A definition of ‘Other ‘ provided by Robinson and Diaz (2009), is “ those groups that have been marginalised, silenced, denigrated or violated, and defined in opposition to, and seen as other than, the privileged and powerful groups that are identified as representing the idealised, mythical norm in society”, (p.183). Bauman suggests that identities are set up as dichotomies, ‘othering’ give identities meaning and the belonging group power to suppress the other (cited in Zevallos 2011). Likewise, De Beauvoir (2003), argued “no group ever sets itself up as the One without at once setting up the Other against itself” (p 33). While Jensen (2011), and Spivak (1985), also identify power as an important element of ‘othering’, in essence the “other” is subordinate to the one in power. The above understanding of othering links with the theory of hegemony as one worldview becomes normalised and privileged while the other faces misrecognition. Theories also report a link between ‘othering’ and identity, Ashcroft, Griffiths and Tiffin (2007) agree “the existence of others is crucial in defining what is "normal" and in locating one’s own place in the world” (p.169). Zevallos (2011) further explains that social institutions such as the law, the media, education and religion play a part and have power through their support of what is accepted as “normal” and what is considered “Other”. Zevallos’s account has similarities with Gramsci cultural hegemony theory and Bourdieu’s theory of cultural capital, whereby those who support and comply with the hegemony, doxa and habitus are considered normal and awarded increased social capital compared to those who are considered other. Hence othering helps identify the norm and supports power relations. A consequence of “othering” may be that instead of diversity being accepted as a dynamic and valuable human force it may result in those with power and control been supported to cause harm to others, (Lorde, 1984; Kelly, 2000).
68
3.5.2 Othering and Irish Education
In relation to this research it is explored whether minority faith and worldview students are positioned as other in schools with a Catholic ethos. Research by O’Donnell (2014), in Irish schools suggests some children are conditionally given places in schools but are also positioned or identified as “other”;
The de facto situation for many children in Irish schools is that they are welcomed into schools, but only according to the logic of conditional hospitality which positions them as an ‘other’; even if this ‘other’ is conceptualised positively as enriching the existent shared community, the logic remains that of the sovereign welcoming the ‘other’ in ( p.6).
Likewise research in Irish Post Primary schools found othering is an issue as the Irish curriculum names what is a normal Irish identity, which impacts on and supports the othering of ethnic minorities and non-co-religionist students (Bryan, 2008, 2009b). While Bryan and Bracken (2011) also report that intercultural activities were often tokenistic and reinforce minority ethnic students’ sense of otherness. This is akin to making safe concessions as part of maintaining a hegemony. Moreover, Parker-Jenkins & Masterson (2013), report, an everyday lack of recognition from schools, particularly in relation to appropriateness of school uniforms in reflecting diversity within the school and also limited curriculum in addressing the identities of minorities. Again misrecognition supports the marginalisation, devaluing and othering of difference in Irish schools. Furthermore, Irwin (2010) reports the religious ethos in Irish schools is a form of tolerance or ‘patronising recognition’ of the non-Catholic child or parent. Irwin (2010) and Taylor (1994) further explains that ‘patrionising recognition’, “can inflict harm” and negatively stereotype the other (Taylor 1994, p.25). Moreover, it is argued that systematic “othering” is evidenced by the Church, State and the Law supporting Catholicism as the normal habitus while explicitly “othering” non –Catholics in State funded schools as evidenced by the the Employment Equality Act (1998-2011) section37(1) and the Equal status Act (2000-2011)(section (7)(3)(C). Likewise, O’Donnell (2014), suggests that,”some of us are positioned as different from dominant norms and values, not quite belonging to the institutions and structures of the State as
69
they currently function”. Having defined otherness and its relevance to this research, a more detailed examination of “othering” and its impact on identity development is explored in the next section.
3.5.3 Identity, Othering and Agency
Callero (2003), explains the impact of “othering”, as he describes self is a construction based on one’s power relations, culture and history. Similarly, Bourdieu’s theory of social capital, understands an individual’s social identity is linked with rewards and punishments and notions of superiority and inferiority (Okolie 2003, cited in Zevallos 2011). Likewise and important to this research is an understanding that “othering” creates a climate or culture where one group is constructed as “normal” and the other as deviant or inferior (Zevallos, 2011). The other may be constructed as pathological or extreme in a way that is not normal and morally inferior (Spivak 1985; Jensen, 2011). In relation to this thesis a common stereotype of atheists is that they are immoral (Gervais, 2014 & Saad, 2009). Likewise negative stereotyping of Islam, as a violent religion is also evident (Keogh, 2014; Carr, 2016 & Rane & Ewart 2012). Moreover the media is currently subjecting Muslims to othering (Breen, Haynes, Devereux, 2006; Buckley, 2016).
Hence “othering” and stereotyping have the potential to negatively impact on the identity development of minorities in society. Spivak (1985) also explained that “othering” is multi-dimensional or as Collins (1989), described an interlocking system of oppression, the systems of oppression may include sexism, racism and class. Hence in relation to this research, students who are neither Irish, white or Catholic may be particularly vulnerable to “othering”.
