https://doi. org/10.1111/zygo.12226 Deng, Z. (2020). Knowledge, content, curriculum and didaktik: Beyond social realism. New York, NY: Routledge. EDUFI (2019). The national core curriculum for upper secondary education. Finnis National Agency for Education. Finnish National Agency for Education (EDUFI).

Teaching Climate Issues in Finnish Upper Secondary School 219 Retrieved from https://www.oph.fi/sites/default/files/documents/lukion_ope tussuunnitelman_perusteet_2019.pdf Favier, T., Van Gorp, B., Cyvin, J. B., & Cyvin, J. (2021). Learning to teach climate change: Students in teacher training and their progression in pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 45(4), 594–620. https:// doi.org/10.1080/03098265.2021.1900080 Hakkarainen, K., & Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P. (2022). Learning by inventing: Theoretical foundations. In T. Korhonen, K. Kangas, & L. Salo (Eds.), Invention pedagogy – The Finnish approach to maker education. New York, NY: Routledge. Hestness, E., McGinnis, J. R., & Breslyn, W. (2015). Integrating sustainability into science teacher education through a focus on climate change. In S. K. Stratton, R. Hagevik, A. Feldman, & M. Bloom (Eds.), Educating science teachers for sustainability (pp. 143–162). Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16411-3_9 FINEDU (2019). Lukion opetussuunnitelman perusteet 2019 [National core curriculum for general upper secondary education 2019]. Helsinki: Finnish National Agency for Education (FINEDU). Retrieved from https://verkkokauppa.oph.fi/EN/page/product/ national-core-curriculum-for-general-upper-secondary-education-2019/2763815 Hinesjeffrey, P. J., McCartneyand, M., & Wible, B. (2013). Plenty of challenges for all. Science, 340(6130), 290–291. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.340.6130.290 Incropera, F. P. (2015). Climate change: A wicked problem – Complexity and uncertainly at the intersection of science, economics, politics and human behaviour. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2021). Climate change 2021: The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Retrieved from https://www. ipcc.ch Jorgenson, S. N., Stephens, J. C., & White, B. (2019). Environmental education in transition: A critical review of recent research on climate change and energy education. The Journal of Environmental Education, 50(3), 160–171. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/00958964.2019.1604478 Juuti, K., Toom, A., & Kallioniemi, A. (2012). Näkökulmia kehittyvään ainedidaktiseen tutkimukseen [Perspectives on developing subject didactic research]. In A. Kallioniemi & A. Virta (Eds.), Ainedidaktiikka tutkimuskohteena ja tiedonalana [Subject didactics as a research area and field of knowledge] (pp. 53–73) (Kasvatusalan tutkimuksia; No. 60). Suomen kasvatustieteellinen seura. Krajcik, J., & Shin, N. (2015). Project-based learning. In R. Keith Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed., pp. 275–297). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/45540/ frontmatter/9780521845540_frontmatter.pdf Lehtonen, A., Salonen, A., Cantell, H., & Ruittanen, L. (2018). A pedagogy of interconnectedness for encountering climate change as a wicked sustainability problem. Journal of Cleaner Production, 199, 860–867. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2018.07.186 Mayhew, K. C., & Edwards, A. C. (1965). The Dewey School – The laboratory School of the University of Chicago 1896–1903. New York, NY: Routledge. Monroe, M. C., Plate, R. R., Oxarart, A., Bowers, A., & Chaves, W. A. (2019). Identifying effective climate education strategies: A systematic review of the research. Environmental Education Research, 25(6), 791–812. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13504622.2017.1360842

220  Jari Lavonen and Kalle Juuti Rousell, D., & Cutter-Mackenzie-Knowles, A. (2020). A systematic review of climate education: Giving children and young people a ‘voice’ and a ‘hand’ in redressing climate change. Children’s Geographies, 18(2), 191–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 14733285.2019.1614532 Solomon, J., & Aikenhead, G. S. (Eds.). (1994). STS education: International perspectives on reform. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Stratton, S. K., Hagevik, R., Feldman, A., & Bloom, M. (2015). Toward a sustainable future: The practice of science teacher education for sustainability. In S. Stratton, R. Hagevik, A. Feldman, & M. Bloom (Eds.), Educating science teachers for sustainability. Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16411-3_23 United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The agenda 2030 for sustainable development. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/ migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_RES_70_1_E.pdf van Egmond, N. D., & De Vries, H. J. M. (2011). Sustainability: The search for the integral worldview. Futures, 43(8), 853–867. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures. 2011.05.027 Yager, R. E. (Ed.) (1996). Science/technology/society as reform in science education. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Zilliacus, H., & Wolff, L. (2021). Climate change and worldview transformation in Finnish education policy. In Oxford Research encyclopedia of education. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.1676

16 Religion, Worldviews, and Integrated Instruction How Do Finnish Class Teachers Define the Purpose of Religious Education and Ethics? Kaisa Viinikka, Tuuli Lipiäinen, and Martin Ubani Introduction This chapter discusses the perceptions of Finnish class teachers of integrated religious education (hereafter RE) and ethics (subject) education in public education.  In the 2000s, there has been ongoing debate in Finland about possible ways to organise integrated education of religions and worldviews. However, scholars such as Kallioniemi (2022) have advocated the need to reconsider the purpose of the subject and what kinds of core competences, such as knowledge and skills, it should develop for pupils, instead of focusing on different arrangements and models of religious education and ethics. The question of the actual purposes and aims of such instruction is timely as, arguably, religious education in Finland has suffered from a lack of focus, conceptual clarity, and cohesion (Ubani, Rissanen, & Poulter, 2020). Furthermore, arguably, the conceptual change from ‘confessional’ to ‘according to one’s own religion’ as the basic principle of religious education in the early 2000s may have provided additional confusion regarding the nature of the subject. Consequently, with this study we aimed to answer the two following research questions: 1) How do class teachers define the general purpose of religious education and ethics in public education? and 2) How do teachers evaluate integrated instruction in light of the purpose of the subject? In Finland, religious education and ethics are compulsory in basic education (grades 1–9, ages 7–16). The current model for religious education and ethics in Finland is based on both positive and negative interpretations of religious freedom, such that pupils receive instruction based on their own religious or non-religious background, which means in the everyday life of school that pupils are divided into separated groups according to their religious affiliation. In Finland, the majority of pupils participate in Evangelical Lutheran religious education. At most, there have been 14 different religious education syllabi in effect at the same time. If a pupil does not participate in RE, the alternative subject is ‘secular’ ethics (Kallioniemi & Ubani, 2016). The Finnish model is unique in the Nordic countries as Sweden, Norway, Iceland, DOI: 10.4324/9781003265696-19

222  Kaisa Viinikka et al. and Denmark all provide integrated religious education, although with some differing curricular emphases (Rothgangel, Jäggle, & Skeie, 2014). Religious education in Finland has been described as ‘weak confessional’ as it emphasises the respective religious tradition in content with students divided on the basis of their religious affiliation, but there are no faith formation aims or devotional practices (Ubani & Tirri, 2014). The focus on class teachers’ perceptions of integrated instruction is relevant due to their integral role in basic education. Class teachers are primarily responsible for giving instruction in grades 1–6. Thus, in practice, in terms of years of instruction the majority of religious education and ethics instruction received by pupils is mostly given by class teachers. Teacher education for class teacher students is given in eight universities, with over 1,000 admissions each year. The programmes are popular, with about one in six applicants admitted, and turnover during studies and in-service is low (Jyrhämä, 2021; Malinen, Väisänen, & Savolainen, 2012; The Finnish National Agency for Education, 2020). The five-year master level teacher education includes a 3–5 credit course on didactics of religious education as part of their required 60 credits in multidisciplinary studies in which all school subjects are covered. In general, regardless of the independence and profiles of each institution, Finnish teacher education for class teachers is considered relatively uniform due partly to the qualification requirements and partly to national collaboration between institutions (Malinen et al., 2012), although recent years have witnessed differentiation in the content and structure of pedagogical qualification studies (Jyrhämä, 2021). In their research, Kallioniemi and Ubani (2010) studied the curriculum content of the course of didactics of RE in every teacher education unit in the academic year 2009–2010. Although there were differences in the literature, in the integration between subjects and credits earned for each course, which varied from two to three, and differences in lectures given and contact teaching hours allocated, there were quite small variations in the content of the respective RE didactics courses (Kallioniemi & Ubani, 2010, p. 262). In general, no geographical or regional differences or characteristics were found in the respective curricula. Integrated education of religions and worldviews as a question of Finnish school and education For the past decade the question of integrated instruction has been of interest both in public discussion and in the research literature in Finland. By ‘integrated instruction’, we refer to the organising principle where students from diverse religious and non-religious backgrounds and affiliations study together in the same lessons. We use ‘integrated’ here in terms of both ‘instruction on religions and worldviews’ and ‘integrated instruction of RE and ethics’. However, while the latter emphasises the connection with the current curricula and model, the former emphasises the pedagogical content of such instruction in

