Fritz Oser ChangingDevilsintoAngels
Fritz Oser ChangingDevilsintoAngels
Fritz Oser ChangingDevilsintoAngels
Prevention of right-wing extremism and racism as an attempt to root out the problem as early as
possible is usually targeted at changing opinions and attitudes of individuals – especially of those
young individuals who have already displayed or seem prone to right-wing behaviour such as right-
wing slogans, actions of exclusion, gang building or violence motivated by racism. The provocative
question – “Changing Devils into Angels? ” – hints at the corresponding wish or idea to rid of the
problem by directly influencing someone on a personal level through pedagogical measures – to
educate “the evil” towards “the good”. It also suggests that racism is a moral phenomenon and not
only a political one.
However, reality and the phenomenon of racism and right-wing extremism as well as the possibilities
of prevention and counteracting prove to be less clear and unambiguous than a simple change. On the
one hand, the problem cannot be reduced to attitudes or actions of individuals who are part of or
closely linked to the right-wing scene. It is rather an intricate social phenomenon deeply rooted in the
core of society. Racism is also inherent in cultural and social order. As a process it is routinely created
and reinforced through everyday practices (Essed 1991, Leiprecht 2001, Rommelspacher 2002), for
example in politics, the media and also in the area of education1. It is a structuring factor of social
reality, in which every one of us is caught up to some extent. On the other hand, there is the risk of
overrating the educational possibility of change, the risk of falling for the highly attractive idea of
being able to simply “deeducate” the problem by appropriate prevention measures, forgetting the
subjective motivations of students as well as the social circumstances.2 The idea of systematic and
linear change through pedagogical intervention is not only naive but also dangerous as it turns a social
problem into a one-sided personal and partly pedagogical one and, thus, fosters its reproduction.
Despite these difficulties and ambivalences, though, we regard it as important to include educational
programs dealing with racism, racist exclusion and violence in projects at and outside of school. This,
however, demands to work with young people on a subject-related and reflexive way taking up their
ideas and perspectives without overlooking the social complexity of the phenomenon of racism. This
leads to the question of how such programs can be structured.
It is precisely this question that our project “Preventing Right-Wing Extremism and Ethnic Violence at
School” concerns itself with. In an intervention and evaluation study we developed a preventing
1
cf. the international comparative work of institutional discrimination at school by Gomolla 2005 or the studies
of social inequality in school (Häberlin/ Imdorf / Kronig 2004)
2
Not least bear pedagogical conditions hierarchies and structures of inequality and even pedagogues – despite
their very best intentions – are involved in ethicised and stereotyping thinking and acting with excluding
consequences (Lea/Helfland 2004, Walter 1999, Weber 2003).
program for (secondary) schools, involving students and teachers.3 This program was carried out in 37
school classes in ordinary lessons in combination with workshops for teachers (mediator concept). It is
particularly noteworthy that both, students and teachers were included in the process and that both
groups, despite their different roles, were encouraged to learn and to reflect. The entire process – the
implementation of the program in classes as well as the workshops for teachers – was scientifically
evaluated. Its effectiveness and the entailed ambivalences and difficulties were evaluated by
qualitative and quantitative methods.
In this paper we outline the theoretical basics and the approach for preventing racism and exclusion at
schools. With respect to the main results of the quantitative and qualitative examination we discuss
critically its drawbacks and opportunities (detailed cf. Oser/Riegel/Tanner 2007).
3
The students were between 14 and 19 years old and we chose ethnically homogeneous as well as ethnically
heterogeneous classes. We also included different levels of secondary schooling (Sek 1, Real- und Kleinklassen).
Altogether there were 570 students and 34 teachers involved. The intervention took place from January to June
2005.