On a more positive note Jensen (2011) critiques the theories of “othering” by introducing the concept of agency. Jensen links “othering” and agency with identity development and suggests agency supports a less dichotomous view of identity development while still acknowledging the power structures conditioning identity formation. He challenges the notion that “those at the centre have the power to describe, and the other is constructed as inferior” (p.65). His view is that the above concepts of “othering” may be valid but their effect on identity development are challenged by an individuals’ ability to show agency. In essence the other does not always accept the condition of other as appointed by the dominant group. Jensen
70
(2011), research study on identity formation among young ethnic minority men in Denmark, linked the concepts of othering, identity development and agency. He explains how “othering” is in part caused by stereotyping which impacts on identity development, however he suggests two responses, one is where individuals capitalise on some aspect of “othering” in this case “exoticist” fascination. In an Irish context, taking atheism as an example, the question arises as to whether it is possible to capitalise on an atheist identity. Identifying with atheism maybe linked to been alternative or free thinking which could be seen as attractive particularly for adolescents who are trying to define a unique identity, while Whitely (2010) reports a new trend in Western liberal democracies towards a “new atheism,” ( p.190). The literature also suggests a positive image of atheism as linked to intelligence, (Cribari- Neto, Souza, 2013). However according to Weber; Pargament; Kunik; Lomax; Stanley (2012), there is substantial evidence that nonbelievers suffer stress due to the negative perceptions by others. Hence in relation to this research it is unclear if an atheist identity could be capitalised on, particularly in Irish Post Primary schools. Hence, it is necessary to consider the second reaction to “othering”. Jensen (2011), Sandberg and Pedersen (2006), reports a second response is to claim normality, to construct oneself as an ordinary person and appeal for sympathy and understanding. From a Islamic perspective in order to avoid “othering” and religious stereotyping of Islam as a violent religion, 70,000 Muslim Clerics issuing Fatwa condemning ISIS, (Syrmopoulos,2015). The key point here is that the Clerics perceived there was a need to do so in order to counter attempts at “Othering” and stereotyping. Hence minorities show agency by actively rejecting and distancing themselves from treats to their identity. In essence, “claiming normality, insisting that one is not that different, can be a strategy for humanisation” (Jensen, 2011 p.73). Jensen (2011), in his research uncovered another interesting finding whereby young ethnic minority men in Denmark do not claim to be Danish as they believe this course is blocked and instead must claim a common humanity. Likewise, Fangen (2007), found Somalis were also blocked from having a Norwegian identity when living in Norway. Similarly, research on Irish Muslims’ experience, also found being accepted as Irish was blocked for some (Carr, 2016). However, it is unclear and no research could be found as to whether atheists consider claiming being Irish as blocked to them. Equally important is Jensen’s research finding which reports that the young ethnic minority men did not aspire to Danishness, but do claim normality, he interprets this as an attempt to carve out a third
71
space, enabling them to hold onto their own identities, not Danish but also not different from the Danish. Hence the dichotomous view of either Danish or other is challenged. The researcher suggests the overlap, third space or common space is our shared or common humanity. Moreover, the researcher suggests those in power also have agency and may not support “othering” in order to define themselves. Indeed it challenges or at least circumvents Bauman’s theory of “othering” as absolute due to an individuals’ agency allowing a third space. Lived evidence of a third space, are marriages and friendships between religious and unreligious people and people of different ethnicity. Moreover, while Baumann suggested ‘othering’ meant woman was always defined in opposition to man. It is noteworthy that the closest human bonds are often between man and woman, mother and child. Hence, othering although it needs to be understood, it does not warrant a perception of negative outcomes (cited in Zevallos 2011). In summation, people have different religious, or world views but whether all in the dominant group define themselves in opposition to minority groups may be challenged by agency. Also when “othering” occurs whether it is accepted, capitalised on or rejected as part of an individuals’ identity may also be determined by human agency. Hence the experience of having a minority religious or world view within a predominantly Catholic Post Primary school system warrants further research.
3.5.4 Challenges to Othering
Human agency may challenge the practise and acceptance of “othering”. In an Irish context and relevant to this research is the agency shown by current lobby groups including Equate and Education Equality in advocating for equality of education provision. It is noteworthy that rather than campaigning for a secular education system, their main aim at present is for equal access to Catholic schools. This indicates an acceptance of Catholic patronage and resists attempts to create a Catholic versus non Catholic or “Othering” scenario. Furthermore, the majority of Catholic schools accept non-co-religionist students. While atheist Ireland supports a secular education system, they do not suggest atheist schools as necessary or support segregation on religious grounds. Hence it could be argued that in Irish education there is evidence of an avoidance of explicit segregation or “othering” of Catholic versus non-Catholic students. However as detailed in chapter three, laws which support segregation on religious grounds support “othering” when explicitly or implicitly employed. The next
72
section explores in greater depth the concept of agency identified by Jensen in this section.