Page 43 - Šolsko polje, XXIX, 2018, no. 5-6: Radicalization, Violent Extremism and Conflicting Diversity, eds. Mitja Sardoč and Tomaž Deželan
P. 43
d. gereluk and c.-a. titus ■ how schools can reduce youth radicalization
An Educational Response to Youth Radicalization
Similar to the previous section, we want to be explicit that we do not
think that schools have the sole responsibility to address this complex
issue. Further, it might seem imprudent to address youth radicalization
at all given the very few youth who may become increasingly extremism
and radicalized, which begs the question of whether this is an education-
al question at all. We start from the premise that the pedagogical task is
beneficial not only to those who may be susceptible to radicalization, but
would bolster general polarization that is prevalent. A purposeful educa-
tional task to create more opportunities for more robust historical and po-
litical analysis, political deliberation, and political tolerance seems more
than warranted for all students. Thus, the intended aim is to build capac-
ity for students to better negotiate the rhetoric and public discourse that
narrows and polarizes particular ideologies.
If the aim of radicalized groups is to create an absolute truth among
its members – a historical and contemporary narrative that rises to their
cause, to the exclusion of all other possible alternative ways forward –
then arguably the primary task is to interrupt one particular ideology and
worldview. Yet historically, educational institutions and historical curric-
ula have been quite poor at this (Loewen, 2010). It requires thus a move
away from a particular dominant ideology, which often positions the wars
and events as winners and losers, providing a simply descriptive narrative
of key dates, leaders, and heroes. In many cases, the work of developing a
democratic conception, and an historical understanding of one’s society,
may skew and obfuscate the complexities, nuances, and tensions among
individuals and groups. For instance, an approach that suggests that the
“mark of true citizens: courage, loyalty, responsibility, gratitude to fore-
bears, and a self-sacrificing devotion to the common good” (Kersten, 2011:
para 2), may move us toward belligerent forms of citizenship, and only
heighten the polarization and isolation felt by some (Ben-Porath, 2006).
In creating a narrow, commonly simplified historical narrative, it poten-
tially causes problems for multiple students. For those disenfranchised,
the historical narrative may further silence or oppress their perspective.
And similarly, it may create a lack of awareness or understanding from
those who do not see a particular historical time period as problematic.
For instance, the portrayal of Afghanistan under current regimes may
highlight the current oppressions of women and children, with increas-
ing religious indoctrinations. However, without a better understand-
ing of the historical epochs, which has been a strategic place for its lo-
cation to South Asia, one may have a one dimension and misconstrued
41
An Educational Response to Youth Radicalization
Similar to the previous section, we want to be explicit that we do not
think that schools have the sole responsibility to address this complex
issue. Further, it might seem imprudent to address youth radicalization
at all given the very few youth who may become increasingly extremism
and radicalized, which begs the question of whether this is an education-
al question at all. We start from the premise that the pedagogical task is
beneficial not only to those who may be susceptible to radicalization, but
would bolster general polarization that is prevalent. A purposeful educa-
tional task to create more opportunities for more robust historical and po-
litical analysis, political deliberation, and political tolerance seems more
than warranted for all students. Thus, the intended aim is to build capac-
ity for students to better negotiate the rhetoric and public discourse that
narrows and polarizes particular ideologies.
If the aim of radicalized groups is to create an absolute truth among
its members – a historical and contemporary narrative that rises to their
cause, to the exclusion of all other possible alternative ways forward –
then arguably the primary task is to interrupt one particular ideology and
worldview. Yet historically, educational institutions and historical curric-
ula have been quite poor at this (Loewen, 2010). It requires thus a move
away from a particular dominant ideology, which often positions the wars
and events as winners and losers, providing a simply descriptive narrative
of key dates, leaders, and heroes. In many cases, the work of developing a
democratic conception, and an historical understanding of one’s society,
may skew and obfuscate the complexities, nuances, and tensions among
individuals and groups. For instance, an approach that suggests that the
“mark of true citizens: courage, loyalty, responsibility, gratitude to fore-
bears, and a self-sacrificing devotion to the common good” (Kersten, 2011:
para 2), may move us toward belligerent forms of citizenship, and only
heighten the polarization and isolation felt by some (Ben-Porath, 2006).
In creating a narrow, commonly simplified historical narrative, it poten-
tially causes problems for multiple students. For those disenfranchised,
the historical narrative may further silence or oppress their perspective.
And similarly, it may create a lack of awareness or understanding from
those who do not see a particular historical time period as problematic.
For instance, the portrayal of Afghanistan under current regimes may
highlight the current oppressions of women and children, with increas-
ing religious indoctrinations. However, without a better understand-
ing of the historical epochs, which has been a strategic place for its lo-
cation to South Asia, one may have a one dimension and misconstrued
41
