Selección y mosaicismo

Pluralism is the final causal variable that changed the nature of society and thus the cultural and political context of religion and schooling. The influence of pluralism, combined with liberalism’s

concept of tolerance, meant there was a “moral obligation to resist the imposition of absolute

homogeneity” (Cladis, 1998, p. 26). Pluralism was recognised as being “implicitly divisive” and therefore “could only be instituted with equality or near equality of rights for different faiths” (Wilson, 1996, p. 21). Thus pluralism promoted “laicization in order to reduce social conflicts by

transferring social issues out of the religious area to more neutral grounds” (Dobbelaere, 1981, p.

151). Applied to schooling this meant that for a pluralistic population the relationship between religion and schooling should be characterised by equality for all religious beliefs with no imposition of religion.

Underlying pluralism are three secondary-level causal variables - the Reformation, colonisation and immigration - that form a relationship of equifinality meaning that there are “no necessary conditions in this structure” but “multiple paths” (Goertz & Mahoney, 2005, p. 502). Figure 5.6 illustrates this structure.

Figure 6-6: The secondary-level variables of pluralism

+

+

+

+

The Reformation created cultural and religious fragmentation and was a central variable that

contributed to 19th century pluralism. The Christianity that arose after the Reformation was

institutionally and culturally diverse, with the differences between denominational beliefs fiercely contested in terms of their theological, social, political, and educational consequences. In addition, the number of Protestant denominations continually increased as new interpretations of Christianity arose leading to increased Christian plurality within nation states. Processes of colonisation and immigration accentuated these differences, as well as giving rise to new religions outside of the Christian tradition.

Colonisation is a political and cultural process that encouraged settlement from diverse cultures to

settle under ‘new’ nations. This led to a cultural and religious pluralism between indigenous culture

and the culture of the colonisers, as well as a religious and cultural pluralism within the groups of immigrants. While colonisation initially reinforced a closer relationship between religion and schooling through an agenda of assimilation, within the period of differentiated schooling pluralism increasingly demanded neutrality and tolerance for religious beliefs in nation state schools.

The pluralism that arose with colonisation continued and expanded with continuing immigration over the 19th and 20th century. This growing religious pluralism nullified the purpose of religion as “a provider of societal cohesion, integration and solidarity” (Beyer, 2007, p. 99). Subsequently, religion’s cultural and social mandate in schooling was challenged. Within a system of universal schooling under the nation state, pluralism was perceived as being too great to continue the

Church’s monolithic authority and provision over schooling. A predominantly secular curriculum

and a limited decreasing influence of Church and clergy was deemed to be the best (though in the 19th century, not ideal) way to cater for, and respect pluralism.

In conclusion, pluralism has an intimate connection with the secularisation of society through being a key variable that prompts the nation state to question the role of religion within its institutions.

Within a plural liberal society, the state must refrain “from trying to impose a monopolistic

worldview” (Berger, 2001, p. 449). Consequently, religion becomes reconceptualised into the

private sphere, reinforcing secularisation, with pluralism “continued by the process of secularization itself” (Wilson, 1966, p. 222).

6.7 Conclusions

Differentiated schooling arose from the consolidations of global cultural, intellectual, and political movements that over time diminished religion’s authority over knowledge, culture, politics and thus schooling. Upon these movements, schooling became structured by a secular authority and provision, its knowledge drawn from secular epistemologies, and its increasing secular character shaped by a diminishing recognition of religion in relation to culture and ontology.

The Enlightenment and the scientific revolution provided a secular framework of knowledge based upon reason, diminishing the churches authority on knowledge and schooling. Enlightenment thought also, along with liberalism, contributed to a change in the perception of the individual. The Enlightenment emphasised the autonomy of the individual and their ability through reason to pursue their own happiness and fulfilment within this world. This increased the importance of education, specifically education that provided the means for an individual to develop their potential through reason.

