Working toward the De-essentialization of Identity Categories
in Conflict and Postconflict Societies: Israel, Cyprus, and
Northern Ireland
ZVI BEKERMAN, MICHALINOS ZEMBYLAS, AND CLAIRE MCGLYNN
During the past decade, we have conducted research in our own countries,
all of which are considered conflict or postconflict societies: Israel, Cyprus,
and Northern Ireland. We have focused on a variety of topics related to peace
education, reconciliation, and coexistence. Giving special emphasis to the
formation of identity in educational settings, two of us have investigated
primarily in integrated schools (in Israel and Northern Ireland), while the
third has conducted research in multicultural schools (in Cyprus). We believe
that a comparative study of these three settings is valuable because such
juxtaposition helps to conceptualize how some aspects of identity are developed in practice in the countries in question (Phillips and Schweisfurth
2006).
What has attracted our attention in this body of research are the dissimilar ways in which educators and children attend to identity issues when such
issues appear in interactional events. Although educators, in their rhetoric
and educational practices, often seem to essentialize ethnic or religious identity and mark events as related to absolute categories, children, though knowledgeable of these categories, seem less attentive to them in their social activities and construct their social worlds with less emphasis on ethnic or
religious divisions. Regardless of the differences in identity found in the
educational policies of Israel (emphasis on Zionist ethos), Northern Ireland
(focus on pluralism), and Cyprus (priority on Greek-centered education),
we have observed that, in practice, children’s perspectives differ from those
of adult educators. In this article, we examine the ways in which educators
engage in educational initiatives geared toward peace, coexistence, and/or
conflict resolution and consider the implications for such initiatives if children’s perspectives were taken into consideration.
We first summarize the similarities and differences with respect to the
sources of conflict in the three societies. Then we offer short descriptions
of the educational initiatives under examination and the sociopolitical conWe are indebted to the insightful comments of the reviewers. An even greater debt is owed to
Mark Ginsburg and David Post, both for their thoughtful comments and for their editorial suggestions.
For the research conducted in Israel, we acknowledge the support of the Bernard Van Leer Foundation.
Electronically published February 16, 2009
Comparative Education Review, vol. 53, no. 2.
䉷 2009 by the Comparative and International Education Society. All rights reserved.
0010-4086/2009/5302-0003$10.00
Comparative Education Review
000
BEKERMAN, ZEMBYLAS, AND MCGLYNN
texts within which they have evolved. After discussing our methodology, we
present three vignettes—from the considerable amount of data gathered—to
exemplify the spheres in which identity makes its appearance and the ways
educational staff and students attend to and construe it. Finally, we offer an
interpretation of these issues and critically consider possible solutions to the
essentializing practices that we unveil.
Similarities and Differences in Sources of Conflict
There are several commonalities and differences in the causes of the
conflicts in Israel, Cyprus, and Northern Ireland that make their comparison
worthwhile. Their main commonality is that all three countries have two
major communities that have been involved (or are still involved) in violent
conflicts: Jews and Palestinians in Israel,1 Greeks and Turks in Cyprus, and
Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland. Within each of these communities, there is a perception that the other community is to be blamed
for the conflict and the resulting violence and suffering. Thus, public and
political discourses create an image that people are members of distinct
groups that are involved in intractable conflicts that can be traced back
centuries in Northern Ireland and Cyprus and more recently in Israel (see
Rouhana and Bar-Tal 1998; Bryant 2004; Bew 2007).
There are also important differences in the causes of conflict in these
three societies. Although the bicommunal, physical violence has subsided in
Cyprus and Northern Ireland, there continues to be division and political
dispute on the basis of ethnic differences and religious differences, respectively.2 In Israel, however, the violence between Jews and Palestinians persists,
with a major cause of this conflict being over land. In all three cases the
communities in conflict live, for the most part, in segregated areas. In contrast
to that in Cyprus and Israel, segregation in Northern Ireland is not the
outcome of recent violent displacement. Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots
have lived in segregated areas since the war of 1974 (and in some areas since
the bicommunal clashes of 1963–67), and Jews and Palestinians in Israel have
lived in segregated communities since the beginning of the Zionist settlement
and, particularly, since the 1948 war.
The political dispute about the existence and nature of Northern Ireland
itself lies at the core of that conflict, and Catholics have historically experienced higher levels of disadvantage than Protestants. In Northern Ireland,
1
The term “Palestinians” has, in recent years, become the preferred denomination of the leadership
of those who were traditionally known as “Arab Israelis.” To prevent any confusion between Palestinian
citizens of Israel and Palestinians in the Palestinian Authority, we use the term “Palestinian citizens of
Israel” to refer to those Palestinians living within the internationally recognized borders of the State of
Israel. This article deals only with these Palestinians and not with those in the Palestinian Authority.