Religion, Worldviews, and Integrated Instruction 223 general, which could be applied in the current model or in a projected integrated model for RE and ethics. It is noteworthy also that while all kinds of inclusive education can be seen as integrated, not all integrated instruction is inclusive, as monoreligious (Sterkens, 2001) systems may include pupils from different backgrounds and affiliations yet the instruction recognises only the dominant religion (Ubani, 2018b). While ‘integrated’ in this discussion about projected models of organising religious education often indicates ‘inclusive’, the public concerns raised from minority positions merit not only careful distinction between the concepts but also require constant scrutiny of aspects such as a sense of authenticity among all pupils, inclusivity of contents and teacher-talk, and recognition through materials and topics in instruction. By ‘inclusive’, we refer to a classroom ethos where the diverse beliefs and value positions of the pupils in the classroom are recognised and accommodated (Ubani, 2018b). Notably, as part of its description of the learning environment, the current National Core Curriculum for Basic Education (2014) gives the possibility of integrated instruction beyond subjects, including RE and ethics, in topics considered suitable. In these cases, the idea is for pupils to study according to their respective curricula even if they study together and for teachers preferably to collaborate in instruction. Furthermore, in the curriculum different religions share a common generic aim, which their particular aims and contents are subject to (ibid.). Therefore, RE and ethics students studying together is not completely a curricular problem nor only a question of religious freedom but, arguably, rather a problem of the organising of such lessons due to scheduling conflicts, lack of didactical basis and guidelines, and the activism of interest groups opposing the dissolution of the current model with separate instruction for pupils of different backgrounds. Recent empirical research has been conducted on integrated instruction in RE and ethics in Finland (Åhs, 2020; Lipiäinen, 2021). The majority of this research can be characterised as ‘the Helsinki studies on religion and worldviews in public education’ based on teacher education, educational sciences and subject didactics and which emphasises multiculturality, secularisation and pluralisation in Finnish society and the need for RE and public education to react to these changes (see Ubani, 2017; e.g., Åhs, 2020; Kavonius, 2021; Niemi, 2016; Zilliacus, 2014). Most of these researchers are former or current students of Professor Arto Kallioniemi. Often these studies on integrated instruction are based on the premise of how the worldviews and identity of children and youth have changed towards plurality, secularity and individualisation (Lipiäinen, Kuusisto, & Kallioniemi, forthcoming; Åhs, Poulter, & Kallioniemi, 2016). In such research, it has been put forth that Finnish children and adolescents have varying and complex personal worldviews and spirituality compared to older generations and that the younger generations seem to have a multidimensional worldview identity (Åhs et al., 2016). However, such research has also underlined schools’ role as a source of information

224  Kaisa Viinikka et al. when constructing personal worldviews (Lipiäinen, Kuusisto, & Kallioniemi, forthcoming). In general, the ‘Helsinki studies’ seem to favour the prospect of integrated instruction. The provision of integrated RE has been portrayed as a ‘normal space’ in primary school where pupils can engage in mutual dialogue (Åhs, Poulter, & Kallioniemi, 2019a). However, the teacher’s professionality, such as sensitivity to each pupil, has been found to be central to successful instruction that enables a tolerant learning environment (Åhs et al., 2016). In brief, recent research has also pointed out several other relevant aspects to consider when discussing the prospect of integrated instruction. For instance, it has been recognised in previous research that integrated worldview education influences the development of a pupil’s own worldview by adding different perspectives to it, particularly the lived experiences of the individual (Åhs et al., 2019a, 2019b). In addition, in a study by Åhs and colleagues (2016), pupils enjoyed sharing their own worldview experiences and did not think of themselves as representing a particular religion or view. Pupils also emphasised that their worldviews may differ regardless of their own religion, although a specific religion may play a significant role in this (Åhs et al., 2019b). It has been noted that each pupil has unique experiences of worldviews that cannot be taught by a teacher teaching general knowledge about religions and worldviews. On the other hand, discussing one’s own worldview and sharing experiences also provide space especially for minorities’ voices (Åhs et al., 2019b). Furthermore, it has been pointed out that voicing pupils’ own experiences in lessons is primarily a pedagogical and didactic question. In integrated instruction, the individual should be able to explore his or her worldview from both the perspectives of personal and communal life. It can be assumed that personal input increases motivation to learn and that constructing meaningfulness together with other pupils may increase learning (Åhs et al., 2019b). In general, it seems that Finnish pupils are open towards studying in integrated classrooms. Lipiäinen (2021) has studied the views of 7th and 9th grade pupils about worldviews in school and worldview education. The importance of learning about worldviews and of the opportunity to discuss different worldviews increased by the end of 9th grade. Integrated or partially integrated RE was seen as a positive alternative (Lipiäinen, 2021). Another study, not from the ‘Helsinki studies’, of 9th grade pupils indicated that the students felt that they could be themselves and express themselves freely, be ‘authentic’, in integrated instruction and that overall they not only had positive experiences of the instruction but were also interested in studying other religions together (Korkeakoski & Ubani, 2018; Ubani, 2018a, 2018b). It is argued that in integrated education about religions and worldviews it is possible to take into account the heterogeneity and flexibility within and between worldviews (Åhs et al., 2019a). It could be counter-argued, however, that heterogeneity could also be taken into account in the current separative model because the worldview of each student differs in some respects (Poulter, Riitaoja, & Kuusisto, 2016). According to Åhs et al. (2019a), some parents

Religion, Worldviews, and Integrated Instruction 225 perceive that integrated RE teaching could open up to pupils how worldviews have common, similar and positive goals. However, the majority of guardians interpreted integrated instruction as enabling the learning of different perspectives and ways of thinking. The challenges of integrated instruction perceived by parents were that the majority view would dominate minority perspectives and the risk of exposure to extreme worldviews or beliefs of the teacher or pupils (Åhs et al., 2019a). These, however, could be seen as problems irrespective of whether the instruction is integrated or separated. Finnish class teachers as providers of integrated education of religions and worldviews In their work, class teachers teach based on the curriculum (NCCBE 2014), which also defines the values to ​​ be considered in school. For class teachers, the primary goal is usually to recognise and support the development of pupils’ own worldviews and to pursue neutrality in relation to worldviews (Lipiäinen & Poulter, 2021). Class teachers also experience uncertainty and pressure in a situation where they should support the development of pupils’ growth and respect their right to worldviews and yet have a responsibility to implement the goals and values of the school. If the class teacher’s own worldview differs from that of the pupils or the institution, supporting and upholding those goals and values may be particularly difficult to achieve (Lipiäinen & Poulter, 2021). As teachers may not agree with the values pursued by the school, and ​​ as it is up to teachers to decide which worldviews are appropriate to teach, the visibility of certain worldviews in schools may be impacted (Lipiäinen & Poulter, 2021). Similarly, individual teacher’s attitudes towards different worldviews have been found to restrict what kinds of worldviews are allowed to be visible in schools (Lipiäinen, Ubani, & Kallioniemi, 2021). One suggested the main key to dealing with diverse religions and worldviews in schools is providing opportunities for dialogue between religions and worldviews. A recent study indicated that Finnish teachers seem to consider worldview education as a part of basic education and that teachers hold a reasonably encompassing perception of worldview education as including value education, cultural encounters, and settlement of disputes between pupils (Lemettinen, Hirvonen, & Ubani, 2021). On the other hand, Finnish class teachers have been noted to have more active orientations when implementing dialogue than subject teachers. One practice in implementing dialogue was found to be integrated religious and worldview education (Lipiäinen, Satokangas, Jantunen, & Kallioniemi, 2022). The option of integrated instruction in religions and worldviews would seem to fit with the general orientation towards RE among class teachers. Several studies indicate that Finnish class teacher students consider RE as a challenging and often difficult subject to teach but also an important subject in basic education (Kallioniemi, 2009; Ubani, Poulter, & Kallioniemi, 2015). The studies also show an inclination towards generic ethical and cultural