4
On the one hand, We-groups can give identity and can be a positive societal proficiency, but it can also have
the roots of discrimination in it
Regarding its content the project, therefore, is characterised by an anti-racism and diversity-conscious
perspective while pursuing a deconstructive approach. It focuses on the one hand on metaphors of
inclusion and rejects consciously excluding social representations of “We” and “the Others ” – social
constructions which are typical for everyday-racism and exclusion (cf. Leiprecht 2001) and which are
part of the students’ way of thinking and acting, (cf. Oser/Riegel/Tanner 2007: 44ff 5, Studer 2005,
Heini 2007).
A core aspect of the intervention program, therefore, was the “Narrative Approach” established by
Gavriel Salomon as part of the Peace Education in Israel (cf. Salomon 2002). Salomon holds that
„Collective narratives […] appear to play a central role in conflicts […]. Thus it stands to reason that
collective narratives should be the targets of coexistence programs.” (Salomon 2003, 15). For the
design of the intervention it was key to concentrate on the Swiss context and more latent forms of
differentiation as the constellations of conflict here are less polarised and violence ridden as in the
Middle East. The intervention dealt with and deconstructed current stereotypes, enemy images, and
images and discourses which contribute to the construction and devaluation of “the Others” and which
were relevant and known to the students in their everyday life.6 The aim was to expose the
constructive nature of demarcation and labelling as well as of negative images of “Others” and to point
out to the consequences of such images and discourses.
A further element is the pedagogical concept of “constructive disequilibrium” and “reversed
experience”. It is an appendix to the deconstructive approach and aims at the reflection of personal
emotions and experiences as well as of opinions and actions which – often unreflected and
unintentionally – lead to exclusion, discrimination and “othering” (Oser & Baeriswyl 2001). The
(discriminating) consequences and ambivalences of apparently clear opinions and unreflected actions
are unmasked in staged situations (simulations, discourse conflicts, dilemma discussions) and
conversations about personal experiences. Thus it is possible to reflect one’s own involvement in
discrimination and devaluation without being accused or publically displayed as racist. The aim of this
method is rather to point out and overcome deep-seated beliefs – first by means of unsettlement and
then by collectively developing alternative ways of thinking and acting. Thus, the constructive
disequilibrium can lead to a conceptual change in the long run.
5
Core arguments of multicultural coexistence as well as images of the self and others were collected in a
qualitative preliminary study in group discussions.
6
For example generalising and demeaning terms such as „the foreigners“ or “the un-employed”, the ridiculing or
demeaning of young muslima wearing a head-scarf, the referring to refugees as “scoungers” as well as enemy
images and “we group constructions” which are influenced by a specific region or youth culture.
interventional process and to enable them to take responsibility. After all, they as well are involved in
structures which create exclusion and ethnicisation and, by acting as educators, engaging with the
students and transferring knowledge, they play an important role in the constitution and arrangement
of the of social circumstances. Thus, the so called concept of mediators is one of the essential
characteristics of this intervention (cf. Perrez 1983, Oser 1988): the teachers and not the team of
scientists implemented the intervention program in their classes. To prepare them for this task they
were introduced to the material in three day-long workshops. Those professional development
seminars also offered an opportunity to reflect upon experiences made during the intervention and to
analyse critically one’s own educational thinking and acting. Methodically this concept of mediators
goes back to an approach which has already proved itself in earlier intervention studies on moral
development and education (cf. Oser/Schläfli 1986). This method not only offers the opportunity to
examine the intervention program context-relatedly, but also to include the teachers in the process of
self-reflection and learning. This is something which is of great importance to the anti-racist and
intercultural work, but which, nonetheless, is rarely employed in this combination.
Scale t0 t2 Significance
7
The pre-post-follow-up questionings/interviews took place right before, right after and six months after the end
of the intervention phase.
8
To this end the group was divided in two and the intervention was performed subsequently in both groups.
Thus, the group starting later with the intervention process was able to serve as a control group. The results of
the comparison of the control group show no changes in the key variables of the control group, thus proving that
the changes noticed in the intervention groups can be linked to the intervention.
