‘Yes, sir, I understand – but what do you believe?’ The identity-dilemma of the religious education teacher

One of the achievements of British religious education has been the creation of an approach, curriculum and workforce that, in principle, does not promote one Christian denomination, or any other particular religious perspective over another. This British compromise has roots in the Victorian era, which arguably tap further back to the emergence of religious tolerance and political liberalism in the 17th century, or even to the Elizabethan religious settlement itself.

During the last decade, in what may be considered in the future a golden age of collaboration with continental Europe, the British model was exported because of its presumed virtue of promoting religious tolerance and respect in a plural democracy. This collaboration was marked by several transnational accords coordinated by secular bodies (such as the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe).

Meanwhile at home a well-developed debate about how such a ‘non-confessional’ approach to religious education was possible (or not) gently simmered – providing ample material for various theories and philosophies. The dichotomy of ‘learning about’ religion as opposed to ‘learning from’ is one enduring way non-confessionalism has been conceptualised. Others have argued that education is by definition confessional and therefore non-confessionalism is impossible, or that presenting a balance between perspectives in the classroom is possible, but like walking on a tightrope for the teacher.

The keystone of the British approach in practice is that teachers should not proselytise or urge a religious opinion upon students. This legally-binding mandate raises some practical difficulties as well as conceptual conundrums. For any person has a biography and that will be located within or without a given position about religion – in a general sense or in relation to any particular question about religion(s). The dilemma remains of what a teacher should do with these positions in the classroom, even if they can be hidden. .Small-scale research conducted in England suggests positioning can be challenging for teachers of religious education who are situated in a politically and culturally contested subject area.

Terence Copley argued that there was a need to balance authentic representation of religions with due sensitivity to the perspectives and autonomy of others with self-awareness of a teacher’s own positioning. However, a student’s desire to know what their teacher’s beliefs may be is not only motivated by concerns of fairness, or curiosity about the persona of the teacher. It can stem from a sensible strategy of dealing with existential questions: identifying with the wider-community, role-models and those in positions of authority when presented with difficult choices about what to think.

A useful way of exploring these issues is by applying identity theory from a social constructionist perspective. In short, social constructionism claims that social reality is created through interactions, and so is our and others’ ideas of who we are. Identity construction is the process of understanding oneself to be, or seeking to be recognised, or representing oneself in a particular way in a given social context. Religious identity construction therefore can be considered to be the identification with, rejection of, or partial or full integration, or presentation of elements of a religious tradition (or ties with members of that religious tradition) with an individual’s worldview, lifestyle, beliefs, practices, actions. Research suggests this is an ongoing, dynamic process in secondary schools.

While some professionals talk about being non-confessional, identity construction theory suggests the identity of the teacher may impact strongly on students. Religious identities are formed through processes of cultural identification, identity ascription, and socialisation according to the values and practices of students’ homes and communities. While students are likely to find role models in and outside of school, affinity with adults is fundamental to the identity construction process. Therefore teachers’ actions and perspectives can have an impact on the positions of students, as teachers cannot avoid being potential role models that espouse a particular view, even if that viewpoint is ambivalent.

So where does this leave us? What should the teacher do when asked about their own position on religious questions? Sensitive judgement is perhaps the most important resource here. For while a teacher should be honest, he or she must also be true to their role as religious educator within a particular institutional context.

In the case of British religious education (and legislation), it is not assumed that teachers are the arbiters of the truth claims of religions. Rather they stand between and within the several great religious traditions represented in the British Isles which are, ‘in the main’ Christian. This position, although not religiously neutral, is a broad one that can be conceived as a wider framework in which teachers can act with judicious and impartial care to respect the religious positions of their students and the communities they serve. (It can be argued that this is not possible without adopting a kind of practical agnosticism, however.)

In order to deal appropriately with inevitable identity-dilemmas of teaching religion in diverse contexts, teachers need to be aware of the complexities of religious positions and the social processes that sustain and develop them. This is, of course, a great challenge to teachers in a radically plural society where alongside traditional minorities, many people have dynamic and nuanced relationships to religions – thus multiplying the number of positions that teachers need to negotiate themselves as well as recognise in others.