226  Kaisa Viinikka et al. purposes rather than confessional objectives in religious education. The main reasons for class teachers’ hesitancy in teaching RE have included personal difficulties or biases in orientation towards RE, a sense of lack of subject knowledge or competence in RE, didactical and methodical obstacles, and the sense of a general negative attitude in society towards religion and the subsequent lack of support in developing RE as a school subject (e.g. Kallioniemi, 2009; Karttunen, 1978, pp. 107–108; Ubani et al., 2015; Vanhatalo, 2012). Recently Ubani et al. (2015) studied class teacher students (N = 538) in different parts of Finland. The student teachers perceived ethics as the main aspect that made religious education an important subject in school. In addition, they valued the cultural knowledge that the subject provided. Ethics and growth as a person also contributed to the positivity of the subject, along with discussion, reflection and versatile pedagogy. They also highlighted the role of communal and social aspects in the objectives of the subject. However, when they described the negative aspects of the subject, they showed concerns over confessionalism, Bible-centredness, and indoctrination. Finally, the importance of the subject was connected to the personal significance of religion, and more than three out of four student teachers considered religious education an important subject (Ubani et al., 2015). A recent study on the perceptions of class teacher students about 21st century skills and religious education by Ubani and Viinikka (2021) seemed to somewhat echo the previous results, even in a different conceptual context. The previous studies also underlined the predisposition towards generic aspirations in RE rather than a confessional emphasis. The class teacher students were shown to emphasise interaction and dialogue in the context of RE. Understanding diversity and critical thinking also emerged as key skills to be developed in lessons. They also perceived that religious education would be objective, not confessional, and the teacher’s expertise in religions and worldviews was interpreted as important. In addition, the class teacher students saw that the ideal learning atmosphere in the classroom would be open, respectful and trustworthy. To conclude, support for the development of pupils’ identity and spirituality was also seen as part of religious education (Ubani & Viinikka, 2021) – this can also be interpreted as an openness towards more traditional aims of RE but with an individualist emphasis. Data and analyses This study was implemented using a qualitative method. Twenty in-service (6 = male, 13 = female), qualified class teachers in Helsinki were interviewed individually. The interviewees represent different schools, genders, and years of work experience. Interviews were conducted at the teachers’ schools or, due to the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020, via video link. Interviews lasted between 45 and 90 minutes. Teachers were selected for the study by asking school principals to forward an invitation via email to their staff. All participants were volunteers, and the data were anonymised before the analysis.

Religion, Worldviews, and Integrated Instruction 227 The interviews were semi-structured (Peltola & Vesala, 2013). The interview method was chosen as it has been previously found to be valuable tool for studying wide and complex issues such as ideologies and religions (Peltola & Vesala, 2013). In practice, teachers were asked to comment on given claims about integrated worldview education instruction. The interviewer asked clarifying questions if needed. The data was analysed using qualitative content analysis (Creswell, 2011). First, all of the mentioned and defined purposes of religious and worldview education were identified and, based on those, the justifications for implementing or not implementing integrated instruction were categorised. Results Based on the findings, the teachers perceived the general purpose of instruction in religious education and ethics in school very differently. The justifications for implementing or not implementing integrated instruction depended in most cases on the purposes they defined, and explained the teachers’ perceptions of the integrated religious and ethics education model. Three main purposes were found in the data and were named as follows: 1) moral and/or ethical education, 2) general knowledge education, and 3) instrumental education. Based on the purposes, three different ways to implement religious education and ethics were found: 1) integrated instruction, 2) hybrid model, and 3) no worldview education. The main purposes included different forms of instruction and, for example, moral and/or ethical education did not in all cases lead to the first category of integrated instruction. None of the teachers supported the current model of separate religious and ethics education without any integrated instruction. Next, we will present three different purposes and reflect on each of these with regard to the question of integrated instruction. Moral and/or ethical education When considering the integrated instruction of religious and ethics education, teachers often emphasised the subject’s role as an enabler of moral and/or ethical education. The purpose of the subject was seen as a place and time to discuss moral or ethical issues. Moral and/or ethical education was seen as being largely separated from religious and worldview education, and teachers argued therefore in favour of integrated education. They argued that all religions and worldviews have the same kinds of ethical principles, such as the Golden Rule, and therefore integrated instruction would be appropriate, as in this example: Definitely there should be moral and ethical education. For example, the Golden Rule is there in all encounters between people. So that … they treat others well. That would be the best possible religious and worldview education topic. (T18)

228  Kaisa Viinikka et al. Dialogue was seen as an important part of the subject when teaching moral and ethical issues in practice. Teachers argued about the importance of dialogue in the classroom, however, emphasising again the need for integrated instruction when dealing with ethical questions. Some teachers even argued that religious and ethics education are the same thing in practice. They argued that several subjects are teaching the same things about moral issues in different classrooms, and therefore there should be integrated instruction. However, not all teachers argued exclusively for integrated instruction. Some separated moral and/or ethical education as the main content that should be taught in an integrated way, but at the same time there should be separated education based on the pupil’s own nominal worldview. This separated instruction could be organised by schools or by religious communities: Maybe one rational point could be that if there is still to be worldview education in schools, some things should be taught based on the pupil’s personal worldview, if this still continues [to be held]. But most of the content, like ethics, is provided in an integrated way. (T5) General knowledge education The second identified purpose of the subject was to provide general education, which in this case means general knowledge about different religions and worldviews. In practice, this included all ways to increase knowledge about different worldviews or become familiar with different religions and other worldviews. Teachers described education as very neutral and unbiased, considering all religions and worldviews similarly. In some arguments, general knowledge education and moral and ethical education were seen simultaneously as the main purpose of the subject, as in the following: I think there should be only one worldview education subject in which you learn about all other worldviews. Then the main purpose would be morality and ethics, like how people treat one another. (T16) The task of the school to provide objective information about different religions and worldviews was highlighted. Some teachers argued that this general education would be given as a part of other subjects, such as History or Social Studies. Naturally, teachers who defined the purpose of the subject as providing these kinds of general and objective knowledge argued on behalf of integrated instruction. However, not all teachers would replace the whole subject with only teaching general education. In these cases, teachers separated general knowledge and own religion and proposed that in addition to schools’ religious and ethics education, which would be general knowledge education,

