Exercise 1: Analysing the language of statements
The main aim of the exercise: Distinguishing extremist language by kind and by degree from ‘normal’ language
Duration: 30-45 minutes
Form: discussion in groups and with the whole class
Methods: analyse statements in a group setting and later with the teacher and the whole class
Age group: general basic school, upper secondary school
Teaching materials: In order to facilitate this task, the teacher should gather or create statements that are political.
Instruction for the teacher
Davies (2014) has analysed an task where students are invited to analyse the language that extremists have used. Distinguishing extremist language by kind (where extremist speech can be identified as essentially different from normal speech, i.e. this is not the way one can or should speak even when the tone of the speech is decent and not excessively emotional) and by degree (the verbal expression is problematic not essentially, but in the intensity and degree of radicalism). In this task, students are asked to analyse the statements by the strength of the ideological component.
Example statements are following:
- A Marxism is rubbish
- B you are stupid because you are a Marxist
- C a placard in a public place or a tweet that urges death to all Marxists
Ask the students which statement they identify themselves and why. Also, whether they do not identify themselves with some statements and if so, then why. Let the students do it first individually and share the results in a group setting.
Questions for discussion after viewing:
When students have identified with the statement ask them the share some examples. Analyse the opinion on the statements and discuss the language that is used in the statement and the identification process. Davies sees that the option A expresses disapproval of Marxism with a strong expression. It is ok if students identify with specific ideology either positively or negatively. However, it is always commendable, when personal preferences are expressed without excessively negative labelling or framing. Additionally, classroom discussions should avoid negative personal stereotyping (option B in the example below). It is always preferred to discussion social and political cases and actors, not any participant in classroom personally (neither teacher nor student). Option C is qualitatively not ok, irrespective, which social or ideological group is the target, calls to violence against any group are not to be tolerated.
After the discussion:
Lynn Davies has seen the task followingly: “The first is acceptable although it would need explaining; the second is not illegal but is hardly the way to go about things. It is the third that might (rightly) come under a law of hate crime. What is happening in many societies that keep trying to address diversity in old-fashioned ways is the conflation between the third type of statement or action and the other two. A complex adaptive school (or any educational space) must allow the first two, albeit providing a learning environment for development of greater sophistication in expression and mutual response, in order to nurture development of democratic dialogue and the dissent (educative turbulence) conducive to unlearning extremism.” (Davies 2014:455)
