What’s in a Name – Andrew Strachan
25 January, 2013
I think I’m changing my mind about changing the name of RE. Nietzsche said that changing your mind was a healthy thing to do and I like Nietzsche, so I’ll say that I’m happy with this shift. Although that wouldn’t be quite true.
When I wrote in the autumn, I said that the subject would eventually be called something else. My feeling was based on several things. Mainly to do with twenty years of seeing young people struggle with the superficial sense of the word ‘religion’. The way people use language is always shifting and ‘religion’ has accumulated connotations of dippiness and weakness (let’s blame Freud) that young people find hard to shake off. So the argument goes that ‘religion’ is just packaging; call it something more contemporary and cool and you’ll be away. And of course many schools have. Keep an eye on the jobs in the TES and you will see a whole selection. I’ve changed the name myself in more than one school, although only once did I actually get rid of the word ‘religious’.
Additionally, as we all know, philosophy and ethics have been the great growth areas, and arguably the areas that have ‘saved’ the subject. Let me direct this to those of you who were teaching in the 1990s; be honest – you know that you all changed your GCSE short courses to Philosophy and Ethics and you know that the kids loved it. It’s a seller and that cannot be denied. Much of what underscores the subject focus of Philosophy and Ethics is an engagement with secular ideas. The great thing about Hume and Kant is that theist and atheist alike are comfortable discussing their theories. It’s a common ground. It’s not pure atheism that people want (or the dry logic of British 20th century philosophy) but an inclusive interaction, where students can feel free to wander in and out of concepts. It is in this context that ‘spirituality’ resonates so much better. I hear people talk in a discriminating manner. They try to distinguish ‘real religion’ from ‘institutional religion’ but it’s a hard thing to do. Christianity has been institutionalised for so long that taking the political power out of the word ‘religion’ is ultimately just not possible. The past disdain for RE has not been about the substance of the subject, but about fear of indoctrination and the teenage suspicion of authority. Mark Chater, in his spell-binding article says : ‘Does the name of our subject help ordinary parents to understand …? I suspect not, and I think the time will soon come when we need a debate about the brand name.’
Religions are made up of lots of individuals, all of whom have a variety of perspectives. The boundaries of religions are not clear but osmose with the times. Young people have a hunger for that unclear boundary which is spirituality, where there is a big open space for lots of mixing. As Lat Blaylock said in his video ‘Who owns RE ?’ ( http://re-handbook.org.uk/section/intro 21:30 in) we cannot ignore the students whose preference is for spirituality over religion. If Mitt Romney gains the American Presidency, it will be a small seismic tremor for the Western world. To have as its leader a member of a group that claims Christian heritage, that most would say is not Christian and some would say (and 20 years ago everyone would have said) is a cult, brings society face to face with the fragility of the concept ‘religion’. So the argument for ditching ‘RE’ is that we should embrace this social change we see about us, put on the postmodern t-shirt and change the name. At least that’s what I thought until I did some reflecting.
It seems the big guns in RE all like ‘Religious Education’. I read something to that effect by Ian Jamison a while back and I’m sure I was at an INSET where Lat expressed the same views too. You might argue that ‘they would say that, because they are the RE establishment and have to uphold the status quo’, but there is more. I read Terence Cooley’s RE Online article from 2007 and listened to Durgamata reflect on the same issue on the TES Forum recently (http://community.tes.co.uk/forums/t/454418.aspx?PageIndex=11#6746045 ). They make some good points.
It’s not that I’m convinced by the argument that by ditching the word ‘religious’, the subject suddenly becomes social studies. It is not a black and white choice. However, here is something precious about the word and once you get rid of it, you’re very unlikely to get it back. Religion is our bread and butter, at least at Key Stage 3, and I’m sure it will stay that way.
I’m ready for a change of name, but I don’t think the country is quite ready, I don’t think the government is (Cameron’s recent speech on the importance of religious values seemed to be sympathetic to RE but I think he wants a quite old-fashioned version – ‘Divinity’ perhaps – see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8962894/David-Cameron-the-Church-must-shape-our-values.html ) and I also expect there are sympathetic voices out there saying that RE needs to concentrate on survival, dealing with the EBacc, Academies, allocation of PGCE places etc. and not be distracted by faffing about with public relations and how it is perceived. If there is a national fight, then a consistent recognisable name will give us focus.
Nevertheless, many schools have already changed the name and this process will continue. When I was young I was impatient for change and when change did not come, I despaired. But as I get older I see that things did actually change in the way I had hoped, only it took a lot longer than I thought. Some changes need time to ferment and clarify. Some social currents are slow but deep-running. One day RE should change its name, but… as Juba uttered to the spirit of Maximus ‘but not yet,… not yet’ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCKJmJNNrbM&feature=related 8:40 in).
Andrew Strachan (Head of RE at Torquay Girls’ Grammar School)
Spring 2012