Religion, Worldviews, and Integrated Instruction 229 pupils would attend their own religious education provided by religious communities. This type of hybrid model was seen by some as a solution for the subject: Of course, it would make sense if kids would get education in their own religion in their own communities in their free time. Then we would have this integrated worldview education where we familiarise ourselves with every worldview. (T6) Contents that are common to all would be considered as general knowledge education, and the own religion part would be left to communities to handle outside of the school day. (T11) Instrumental education The third identified category was constructed based on arguments that criticised the notion of purpose of the subject as being confessional. In contrast to the first, moral and ethical education category in which moral and ethical issues were based on or linked to religions or other worldviews, arguments and purposes in the instrumental education category were separated from religions or worldviews. In this category, the purpose of the subject was seen as an instrumental education to reach some other goals, such as world peace, increasing tolerance (towards worldviews but also tolerance in general), convey religious traditions in a confessional way, and prevent extremist ideologies or bullying. When pursuing world peace via religious education and ethics, teachers would, instead of separating pupils, consider integrated instruction, as in this example: I would see that, at its best, it would be something where we increase peace in this society and at least would not separate pupils. (H9) Also, when defining the purpose as preventing bullying, integrated instruction was highlighted as it was seen as important that pupils consider such content together: It would be really fruitful if whole class would be there [together] to discuss … that would give a very good starting point to discuss those things together there. For example, there isn’t much time [given] to prevent[ing] bullying in schools, and I can see that in worldview education there is a place to address these issues. And the whole class would be there to address them. (T1)

230  Kaisa Viinikka et al. Increasing tolerance as a purpose of the subject was also linked to integrated actions, but teachers who consider the purpose as preventing extremist ideologies favoured their own religion-based teaching. This was emphasised especially with respect to Islamic religious education. One teacher supported the hybrid model and integrated instruction with regard to Lutheran religious education and ethics, but would not integrate Islamic religious education: There is a need for separated worldview education subjects because it reduces extremism. […] The Lutheran religion and ethics education … in practice those have the same content. In ethics education certain religions are only mentioned … so sure, you can integrate those. But I would not integrate Lutheran religion and Islam. (T2) In the analysis we also identified a group of arguments that presented the purpose of the subject as conveying religious traditions in a confessional way. In these cases, teachers argued that there should be a serious debate as to whether there should be any kind of religious or worldview education in schools: It is a little short of unbelievable that third-grade pupils have one hour a week of religion in school. So, they have one hour a week of storytelling without any critique of what we would say are stories. […] We should think whether the subject is in any way rational in the 21st century. […] I would say we should not teach worldview related issues in any subjects, so we should not teach religious issues in any subject. (T7) Results from the perspective of integrated instruction Overall, teachers’ perceptions of integrated instruction varied based on the perceived purposes of the subject. However, agreement on the main purposes did not always lead to agreement on the best form of instruction. Therefore, it is more illustrative to portray the results also from the perspective of different forms of instruction. The first main purpose, moral and/or ethical education, was divided into two forms of instruction: integrated instruction and hybrid instruction. The second main purpose, general knowledge education, was seen to lend itself intrinsically to integrated instruction. However, many teachers argued for instruction that would also provide their own religion-based education (provided by the school or religious community) as an addition to integrated instruction, i.e., the hybrid model. The third main purpose, instrumental education, was divided across all three forms of instruction depending on the practice. A summary of the three forms of instruction and teachers’ practical perceptions of their purposes is provided in Figure 16.1.

Religion, Worldviews, and Integrated Instruction 231

Figure 16.1  Forms of instruction and teachers’ practical perceptions of their purposes

Discussion In this chapter, we examined class teachers’ perceptions of religious education and ethics. Three main purposes of the subject were identified: 1) moral and/ or ethical education, 2) general knowledge education, and 3) instrumental education. In relation to the first purpose, class teachers emphasised discussion and dialogue on moral and ethical issues. Regarding the second purpose, teachers highlighted general information about religions and worldviews. Thirdly, the instrumental purposes mentioned by the teachers included the prevention of harmful ideologies and bullying and advancing world peace and tolerance. However, some teachers also linked the instrumental nature of education with promoting commitment to a particular religious community. Overall, the class teachers’ descriptions of the purpose of integrated instruction reflected a broad range of opinions, which indicates that discussion is needed as to what the purpose of religious education and ethics is today. However, a limitation of the applicability of the results of the present study is that all participating teachers worked in Helsinki, which is relatively more diverse than many other Finnish municipalities. This study also investigated how teachers evaluate integrated instruction in light of the purpose of the subject. As part of both the integrated and the hybrid model (where the latter would include both integrated and separated instruction), teachers saw it as possible to address ethical and moral issues, teach general information about religions and worldviews, and prevent harmful ideologies. In relation to integrated instruction, teachers emphasised the potential for increasing dialogue, peace, and tolerance. Hybrid instruction was thought of as promoting developing of pupils’ own worldviews. In contrast,

232  Kaisa Viinikka et al. if the purpose of education was seen as binding to a particular religious tradition, which cannot be the purpose according to current Finnish legislation, then religious education and ethics were not considered necessary in school. Notably, none of the participants raised the perspective of learning one’s own religion as the purpose of the subject, although the current Finnish religious education model is based on that. This finding seems to be in line with concerns voiced in recent literature about the vagueness and lack of coherence of the aims of RE (Ubani, Poulter & Rissanen, 2021), which especially affects the content related to one’s own religion. To conclude, courses on the didactics of religious education and ethics in teacher education in Finland can be divided into three types with regard to the integration of religion and ethics didactics. First, the traditional model is to have separate courses for the instruction of each religion and ethics. The second model is hybrid: having similarly separate courses for each religion but, in addition, a compulsory inclusive course after the separate course focusing on topics such as applied drama, ethics, affective education, or project work. It should be noted that in contrast to the suggestions of the teachers in this study concerning hybrid instruction in school, this model in teacher education does not include the agency of religious communities. In the third model, students study the bulk of the studies together in a single course but then separate according to their respective religion or ethics group for a certain time. In addition, the courses are also supposed to provide the qualification to teach a given religion or ethics in public education. Therefore, courses cannot be developed only on pedagogical or theoretical grounds but also for qualification purposes. However, in order to support class teacher students’ competence development with regard to integrated lessons, which are increasingly becoming a reality in working life, opportunities to plan and practise them individually and/or collaboratively should be included in teacher education programmes. This should be built on didactic development work towards integrated instruction, which is still rare in Finland, and on the grounds of the National Core Curriculum for Basic Education (2014) or subsequent curricula that support such instruction and are in line with how the didactics of RE and ethics courses are to be carried out. References Åhs, V. (2020). Worldviews and integrative education: A case study of partially integrative religious education and secular ethics education in a Finnish lower secondary school context. Helsinki: University of Helsinki. Åhs, V., Poulter, S., & Kallioniemi, A. (2016). Encountering worldviews: Pupil perspectives on integrative worldview education in a Finnish secondary school context. Religion & Education, 43(2), 208–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/15507394. 2015.1128311 Åhs, V., Poulter, S., & Kallioniemi, A. (2019a). Preparing for the world of diverse worldviews: Parental and school stakeholder views on integrative worldview education in a Finnish context. British Journal of Religious Education, 41(1), 78–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/01416200.2017.1292211