2
In Northern Ireland the two communities have been living with the 1998 Good Friday Agreement
and the reinstatement of the local political Assembly in May 2007, while in Cyprus political negotiations—
to move beyond a United Nations–supervised truce—are still ongoing.
000
May 2009
DE-ESSENTIALIZATION OF IDENTITY IN ISRAEL, CYPRUS, AND NORTHERN IRELAND
therefore, we find a sociopolitical identity that reflects affiliation to the social
communities of “Catholic” and “Protestant,” recognizing that these identities
are a complex amalgam of social, political, religious, and national aspects.
In Cyprus and Israel, however, the communities are defined mostly in ethnic/
national and political terms and less so in religious terms. That being said,
for many Greek Cypriots—but not Turkish Cypriots—religious identity (Greek
Orthodoxy) is an important aspect of who they are, and in the past decade
religious elements have been accentuated as foundational in the PalestinianJewish conflict within Israel as well (see Kimmerling and Migdal 2003; Bew
2007; Constantinou 2007).
In terms of educational opportunities to promote peace, coexistence, and
multicultural education in these three societies, we should highlight that both
Israel and Northern Ireland have examples of integrated schools in an educational system that is mostly segregated, while in Cyprus the conflict, as
well as historical and political developments, have kept schools mainly segregated for the two communities.3
The Comparative Sociopolitical Contexts and Educational Initiatives
Integrated Education in Israel
The conflict between the Jewish majority (80 percent of the population)
and the predominantly Muslim Palestinian minority (20 percent) remains
perhaps the most potentially explosive conflict in Israel. Palestinian citizens
of Israel, although officially offered full rights, have suffered chronically as
a putatively hostile minority with little political representation and a debilitated social, economic, and educational infrastructure (Ghanem 2001). The
sociopolitical conflict is reflected in the Israeli educational system, which is
divided into separate educational sectors: nonreligious Jewish, religious national Jewish, orthodox Jewish, and Arab (i.e., Palestinian), all of which are
3
Peace education here is understood as the process of promoting the knowledge, skills, attitudes,
and values needed to bring about behavior changes to prevent conflict and violence, both physical and
structural; to resolve conflicts peacefully; and to create the conditions conducive to peace (Fountain
1999). Education for coexistence is conceptualized as educational processes geared toward improvement
of intergroup relations, which are considered a fundamental prerequisite for establishing advanced
harmonious intergroup relations. It refers to the recognition of the right of the other group to exist
peacefully with its differences and the acceptance of the other group as a legitimate and equal partner
with whom disagreements have to be resolved in nonviolent ways (Bar-Tal 2004). Multicultural education
aims to create equal educational opportunities for students from diverse racial, ethnic, social-class, and
cultural groups. One of its significant goals is to help all students to acquire the knowledge, attitudes,
and skills needed to function effectively in a multicultural society that promotes both unity and diversity
(Banks 2004). Even when the historical conflicts that challenge stability in Israel, Northern Ireland,
and Cyprus are not considered, globalizing processes force all three societies to confront multicultural
educational issues. Integrated education involves participation in one school of pupils, staff, and administrators from both communities. It is worth noting that in Northern Ireland “integrated schools”
have 10–50 percent Catholic students, and in Israel the five existing integrated schools struggle to sustain an equal representation of Palestinian and Jewish students and teachers. Because of the very real
geopolitical boundaries that divide Cyprus ( Johnson 2007), there are only a few international private
secondary schools and public primary schools in which Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot students
study together. Turkish Cypriots in these schools compose up to 10 percent of the student body.
Comparative Education Review
000
BEKERMAN, ZEMBYLAS, AND MCGLYNN
under the umbrella of the Israeli Ministry of Education. Al-Haj (1996) demonstrates how educational policies are designed to secure Jewish cultural
hegemony in line with Israel’s self-definition as a Jewish state while supporting
the Zionist ethos and the inferiority of its Palestinian citizens, with the educational system serving as a mechanism of control.