9
t1 is only necessary and significant for the control-group-comparison, but not for this pre-post-comparison.
M10 s M s
Diversity at School (4/14)11 16.45 4 .0 17.13 4.3 F(1,468)= 14.196;p<.01
Adaption of Negative Narratives
12.02 3.4 12.07 3.5 F(1, 480)=0.112; n.s
(3/10)
Critical View on Negative
16.76 3.9 17.41 4.3 F(1, 468)=12.095; p<.01
Narratives (4/14)
Narratives of Refugees (5/17,5) 17.42 5.1 17.81 5.5 F(1, 196)= 4.528; p<.05
Equality of Immigrants (6/21) 26.62 6.6 25.95 7.3 F(1, 457)=7.421; p<.05
Excluding Attitudes towards
16.86 6.1 16.68 6.5 F(1, 453)=0.571; n.s
Immigrants (5/17,5)
Looking at the changes in the pre-post-comparison one notices a couple of significant developments.
The results of “Diversity at School”, “Critical View on Negative Narratives” and “Negative Narratives
about Refugees” have changed as intended by the intervention. At the same time, no significant
changes have taken place in the “Adaption of Negative Images” and the “Excluding Tendencies”
while the agreement with “Equality of Refugees” shows a decreasing tendency.
t2 t3
Scale 12
Significance
M s M s
Diversity at School (4/14) 16.92 4.1 16.47 4.3 F(1, 333)= 4.357; p<.05
Adaption of Negative Narratives
12.09 3.4 11.62 F(1, 336)=6.793; p<.05
(3/10)
Critical View on Negative
17.44 4.2 17.00 4.3 F(1, 330)=4.655; p<.05
Narratives (4/14)
Narratives of Refugees (5/17,5) 17.44 5.2 17.38 5.5 F(1, 332)=0.098; n.s.
Equality of Immigrants (6/21) 25.57 7.1 25.13 7.3 F(1, 328)=2.761; n.s.
Excluding Attributes towards
16.93 6.5 16.23 6.1 F(1, 323)=7.313; p<.01
Immigrants (5/17,5)
The phase in between the end of the intervention (t2) and the follow-up interview (t3) shows a
relativisation of parts of the prior results: The positive changes concerning the agreement with
“Diversity at School” as well as “Critical view on narratives” have decreased again – although not
strongly. But within this period the agreement with “Excluding attitudes towards Immigrants” and the
“Adaption of Negative Narratives”, on the other hand, have decreased now – as a “delayed” positive
effect.
Concerning the three scales on “Negative Narratives of Refugees and Immigrants”, the comparison of
the results of t0 (before the intervention) and the follow-up-test (t3), all three scales shows that despite
10
Mean of sumscores, depending on number of items (Likert-Scale: strongly disagree (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
strongly agree)
11
Numbers in brackets: Number of Items belonging to a scale as well as theoretical average value.
12
The different t2 means in tab 1 and tab 2 result from different valid data (number of cases) in the comparative
calculations.
a slight positive tendency, although the positive trend measured throughout the entire time is not
significant. That’s a different story with those two scales concerning political attitudes towards
immigrants and refugees. Concerning the excluding tendencies towards immigrants and refugees , the
changes took a longer time to become evident: The agreement with the scale “Excluding Attitudes”
has significantly decreased in time, although this effect only started showing after the end of the
intervention phase. Yet another story is the question of “Equality of Immigrants”: The overall strong
agreement with this scale has decreased significantly during the intervention, even though the
students’ agreement is still extraordinarily high. We’ll come back to that later.