Religion, Worldviews, and Integrated Instruction 233 Åhs, V., Poulter, S., & Kallioniemi, A. (2019b). Pupils and worldview expression in an integrative classroom context. Journal of Religious Education, 67(3), 203–221. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40839-019-00088-0 Creswell, J. W. (2011). Educational research, planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Boston, MA: Pearson Education. Jyrhämä, R. (2021). Opettajan pedagogiset opinnot 60 op: Laaja-alainen opettajakelpoisuus – tilannekuvaus 2021. Opetus- ja kulttuuriministeriön julkaisuja, 2021: 41, Helsinki. Kallioniemi, A. (2009). Luokanopettaja alakoulun uskonnonopettajana. In M.-K. Rönkkö, J. Lepistö, & S. Kullas (Eds.), Monialainen opettajuus: Kasvatuksellisia näkökulmia oppiaineisiin ja aihekokonaisuuksiin (pp. 94–112). Rauma: Turun yliopisto, Rauman opettajankoulutuslaitos. Kallioniemi, A. (2022). Katsomusaineiden opetukseen tarvitaan uusi yhteinen oppiaine. Helsingin Sanomat. 13.5.2022. Retrieved June 9, 2022 from https://www. hs.fi/mielipide/art-2000008783770.html Kallioniemi, A., & Ubani, M. (2010). Uskonnon didaktiikka luokanopettajankoulutuksessa. In A. Kallioniemi, A. Toom, H. Linnansaari, & M. Ubani (Eds.), Akateeminen luokanopettajankoulutus. 30 vuotta teoriaa, käytäntöä ja maistereita. Turku: Kasvatusalan julkaisuja, Suomen kasvatustieteellinen seura. Kallioniemi, A., & Ubani, M. (2016). Religious education in Finnish school system. In H. Niemi, A. Toom, & A. Kallioniemi (Eds.), Miracle of education: The principles and practices of teaching and learning in Finnish schools (2nd revised ed., pp. 179–190). Rotterdam: Sense. Karttunen, P. (1978). Peruskoulun uskonnonopetus opettajan näkökulmasta. Tutkimus opettajien tavoite- ja oppiainespreferensseistä sekä opetuskäytännöstä ja opetusvaikeuksien kokemisesta. Helsingin yliopiston käytännöllisen teologian laitoksen uskonnonpedagogiikan julkaisuja A20. Kavonius, M. (2021). Young People’s Perceptions of the Significance of Worldview Education in the Changing Finnish Society. Helsinki Studies in Education 123, University of Helsinki. Korkeakoski, K., & Ubani, M. (2018). What positive things do students from different backgrounds see in integrated RE lessons with collaborative teaching? Three cases from a Finnish teaching experiment. Journal of Religious Education 66(1), 49–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40839-018-0056-x Lemettinen, J., Hirvonen, E., & Ubani, M. (2021). Is worldview education achieved in schools? A study of Finnish teachers’ perceptions of worldview education as a component of basic education. Journal of Beliefs and Values, 42(4), 537–552. https:// doi.org/10.1080/13617672.2021.1889218 Lipiäinen, T. (2021). Integrated worldview education from pupils’ perspectives longitudinal study in Finnish upper secondary school. Presented at the 8th Nordic Conference on Subject Education, Bergen, Norway. Lipiäinen, T., Kuusisto, A, & Kallioniemi, A. (forthcoming). The Fluidity of the Personal Worldviews of Finland’s Youth. Lipiäinen, T., & Poulter, S. (2021). Finnish teachers’ approaches to personal worldview expressions: A question of professional autonomy and ethics. British Journal of Religious Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/01416200.2021.1973372 Lipiäinen, T., Satokangas, H., Jantunen, A., & Kallioniemi, A. (2022). Understanding and implementing worldview dialogue in the Finnish basic education context: Teachers’ approaches. Religion & Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/15507394. 2022.2060691

234  Kaisa Viinikka et al. Lipiäinen, T., Ubani, M., & Kallioniemi, A. (2021). Accepted visibility of worldviews in Finnish basic education – Teachers’ attitudes in boundary setting. Religious Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/00344087.2021.2012047 Malinen, O.-P., Väisänen, P., & Savolainen, H. (2012). Teacher education in Finland: A review of a national effort for preparing teachers for the future. Curriculum Journal (London, England), 23(4), 567–584. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2012. 731011 National Core Curriculum for Basic Education (NCCBE) (2014). Perusopetuksen opetussuunnitelman perusteet 2014. Määräykset ja ohjeet 2014:96. Opetushallitus. Finnish National Board of Education, Next Print Oy, Helsinki. Retrieved March 21, 2023 from https://www.oph.fi/sites/default/files/documents/perusopetuksen_ opetussuunnitelman_perusteet_2014.pdf Niemi, P.-M. J.  (2016).  Creating a sense of membership in basic education: the contributions of schoolwide events. University of Helsinki.  http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN: 978-951-51-2819-5 Peltola, S., & Vesala, K. M. (2013). Constructing entrepreneurial orientation in a selling context: The qualitative attitude approach. Poznan University of Economics Review, 13(1), 26–47. http://www.puereview.ue.poznan.pl/pdf/12-57.pdf Poulter, S., Riitaoja, A.-L., & Kuusisto, A. (2016). Thinking multicultural education “otherwise” - from a secularist construction towards a plurality of epistemologies and worldviews. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 14(1), 68–86. https://doi. org/10.1080/14767724.2014.989964 Rothgangel, M., Jäggle, M., & Skeie, G. (2014). Religious education at schools in Europe. Part 3: Northern Europe. Wien: Vienna University Press. Sterkens, C. (2001). interreligious learning: The problem of interreligious dialogue in primary education (Vol. 8). Leiden: Brill. The Finnish National Agency of Education (2020). Opettajat ja rehtorit Suomessa 2019. Hakeminen opettajankoulutukseen. Raportit ja selvitykset 2020: 20. Finnish Agency of Education, Helsinki. Retrieved March 21, 2023 from https://www.oph. fi/sites/default/files/documents/opettajat_ja_rehtorit_suomessa_2019_hakeminen_opettajankoulutukseen_0.pdf Ubani, M. (2017). Contextualising the contribution of RE scholarly communities and to the developments of RE in Finland over recent decades. NordDidactica, 1, 87–108. Ubani, M. (2018a). Do students feel authentic in integrated RE? A quantitative analysis. International Journal of Children’s Spirituality, 23(2), 152–179. https://doi. org/10.1080/1364436X.2018.1448759 Ubani, M. (2018b). What makes students feel authentic in an integrated RE classroom? Journal of Beliefs & Values, 39(2), 169–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13617672.2018.1450808 Ubani, M., Poulter, S., & Kallioniemi, A. (2015). Finnish Class student teachers’ perceptions on religious education. NordDidactica, 2, 74–93. Ubani, M., Poulter, S., & Rissanen, I. (2021). Transition in RE in Finland. In F. Olof, & T. Peder (Eds.), Religious education in a post-secular age (pp. 99–122). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47503-1_6 Ubani, M., & Tirri, K. (2014). Religious education in Finnish schools. In M. Rothgangel, M. Jäggle, & G. Skeie (Eds.), Religious education in schools in Europe. Part 3: Northern Europe (pp. 99–120). Wien: Vienna University Press.

Religion, Worldviews, and Integrated Instruction 235 Ubani, M., & Viinikka, K. (2021). Primary school student teachers, 21st century skills and the perceptions of RE. A report of results. Presentation. ISREV 2021, Göteborg. Vanhatalo, E. (2012): Uskonnonopetus luokanopettajien elämäntarinoissa. Uskonnonpedagogiikan pro gradu -tutkielma. HYTTK, 2012. Zilliacus, H. (2014). Supporting students’ identities and inclusion in minority religious and secular ethics education: A study on plurality in the Finnish comprehensive school. Studies in Educational Sciences 258. University of Helsinki.

17 Watershed Revisited Martin Ubani, Auli Toom, Saila Poulter, Arniika Kuusisto, and Liam Gearon

The 2000s has been marked by increased instability and change in societies and life circumstances across the globe, with amplified awareness of the mutual, in their complexities wicked and persistent problems. On a global scale, educational contexts are becoming increasingly pluralistic. This poses challenges to how the encounters with both ‘old’ and ‘new’ diversities (Vertovec, 2015) are carried out in daily educational actions and among peers. Besides many other intersectional markers, this also applies to the diversity of religions and worldviews. In fact, in the increasingly secular societal settings, the children and youth with religious family backgrounds are often among those most vulnerable to bullying (Schihalejev, Kuusisto, Vikdahl, & Kallioniemi, 2020). Furthermore, as a response to the climate crisis, it is becoming obvious that education needs to support a profound worldview change (Zilliacus & Wolff, 2021). The global changes have also challenged us to question the purpose and broad aims of education, reminding us about the need for a more sustainable future and the call for solutions that ‘cannot yet be imagined’ (Amsler, Kerr, & Andreotti, 2020). In educational policy documents and literature, education is often depicted as the principal answer to the many societal challenges such as radicalisation (Niemi, Benjamin, Kuusisto, & Gearon, 2018) and other challenges in the conditions of life (Niemi, 2021): education is essentially an endeavour of hope of change to the better and belief in significance and meaningfulness of human actions aligned with this endeavour. Children and youth matter. Teachers and schools matter. Tomorrow matters. And therefore: education matters. Education in religion and worldviews is an integral dimension of education, but sometimes it’s also the ‘forgotten’ one (Biesta & Hannam, 2020). For the past decade, also European policy documents (Jackson, 2014; OSCE/ ODIHR, 2007) have highlighted the need to take the question of religions, worldviews, personal valuations, and non-religious beliefs seriously in public education. And not just in a separate subject designated to religious or worldview education specifically, but across subject divides, for building social harmony and understanding among citizens. The UN’s Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) includes spiritual, moral, and social development as a part of children’s well-being and holds that a child has educational rights DOI: 10.4324/9781003265696-20

