Abstract
In designing the ample and complex research that resulted in Negotiating Political Identities: Multiethnic Schools and Youth in Europe, Daniel Faas aimed to explore how 15-year-old youth from Turkish migrant families and their German and English peers constructed their identities as members of political, social, and cultural contexts that are both part of a nation state and of Europe. Faas’ impressive endeavor spans crucial issues of comparative education, multiculturalism, and “interculture” that he critically examines through an innovative study where between-country and within-country differences in youth identity formation are for the first time compared. Consequently, in 2004 he carried out fieldwork in Stuttgart and London, choosing two neighborhoods inhabited by working-class and middle-class families, and two different, but comparable, types of schools (one Hauptschule and a Gymnasium in Stuttgart, and two comprehensive schools in London, the second of which, the Darwin School, was one of London’s highest performing comprehensive schools in 2004), whose educational policies and cultures he studied with reference to each country’s political history and the history of migration.
The complex articulation of his research is introduced by a detailed discussion of “political identities in multicultural Europe,” where Faas highlights the intertwining of national politics and policies with those issued by the European Union and the Council of Europe on migration, cultural diversity, and education rights. “Intertwining” is a key concept in Faas’ research and findings elaboration, as he argues that many crucially relevant social and cultural factors interact among themselves along the processes of identity formation of 15-year-old students and thereby support an interpretation of the ensuing identities as negotiated with national, supranational, and regional membership, class status and ethnicity, school and peer cultures, as well as youth learning opportunities and work prospects. Faas discusses the European dimension of school policies and cultures by delving into how the two educational systems share, disseminate, and mediate the European recommendations on migration and diversity, legislate on the socio-political goals of assimilation, integration, inclusion, and social cohesion, and engage in promoting new identities among national and immigrant youth.
Given the two complex national and supranational pictures that Daniel Faas outlines, the research methodology required utmost attention: he had to grapple with the issue of equivalence, namely whether, and to what extent, the same research questions could be meaningful in different socio-political contexts and cultures. He thus selected schools with similar achievement and education levels and attentively examined the secondary sources (official statistics). He further carefully designed the relevant qualitative interviews and questionnaires and observed the life of students and teachers, aware of his own cultural and religious difference during interaction.
Two ample sections are devoted to the fieldwork findings in Germany and England: readers are first guided through each country’s events and political decisions regarding the construction and support of national identities in relation to migration after WWII in Europe. Regarding the between-country difference, Daniel Faas underlines how Germany soon promoted a “Europeanized German identity” to meet the challenge of migrants’ influx. In reconstrucing the history of migrants’ educational provisions and immigration legislation he underlines its assimilationist and discriminatory character until the 1980s changes in citizenship legislation. By then, the European agenda had already impacted German education and national and regional/ethnic identities, later challenged by the country’s reunification and renewed racist violence. According to Faas, the ius soli (citizenship by territoriality) and subsequent immigration acts did not make the national and multicultural agendas more compatible in Germany, nor had the European rhetoric substantive effects on curricula, except for the institution of Islamic religion classes that spurred debates on a possible ghettoization of Muslim youth. In both schools, Turkish students, all second-generation, had mixed friendship groups just like their German peers. The youth knowledge of Europe and the EU did not however match the school’s efforts in promoting a European agenda, and Turkish students (just like the majority students) hardly saw themselves as European (though they believed in a European Turkey), while German students stressed their ethno-national identities. In interviewing the Hauptschule teachers, Faas noticed how the Europeanized view of identity often translated into Eurocentrism (with little attention for aspects of Turkish culture) and concern about a possible loss of German cultural integrity. If Turkish students experienced tensions and discrimination there, they still felt relatively “safe” (depending on their gender and age), appeared relatively well adapted to German society and values, and appreciative of the facilities and structures provided by their ethnic community. At the Gymnasium, the European dimension was especially important: the school ethos mediated social and ethnic differences and fostered a sense of community, and the national-European identities were favored by school exchange programs. Social class, together with parents’ support and encouragement, functioned as a unifying factor; and majority and minority students saw cultural and ethnic diversity as compatible with the majority culture, even when their different experiences made them develop alternative forms of political identities.
Reporting on the English schools, Daniel Faas highlights how the families’ social status affected the Turkish youth’s school career and favored integration and mixed friendships among the middle-class ones, while schools emphasized diversity and cultural pluralism as mediators of national identity. Unlike the German teachers’ engagement in citizenship education and “multicultural Europeanness,” English teachers aimed at forming multicultural citizens and assigned low priority to the European agenda.
Millroad School, located in the predominantly working-class section of the neighborhood (where the Turkish community owns most of the cafés and shops), was often the scene of violent group fights between English and Turkish youth, and between Turkish and African Caribbean students that reinforced the groups’ ethnic solidarity, and encouraged “re-ethnicized” Turkish students to stress their “otherness” and use it as “power tool” especially against their African Caribbean peers. Instead, in the Darwin School, the low percentage of Turkish and Cypriot students did not support ethnic solidarity, because social class membership promoted a sense of shared goals and values with the majority that fostered ethno-national identities (Turkish Britishness) and an image of active citizenship in the local, national, and global communities. The Darwin School functioned effectively in constructing an inclusive school community and a political identity (also among Turkish middle-class youth) securely based on “multicultural Britishness” rather than on Europe.
In conclusion, Daniel Faas’ research on the processes of political identity formation among Turkish, German, and English youth makes readers aware of contemporary cultural complexity resulting from the intertwining of many socio-political and historical factors. He underlines how national, European, and multicultural agendas differently impact such processes, while social class, school level and ethos, and ethnic and peer relations are also influential. Together with his analysis of identity theories and models, Faas’ interpretation and findings invite policymakers, politicians, and educators to reflect critically on the current notions of the nation state and of Europe, and on whether negotiated, complex (or hybrid) identities function as a “marker” of social integration, promoting a more inclusive citizenship and educational policies along multiethnic and multifaith lines.