Who was the intervention helpful to? A comparison of right-wing and left-wing students
In the context of the prevention of right-wing extremism it is of great interest to compare how the
beliefs of students of different political orientation have changed during the intervention. In the
questionnaire the students were given to politically positioning themselves as “left-wing”, “more left
than right-wing”, “neither left nor right-wing”, “more right than left-wing”, “right-wing”. In order to
find out how the results of the key dimensions would change in relation to the political self-positioning
of the students, the first two options were summarised as “left-wing”, the last two as “right-wing” and
the option in the middle “neither left nor right-wing” was named “centre ground”. Beneath please find
the pre-post-comparison taking the political self-positioning of the students into account:
Table 3: pre-post-comparison according to a Mixed Anova taking into account the political self-
positioning of the students
As to be expected the direct comparison shows at first a significant difference regarding the results of
those who positioned themselves as politically “right-wing”, “neither left nor right-wing”(centre) and
“left-wing”.: Those who positioned themselves as “right-wing” have without exception higher results
in “Excluding tendencies”, “Adaption of negative Narratives” and “Negative Narratives about
Refugees” and the lowest results in “Diversity”, “Critical View” and “Equality”.
However, it is interesting to compare the changes that took place within these three groups during the
intervention: The strongest positive developments are to be noticed within the group of those who
positioned themselves “neither left nor right-wing. This shows that the deconstructive engagement
with the topic and the raising of awareness was particularly fruitful for those students who were yet
unsure about their political orientation. It has to be said though, that this group is also very prone to be
influenced by the omnipresent right-wing discourses and generalising images. For this reason it was
even more important to motivate and direct those students towards deconstruction and more openness
by means of the intervention. It is likely that those students of the “middle” were less stubborn in the
dealing with the topic at hand and thus more open to dissociate of their previous beliefs and opinions
than both the “left-wing” and the “right-wing” students.
Those students who had positioned themselves “right-wing” partly showed themselves sceptical
towards teachers and members of the project group and in post-interviews often rejected the idea of
having experienced a change in their beliefs due to the project: “I have not changed my opinion of
other people. I still have the same beliefs. This project didn’t change anything for me.” However, their
results show positive changes nonetheless: in four of the five factors their results improved in the pre-
post-comparison. Possibly they could also be incited to rethink their opinions and beliefs about others,
even though they claim that that is not the case at all. Another positive sidenote is that the “right-
wing” students never succeeded in dominating the discourse in class. Even though the changes within
the “left-wing” group are the slightest, those students who showed themselves already open towards
others (people of different backgrounds or way of living) prior to the intervention could also profit
from the project. Those students were strengthened in their arguments against right-wing slogans and
learned how to deal with conflict or mobbing situations.
Of interest is here again the comparison of the results of the “Equality” scale: Considering the outset,
the development goes in the opposite direction: While the results of the “right-wing” students
improve, those of the “centre ground” students and even more substantially those of the “left-wing”
students decrease. This is also an explanation for the overall decreasing results in this scale as
mentioned above. It is possible that the critical examination of the topic has lead to a more
sophisticated judgment of the coexistence of people with different background. Maybe they see now
more difficulties and problems and are with a “general openness” against immigrants more cautious.
It has to be pointed out though that the students still strongly agree with those statements concerning
the equality of natives and immigrants and that the overall result is very decidedly on the agreement
side. Especially the increase of agreement amongst “right-wing” students in this context, though, is to
be noted as a very positive effect.
Authors:
Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. mult. Fritz Oser, Emeritus: head of the NFP-Project “Preventing Right-Wing
Extremism and Ethnic Violence at School”, former professor of education and educational psychology
at the Department of Education, University of Fribourg/Switzerland, [email protected]
Dr.soc Christine Riegel: scientific officer of the NFP-Project “Preventing Right-Wing Extremism and
Ethnic Violence at School” at University of Fribourg/Switzerland, now: Akademische Rätin at
University of Tübingen/Germany, [email protected]
Lic.phil Sabine Tanner: scientific assistant of the NFP-Project “Preventing Right-Wing Extremism and
Ethnic Violence at School” at University of Fribourg/Switzerland, now: scientific assistant at PHZ
Luzern. [email protected]