Watershed Revisited 237 also concerning aspects of religions and worldviews. To promote children’s acquisition of values, norms, traditions, and worldviews, and to help a child to practice her freedom of religion, is essentially educators’ responsibility and a moral duty (cf. Tirri, 2022). Raivio, Skaremyr, and Kuusisto (2022) point out that supporting children’s development of a cultural identity, their well-being, and sense of belonging is a key aspect of working towards social sustainability. Education can play a key role in promoting sustainable well-being by addressing children’s interests, knowledge, values, and worldviews. It is essential that early childhood education and public education in general are experienced as ‘safe spaces’ for children and youth having different religious and worldview backgrounds. By this we mean that every child should be able to feel as an accepted, appreciated member in the ECEC or school community, whatever their worldview or background, and their views and opinions would be heard and respected. Striving towards identity safety (Nasir & Al-Amin, 2006) in educational contexts, society becomes safer for everyone as holistic human beings. Striving towards identity safety (Nasir & Al-Amin, 2006) in educational contexts, society becomes safer for everyone as holistic human beings. Furthermore, children and youth need to be able to perceive school as a safe space for developing their personal perceptions of religion, worldviews, and non-religious beliefs critically. This process is ideally supported in respectful dialogue, founded on the principles of the Rights of the Child, social justice, tolerance, and mutual respect, throughout the educational and life trajectories of human beings. Education should never be used as a platform for extremist, populistic, or other instrumentalist aims; also education concerning religions and worldviews must embrace criticality, reflexivity, non-discrimination, and democratic principles. In building inclusive communities of learners where individuals feel identity safe, the space for learning should also intellectually be brave enough to encounter a critical debate about problematic issues in worldviews. It should allow children to elaborate a variety of worldviews and clarify their own perspectives in dialogue with others. Therefore, educational ‘brave space’ (Callan, 2016) provides a forum for critically scrutinising the assumedly ‘neutral’ worldview basis of education and to enable a debate about worldviews. For this purpose, joint efforts are needed from educational stakeholders. In teacher education, we need to put more emphasis on developing professional conceptions about religion in public education aligned with professional ethics and religious literacy (Lamminmäki-Vartia, Poulter, & Kuusisto, 2020; Rissanen, Ubani, & Sakaranaho, 2020; Ubani, 2021). Teachers need awareness of their own beliefs, experiences, and prejudices for them to critically develop through reflection a professional practice with regard to religions and worldviews in school (cf. Rissanen, Kuusisto, & Kuusisto, 2016). For teachers to develop their reflexive skills, their ability of being ‘in conversation with the situation’ (Biesta, 2019) requires developing sensitivity of teacher’s own existence and worldview, and awareness of the embeddedness in educational encounters (Rodgers, 2002). The capability to reflect on and respond to this

238  Martin Ubani et al. kind of aspect in teacher’s work need to be cultivated already during teacher education (cf. Toom, Husu, & Tirri, 2015). In ECEC and schools, we should engage in a critical examination of the practices related to, and hidden biases and attributions given to religions and representatives of religions and non-religious beliefs in education (cf. Kuusisto, 2022). Educators need also to be aware of the children and families designated to the margins of the community and the broader society, facing discrimination and othering practices. Immediate action needs to be taken against any discriminative practices, ensuring support to every child and youth. And policymakers need to be aware of the impact the acknowledgement and education about religions, worldviews, and non-religious beliefs can be in ethos of the public education in general. Religion and worldviews are among the watersheds in education today. Amidst all uncertainties surrounding us, the task outlined above may seem overwhelming. However, education for the better today and tomorrow should be the priority of any society perceiving itself as civilised and humane. Children are the today and tomorrow: they are the most valuable commodity in any given society. Every member of a school community is valuable and deserves to be encouraged to become visible holistically as an irreplaceable person with a unique purpose and significance in life. How public education handles religion and worldviews is essentially a mirror and a symbol of how it recognises and encounters humanity in all its dimensions and shades. Education is the ultimate call for good in humanity, it is a call for goodness and dignity in our role in this time, so that the generations of today and tomorrow may prosper as human beings in conditions that are in harmony with their value and uniqueness. Education can bring change. Therefore, education is essentially an endeavour of hope. As long as there is hope, there is education. And as long as there is education, there is hope. Without hope education cannot thrive, it has no vision, and it has no reason. While the perspectives of the authors of this volume are diverse and contexts differ, the message we wish to communicate is shared and uniform. The message is that education can make a difference and we can do it together. The message is: there is hope.

References Amsler, S., Kerr, J., & Andreotti, V. (2020). Interculturality in teacher education in times of unprecedented global challenges. Education and Society, 38(1), 13–37. https://doi.org/10.7459/es/38.1.02 Biesta, G. (2019). How have you been? On existential reflection and thoughtful teaching. In R. S. Webster, & J. D. Whelen (Eds.), Rethinking reflection and ethics for teachers (pp. 117–130). Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978981-32-9401-1_8 Biesta, G., & Hannam, P. (Eds.). (2020). Religion and education: The forgotten dimensions of religious education? Leiden: Brill.

Watershed Revisited 239 Callan, E. (2016). Education in safe and unsafe spaces. Philosophical Inquiry in Education, 24(1), 64–78. Jackson, R. (2014). ‘Signposts’: Policy and practice for teaching about religions and non-religious worldviews in intercultural education. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing. Kuusisto, A. (Ed.) (2022). The Routledge international handbook for the place of religion in early childhood education and care. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Lamminmäki-Vartia, S., Poulter, S., & Kuusisto, A. (2020). The learning trajectory of emerging professionalism: A Finnish student teacher negotiating world-view education and early childhood education and care superdiversity. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 21(4), 297–311. https://doi.org/10.1177/14639491 20961598 Nasir, N., & Al-Amin, J. (2006). Creating identity-safe spaces on college campuses for Muslim students. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 38(2), 22–27. Niemi, H. (2021). Education reforms for equity and quality: An analysis from an educational ecosystem perspective with reference to Finnish educational transformations. CEPS Journal, 11(2), 13–35. Niemi, P.-M., Benjamin, S., Kuusisto, A., & Gearon, L. (2018). How and why education counters ideological extremism in Finland. Religions, 9(12), 420. https://doi. org/10.3390/rel9120420 OSCE/ODIHR. (2007). The Toledo guiding principles on teaching about religions and beliefs in public schools. Warsaw: Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights. Retrieved from https://www.osce.org/odihr/29154?download=true Raivio, M., Skaremyr, E., & Kuusisto, A. (2022). Caring for worldviews in early childhood education: Theoretical and analytical tool for socially sustainable communities of care. Sustainability, 14(7), 3815. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14073815 Rissanen, I., Kuusisto, E., & Kuusisto, A. (2016). Developing teachers’ intercultural sensitivity: Case study on a pilot course in Finnish teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 59(1), 446–456. Retrieved January 27, 2023 from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/202596/ Rissanen, I., Ubani, M., & Sakaranaho, T. (2020). Challenges of religious literacy in education: Islam and the governance of religious diversity in multi-faith schools. In T. Sakaranaho, T. Aarrevaara, & J. Konttori (Eds.), The challenges of religious literacy. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47576-5_4 Rodgers, C. (2002). Defining reflection: Another look at John Dewey and reflective thinking. Teachers College Record, 104. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9620.00181 Schihalejev, O., Kuusisto, A., Vikdahl, L., & Kallioniemi, A. (2020). Religion and children’s perceptions of bullying in multicultural schools in Estonia, Finland and Sweden. Journal of Beliefs & Values, 41(3), 371–384. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13617672.2019.1686732 Tirri, K. (2022). The moral teacher in global transition: The 2022 Kohlberg Memorial Lecture. Journal of Moral Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240.2022. 2142540 Toom, A., Husu, J., & Tirri, K. (2015). Cultivating student teachers’ moral competencies in teaching during teacher education. In C. J. Craig, & L. Orland-Barak (Eds.), International teacher education: Promising pedagogies (Part C): Advances in research on teaching (Vol. 22C, pp. 13–31). Bingley: Emerald Publishing. https:// doi.org/10.1108/S1479-368720150000026001