Capitalism, industrialism, and the market society created a new economic context that prompted nation states to take an interest in schooling for the economic well-being of the nation and its citizens. Schooling developed to have important vocational and economic purposes that drastically reduced the previous dominance of religious and social purposes. In addition, within the new political context of democracy, the nation state became interested in schooling for its political purposes, as a successful democracy demanded an educated citizenry capable of exercising their democratic rights with educated reason.

Consequently, schooling differentiated from religion with the nation state assuming authority and provision over schooling. Working within the confines of liberalism and pluralism, the nation state was forced to ensure a tolerance and/or neutrality concerning religious belief in schooling. Thus,

there was an increasing recognition of a student’s right to freedom from religion. Religious

schooling as a means to social cohesion was challenged by these variables and its legitimacy opposed leading to the establishment of predominately secular nation state education systems in the late 19th century. Through the 20th century, this initial differentiation was accompanied by an increasing secularisation of worldviews. The following chapter will explore how differentiated schooling manifested in Norway and New Zealand.

Chapter Seven: Differentiated Schooling in Norway and New Zealand

By the 20th century, schooling in both Norway and New Zealand had shifted from a religious

authority, content, purpose, and ethos to a new secular framework. The role of religion in schooling diminished in line with the new secular concerns of the nation state and its citizens, while new secular epistemologies redefined the nature of reality. The education system arose to become independent, “self-referential”, and “self-organizing” outside of the overarching authority of

religion (Luhmann, 1985, p. 60). The school moved from its traditional role as “the ‘church’s

daughter’” (Holter, 1989, p. 44, own translation) to become, in the words of one Norwegian

educationalist, the “state’s heart” (Evenshaug, 2004, p. 53, own translation). Drawing upon the theory of differentiated schooling, this chapter analyses the historical trajectory to differentiated schooling in Norway and New Zealand. This chapter is divided into two halves; the first half examines differentiated schooling in Norway and the second half examines New Zealand. This chapter analyses the variables that held proximate influence to the development of differentiated schooling in each nation, while the previous theoretical chapter provides analysis of the underpinning historically removed (though educationally cumulative) variables.

The Norwegian half begins with the application of the concept and theory of differentiated schooling to Norway where the variables of proximate and distant influence, as well as the applicable conceptual ontological properties, are identified. Section 7.1.1 examines the philosophical and educational challenge from the Enlightenment, that together with the political requirements of liberalism, contested religion’s authority over schooling. This contributed to the increasing educational authority of the Norwegian nation state that in 1889 assumed authority and provision over schooling, however while schooling was officially differentiated a limited, albeit decreasing, role for religious education remained. Section 7.1.3 analyses the political developments of the welfare state and social democracy in the 20th century that decreased the significance of religion and the status and curricula time of religious education. Section 7.1.4 examines the anomaly in the period of differentiated schooling - World War II - that instigated for a brief period a renewed role for religion as a means of affirming Norwegian cultural identity in response to the

German occupation of Norway. The final section examines Norway’s return to differentiated

schooling after the war, where religious education again reduced in significance and curricula time. This was instigated and accompanied by a growing secularism in society. Significantly, the 1969

Education Act was the culmination of the secular currents in society as the church’s relationship to schooling was officially terminated.

The New Zealand half opens with an overview and application of differentiated schooling where the key influences and manifestations of the concept and theory of differentiated schooling are

identified. Section 7.2.1 outlines the developments towards the establishment of New Zealand’s

state funded, secular, and compulsory primary education system in 1877. The contentious secular clause was due to the influence of pluralism that along with liberalism, democracy and the rising authority of the nation state, removed religion from the public to the private sphere. Section 7.2.2

analyses the developments in pedagogy, psychology, and sociology in the 20th century that were

utilised to justify and support the separation of religion from schooling. Section 7.2.3 examines the development of the welfare state that prioritised economic concerns in the goal of economic homogenisation, diminishing further the significance of religion. Finally, Section 7.2.4 examines the development of secular ontological belief systems that over the 20th century manifested into a secularist worldview. This secularist worldview, while supporting differentiated schooling, challenged the perception that secular schooling was indeed a pragmatic solution.