Abstract
Over the years, L Philip Barnes has been an important and robust commentator on the debates about Religious Education (RE) in British schools, which his book Education, Religion and Diversity: Developing a New Model of Religious Education (Routledge, 2014) exemplifies. In his latest monograph, he reflects on what he sees as the complacency and unwillingness to be self-critical among those who are influential in shaping the subject. The publisher describes the book as ‘critical, wide-ranging and provocative’. It is all those things and, I would add, an engaging read, well-written and insightful. Barnes is forensic in his approach, giving detailed attention to ‘assumptions, evidence and argument’ (p. 5) while, in this reviewer’s opinion, being generally fair, giving credit where it is due. He is prepared to ask important questions and point out uncomfortable truths that are often ignored.
Crisis, Controversy and the Future of Religious Education consists of an introduction and 10 chapters, each focusing on a different topic. The reader journeys through the influence of ideology, the relationship between religious studies and RE, the significance of human rights, the inclusion of humanism, the place of world views, the discussion of a statutory national curriculum for RE, the rights of parents and the place of the holy in non-confessional RE. Each of these chapters includes detailed interrogation of the writings of key influencers. The book concludes with a personal statement by the author summarising what he sees as the weaknesses of the current elite-thinking that he regards as dominating the subject.
Barnes invites those who disagree with him ‘to engage in dialogue and show the points at which my argument is weak or unconvincing’ (p. 185). I have two significant reservations. First is his recourse to conspiracy theory. He sees the subject as controlled by a self-appointed elite of experts who operate to preserve their own power base. For example, he writes: ‘The reality is that those who are most vociferous in their call for religious educators to have exclusive control of the subject often mean by this some small interest group of which they are a member, parading itself as representative of all, that aims to gain power and control’ (p. 186). In this respect, he regularly cites the Religious Education Council of England and Wales (REC) as a key offender. (I need to point out that I currently chair the said REC and am not therefore neutral on this matter.) Barnes does not inform his readers that the REC is, in fact, made up of nearly 70 member organisations that represent virtually all the faith and belief communities that are involved in RE and all the professional organisations that represent RE teachers, lecturers, advisers and members of the local committees that are responsible for syllabus construction. Membership is open to any organisation that is involved in RE. The alleged elite that lead the REC are elected in and out of office by the membership at the Annual General Meeting. For Barnes to mislead his readers in this way falls far short of his normal robust standards. This recourse to conspiracy theory is disappointing and unnecessary.
My second reservation relates to his treatment of the recent influential initiative from the Commission on RE (2018). This initiative proposes a paradigm shift in the subject by adopting the notion of world view. The currently influential paradigm is the world religions paradigm, which embodies the assumption that RE entails the teaching of organised religious systems. The Commission’s proposed world view paradigm change was to shift the focus to the study of how all humans are shaped by world view and the role played, or not, in this shaping by organised religious and non-religious systems. Unfortunately, Barnes dismisses the world view idea as an argument for the systematic study of humanism in the curriculum, to which he is strongly opposed. His mistake is to evaluate the suggested paradigm shift to world view by taking for granted the prevailing world religions paradigm. He thereby entirely misses the point.
This book warrants careful attention. Barnes’s forensic approach is an important challenge to the comfort of sloppy thinking and the dangers of unquestioned paradigms. The RE elite should certainly read and take careful note of it but will need to be gracious when they trip across the conspiracy theory.