240  Martin Ubani et al. Ubani, M. (2021). Religious literacy as a 21st century skill for all teachers. In E. Kuusisto, M. Ubani, A. Toom, & P. Nokelainen (Eds.), Good teachers for tomorrow’s schools: Purpose, values, and talents in education (Vol. 16, pp. 166–191). Leiden: Brill Sense. Vertovec, S. (Ed.) (2015). Diversities old and new: Migration and socio-spatial patterns in New York, Singapore and Johannesburg. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer. Zilliacus, H., & Wolff, L.-A. (2021). Climate change and worldview transformation in Finnish education policy. In G. W. Noblit (Ed.), Oxford research encyclopedias: Education. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/ acrefore/9780190264093.013.1676

Index

Note: Italic page numbers refer to figures and page numbers followed by “n” refer to end notes. Aarnio-Linnanvuori, E. 199, 209 academic teacher education institutions 174 ‘Action plan for 2019-2023’ (UNAOC) 76 active loss 39–41 adaptive experts 171 Åhs, V. 108, 224–225 Alliance of Civilizations (AoC) 25 Andreotti, V. 196 Arendt, H. 31, 120 Aristotle 120 Arthur, J. 140–141 Asprem, E. 3, 23 Baumert, J. 170 Beck, U. 60 Benedict XVI, Pope 26 Benoit, C. 97–99, 102 Benoit, E. 109 Bergman, I. 36 Berlin, I. 31 Beyer, P. 63–64 bicycle model metaphor 209 Biesta, G. 155 Big Bang 114–115 big questions 4, 23, 50–52 Bildung theory 156 Black Lives Matter movement 113 Bloom, M. 209 Bowers, A. 210–211 Bowie, R. 100 Brandstetter, B. 154 bridge sustainability 136 Brundtland report 135

Cantell, H. 209 Canty, J. M. 201 Casanova, J. 124 Castillo, K. 155 Chaves, W. A. 210–211 Cherniak, B. 198 child: and childhood 155–156; diversity of 159; secular 154–156; and space 153; and teacher 156; and youth 237–238 Children’s geographies 149–150 children’s right to religion 48–49, 56–57; as an educational right 50–51; as part of children’s rights 49–50; vs. obligation to be religious 51–53; worldview education 54–55 Chirico, J. 62 Christianity 3, 8, 18–20, 22–26, 28–30, 38–39, 63–66, 96–98, 113–116, 121, 123, 143, 152, 155, 159 citizen-led 137 citizenship education 71, 76, 81–83 climate change 11, 184, 194, 196–199, 201–202, 207–218 climate education 202, 207–208, 217–218; global challenge 208–210; through PBL 211–216; upper secondary school curriculum 210–211 codes of conduct 183–184 codes of ethics 183–184 Comber, B. 138 Comenius, J. 185 Comenius oath 185

242 Index Commission on Religious Education (CoRE) 5–6, 8, 27, 30, 48, 93–100, 102–103, 107, 109 conflictual positionality 28 conservative equality 187 Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) 49–51, 236–237 Cooling, T. 93–97, 99–100, 102–103 Copenhagen school of securitisation 82 Copley, T. 141 Council of Europe (CoE) 76, 80, 107 COVID-19 pandemic 59, 62, 226 Creating Spaces for Diversity of Worldviews in Early Childhood Education 152, 157 critical literacy 138–139, 141 critical religious education (CRE) 100–103, 108–117 cultural Christianity 121 cultural diversity 26, 75, 136 Cutter-Mackenzie-Knowles, A. 210 Cyvin, J. 209 Cyvin, J. B. 209 Dalevi, S. 157 Davis, A. 141, 143 Delors, J. 77 Deng, Z. 208 de Ruyter, D. J. 108 Descartes 110, 112 Deutsch, M. 188 developmental psychology 155 development sustainability 136 de Witt, A. 198 diversity 1, 5, 26–27, 29, 45, 53, 56–57, 75, 78–81, 83, 99, 101–103, 117, 121–122, 128–129, 152–153, 159, 167–168 Dossett, W. 93 doxastic voluntarism 46n7 Droogers, A. 3, 22 Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) 2, 149–159, 237 education: citizenship 71, 76, 81–83; ecumenical 65–66; formal 52, 150; general knowledge 228–229; informal 52; instrumental 229–230; integrated 221–232; interpretive religious 98–100, 103; liberal religious 195; moral and/or ethical 227–228; performative religious 157–158; pre- and in-service teacher 173–174;

see also climate education; inclusive education; public education Education Reform Act (1988) 93 enactment 124, 169 Enlightenment 17–23, 25–26, 29–31, 110–112 environmental responsibility 199 epistemic relativism 111–112, 116 epistemic religion 41–42 equality 23, 29, 31, 172, 182, 187–190 equity 172–173, 182, 188–189 Erricker, C. 99–100, 102–103 Espinoza, O. 188 ethical codes 183–185 ethical religion 41–42 ethical sensitivity 186–187 Ethics and Environmental Competence 210 Evangelical Lutheran Church 121, 128, 156, 221 fairness 189 Faure, E. 77 Favier, T. 209 Feldman, A. 209 Finnish Ethical Committee for the Teaching Profession 185 Finnish/Finland: codes 183–184; ECEC 150–151, 153, 155; equality in 187; equity in 188–189; inclusive education 185–186; integrated education 221–232; RE and ethics 122–123; religious education and ethics 71, 221–222, 227, 229–232; and teachers 183–185, 225–226; worldview education 107–108, 120–123, 126–127, 130 FNBE 188 formal education 52, 150 Formosinho, J. 159 Foster 184 Freathy, R. 141, 143 Freebody, P. 139 Freire, P. 138 Fuglseth, K. 149, 156 fundamentalism 75, 78, 82, 197 Gadamer, H. G. 4, 20 Gearon, L. 140–141 Gehäuse 125 general knowledge education 228–229

Index  243 General Upper Secondary Education 123 Geneva Declaration 49–50 genocide 31 Gifford lectures 19 global education policy 71–75, 80, 83 globalisation 60, 62–65, 73–74, 169, 211 global learning 60–62, 64 glocalisation 64 Goethe, J. W. v. 18 Golden Rule 227 greenhouse gases 207, 214 Grimmitt, M. H. 195 Grossman, P. 172 Habermas, J. 28 Hagevik, R. 209 Hannam, P. 158 Haynes, J. 76 Hegel, G. F. W. 19 Heimbrock, L. 153 Hella, E. 102 Henningsen, J. 67 History of Totalitarian Democracy (Talmon) 31 holistic pragmatism 42–45 Horder, S. 172 Houlgate, S. 19 humanism 28, 78, 96–97, 117 Humboldt, A. v. 2, 20 Ihm, E. D. 3, 23 inclusion 81, 182, 185–186, 188–189 inclusive 223 inclusive education 2, 6, 74, 81, 122, 159, 182; equality and equity 187– 189; ethical challenges 185–187 individual equality 187 individualism 38 individual level 38–39 inequality 80–81, 134 informal education 52 instrumental education 229–230 integrated 222–223 integrated education 221–232 integrated instruction 222–225, 227–230, 231, 231–232 integrative spaces of learning 126–129 interpretive religious education 98–100, 103 interreligious education 66–67 Ipgrave, J. 152

Jackson, R. 82, 94, 98–100, 103–104 James, W. 19, 38–40, 42–44, 46n7 Jaspers, K. 125 Jenkins, P. 66, 142 Joas, H. 124 Jorgenson, S. N. 210 judgmental rationality 111–112, 116 Kallioniemi, A. 72, 108, 221–223 Kant, I. 2, 17–20, 25, 112, 139 Kearney, R. 20 Kimanen, A. 140–141 Kindermann, K. 158 Kopnina, H. 198 Kuhn, T. 95–96 Kunter, M. 170 Kuusisto, A. 237 League of Nations (1924) 49 Lefebvre, H. 157 Lehtonen, A. 209 Leonhard, S. 157 Lessing, T. 120 liberal equality 187 liberal religious education 195 Lipiäinen, T. 224 lived space 153, 156 location 152 Luhmann, N. 60, 63 Luke, A. 138–139, 141 Lutheranism 102, 121, 230 maintenance sustainability 136 Makkreel, R. A. 20 market-led 137 Marx, K. 20 Mascolo, M. 3, 22 Men in Dark Times (Arendt) 120 Miedema, S. 108 Milbank, J. 31 militant atheism (new atheism) 37 monotheistic (Abrahamic) religions 197 Monroe, M. C. 210–211 Moore, D. L. 139 moral and/or ethical education 227–228 Müller, M. 19 multicultural self 201–202 multidimensional capacity 61 multimodality 157 Muslims 76, 121, 127, 129, 152, 185, 190

244 Index narrative pedagogy 99–100, 102–103 National Core Curriculum for Basic Education (NCCBE) 123, 223, 232 National Entitlement 5, 27, 93 naturalism 115 Naugle, D. K. 108 New London Group 139 9/11 attacks 22, 31, 75 normal science 95–96 Öhman, J. 198 Oliveira-Formosinho, J. 159 On Certainty (Wittgenstein) 42 On Holy Ground (Gearon) 21 ontological realism 111–112 The Open Society and Its Enemies (Popper) 31 Organisation for Economic CoOperation and Development (OECD) 2, 6, 25, 61, 73–75, 81–82, 188 Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) 76, 82 The Origins of Totalitarianism (Arendt) 31 Oser, F. 108 Oxarart, A. 210–211 Pantic, N. 170 paradigm shifts 95–97, 103 particularism 75, 80 passive loss 39–41 pedagogy 145; critical 138; narrative 99–100, 102–103; of sacred space 156–158 Peirce, C. S. 40, 42 Peluso, N. 137, 144 performative religious education 157–158 Phillips, D. Z. 40–41, 43, 46n8–46n9 Pietarinen, J. 170 pillarization 55–56 PIONEERED 175 place 152 Plantinga, A. 41 Plate, R. R. 210–211 Popper, K. 31 Poulter, S. 108, 155 poverty 60, 134–136 pragmatism 37, 42–45, 45n5, 124 pragmatist approach 36 pre- and in-service teacher education 173–174

Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2, 6, 25, 61, 73, 187 project-based learning (PBL) 208, 210–218 Protestant Christianity 23, 97, 159 public education 134–135, 140–145, 195–196, 221, 223, 232, 236–238 Pulkkinen, L. 154 pupils’ learning 168–170, 175 Putnam, H. 43 puzzle-solving activity 95 Pyhältö, K. 170 qualitative pluralism 101 quantitative pluralism 101 radical equality 187 Raivio, M. 159, 237 Ratzinger, J. C. 26, 28 Reich, H. 108 Religion and Worldviews: the way forward._A national plan for RE 27–28 religiosity 122, 142, 151, 159, 197 religious education (RE) 1–2, 6, 21, 26–30, 64–65, 71–72, 75–76, 78–83, 107–108, 140–142, 144, 152; English 94–96, 103; and ethics 122–123, 130, 221–223, 232; in Germany 66; globalised religions 66–67; humanism in 97; integrated 221–232; international debate on 62; interpretive 98–100, 103; performative 157–158; religion and 51–53, 56; state 26–30; worldviews in 107–109; see also critical religious education (CRE) Religious Education Council (REC) of England and Wales 93–94, 96–97, 107 Religious Education in the Secondary School: Prospects for Religious Literacy (Wright) 101–102 religious literacy 53, 55, 108–109, 134–136, 138–144 Rest, J. R. 186 Riegel, U. 158 Robertson, R. 62–65 Roebben, B. 157 Rohlf, M. 18 Rousell, D. 210 Rousseau, J. J. 17, 23–26

Index  245 routine experts 171 Roux, C. 153 Sagberg, S. 155, 157 Saint Emmanuel the Good, Martyr (Unamuno) 36 Sánchez, J. M. 25–26 Scheunpflug, A. 61 Schlesinger, S. C. 21–22 Schlitz, M. M. 200 school’s practical expertise 174 Schröck, N. 61 scientific humanism 77–78, 81 Scoones, I. 137, 145 Sears, A. 140–141 secular humanism 28, 115 secularism 28 secularization 26, 38, 44 secular liberalism 115 securitisation 31, 76, 81–82 separative system 126–129 Serafini, F. 140 Shaw, M. 83 Shulman, L. 170 Skaremyr, E. 237 Smart, N. 21 social contract 78–81 social justice 138, 140–141, 143–144, 182, 187–190 social sustainability 135–138, 140, 142, 144–145, 237 socio-cultural level 38–39 Soini, T. 170 Soja, E. 152 space and spatiality 151–152 space-thinking 150, 158 specific research project (REDCo) 82 state-led 137 Stephens, J. C. 210 Stratton, S. K. 209 The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Kuhn) 95 Sund, L. 198 Swinburne, R. 41 Taliaferro, C. 3, 22 Talmon, J. L. 31 Taves, A. 3–4, 6, 23 Taylor, B. 197 teacher education: capabilities and qualities 167; diverse schools and diverse worldviews 171–173; in inclusive education 185–187; pre- and

in-service 173–174; professional capabilities 169–171; professional ethics 183–185; works 168–169 technology-led 137 telic education 65 Terhart, E. 183 Tharani, A. 97, 109 Theos 28–30 third space 154 Toledo Guiding principles 76, 82 Tolppanen, S. 209 Toom, A. 170 Truth and Method (Gadamer) 4–5, 20 Ubani, M. 154, 222, 226 Unamuno, M. d. 36 UN Declaration (1981) 50, 53 Underhill, J. W. 20 UNESCO Salamanca Statement 186 United Nations Alliance of Civilizations (UNAOC) 75–76 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) 8, 71–72, 80–84, 186, 194; global education policy and 72–75; and religion in education 75–76; vision 77–80 United Nations General Assembly 135 universalism 75 University of Helsinki 223–224, 226, 231 upper secondary school curriculum 210–211, 217–218 Vallance, S. 136 van der Kooij, J. C. 108–109 Van Gorp, B. 209 van Harskamp, A. 3, 22 Variation Theory of Learning 102 The Varieties of Religious Experience (James) 19, 38 Värri, V. -M. 196 Vidal, C. 124, 126 Viinikka, K. 226 Watts, M. 137, 144 Weber, M. 38 Welling, K. 157 Weltanschauung (Kant) 2, 5, 17–20, 22, 26–28 White, B. 210 White, M. 43–44 Wittgenstein, L. 20, 40–44, 46n8–46n9

246 Index World Bank 73–75 world culture 74 world religions paradigm 8, 28–29, 94, 96–99, 102–103, 125 world risk society 60, 65 worldview education 36–38, 40, 44–45, 45n6, 48–49, 54–57, 59, 81, 83, 107–108, 120–123, 125–130, 149–159, 195–197, 200–202, 224–225, 227–230, 236

Worldviews in Religious Education 28 worldview theory 112–116 Wright, A. 101–102, 108–109 Wubbels, T. 170 Wyschogrod, E. 21 Ylikörkkö, E. -M. 150, 156