Given the context, the idea of creating Palestinian-Jewish coeducation is
a daring enterprise. In 1984, the first integrated school was created in Neveh
Shalom, a small Palestinian-Jewish settlement in the vicinity of Jerusalem
(Feuerverger 2001). In 1998, the Center for Bilingual Education in Israel
established two integrated schools, one in Jerusalem and the other in the
Upper Galilee. Another school was opened in 2004 in the Palestinian village
of Kfar Karah, and the most recent school was established in Beer Sheva in
2007. These schools, recognized as nonreligious schools supported by the
Ministry of Education, have a pupil population of approximately 1,000. Their
curriculum is the standard curriculum of the state nonreligious school system,
with the difference that both Hebrew and Arabic are used as languages of
instruction. The schools have coprincipals, and all classes are taught by two
teachers, with one Palestinian and one Jew in each position. These schools,
still considered a curiosity, are challenged to pioneer solutions to the multiple
curricular issues raised by mixing Palestinian and Jewish populations (Bekerman 2004, 2008). Such challenges involve cultural and identity borders
and historical discourses and interpretations, including the traditions that
sustain the present conflict.4
Integrated Education in Northern Ireland
The divide in Northern Ireland can be traced to the seventeenth century,
when the Plantation of Ulster left a settler group of Protestants in an uneasy
relationship with the indigenous Irish Catholic population. The partition of
Ireland in 1921 subsequently reversed the majority/minority ratios in the
northeast, leaving the Protestants of Ulster as the dominant group within the
new six-county state of Northern Ireland and as the minority on the island
as a whole (Bardon 2001). Protestants—self-described as unionists—wish to
maintain their link with the British state, while Catholics tend to adhere to
the nationalist aspiration of a united Ireland, free of any constitutional links
with Britain. The most recent phase of conflict in Northern Ireland began
in 1968 when street violence erupted, resulting in more than 3,000 dead and
many thousands injured. As a consequence, Northern Ireland became a segregated society, with limited opportunities for contact between the two main
ethnic groups. Despite the much-heralded 1998 peace agreement, significant
social, residential, and educational segregation persists. Moreover, while it is
argued that there is an overprivileging of difference, leaving little space for
4
For a full description of these schools see Bekerman (2003, 2004, 2005a, 2005b); Bekerman and
Shhadi (2003); and Bekerman and Horenczyk (2004).
000
May 2009
DE-ESSENTIALIZATION OF IDENTITY IN ISRAEL, CYPRUS, AND NORTHERN IRELAND
a discourse of the common good (Gallagher 2005), a new policy framework
strongly encourages the building of cohesive communities, emphasizing that
“separate but equal is not an option” (Office of the First Minister and Deputy
First Minister 2005, 20).
Integrated education was established in Northern Ireland by parents, with
the opening of the first planned integrated postprimary school in 1981.5
Although 61 integrated schools have since been established, the education
system remains largely segregated. Children attend either Catholic schools
or de facto Protestant schools.6 Each integrated school is led by a principal
who can be either Catholic or Protestant; the teachers and governing body
are denominationally mixed. While research indicates that integrated education may have a positive impact on identity, outgroup attitudes, and forgiveness, with potential to heal the social cohesion fractured by conflict
(McGlynn 2001; Montgomery et al. 2003; McGlynn et al. 2004), there is also
evidence that sensitive issues around religion and identity are avoided in
some integrated schools, and opportunities for prejudice reduction are
missed (Donnelly 2004; Hughes and Donnelly 2007).
Intercommunal Encounters in Cyprus
Cyprus emerged as an independent state in 1960 after a Greek Cypriot
struggle against British colonial rule. This anticolonial rebellion, however,
did not aim toward independence but enosis, union with Greece. At the same
time, Turkish Cypriots, the largest minority on the island (18 percent), aimed
at taksim, ethnic partition. The traumas of ethnic division—first in the 1960s,
when the Turkish Cypriots were the main victims, and then in 1974, when
Turkey invaded and divided the island, displacing many thousands of Greek
Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots—came to signify an intractable conflict in the
region. Since 1974 the Green Line has divided the island, separating the two
communities, with Greek Cypriots in the south and Turkish Cypriots in the
north. Despite numerous diplomatic efforts and the partial lift of restrictions
on movement across the Green Line in 2003, the partition remains between
the groups.
The conflict in Cyprus is an example of interethnic and intercultural
dissonance. Looking at the history of Cyprus, one can easily find competing
nationalist discourses of how each community represents the “other.” The
common themes of these narratives focus on the terrible violence and trauma
5
Under the 1989 Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order, the government has a duty to
meet the needs of parents requesting integrated education. In recent years, however, demographic
decline, preempting a program of school rationalization, has limited the establishment of additional
integrated schools. Only 19,000 children (6 percent of all pupils) attend integrated schools, with the
phenomenon described as voluntary integration by parental consent rather than compulsory desegregation (Gallagher and Smith 2002; Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education, http://www
.nicie.org).
6
New integrated schools are grant maintained, whereas existing controlled schools that transform
to integrated status are known as “controlled-integrated” schools.
Comparative Education Review
000
BEKERMAN, ZEMBYLAS, AND MCGLYNN
that one side has inflicted on the other and emphasize that it is imperative
to remember the suffering of the past. Various studies demonstrate that school
textbooks and national rituals, symbols, and celebrations systematically create
dehumanized images of the other in each community and inspire hatred for
“the enemy.”7 Over the years, each community has formed negative opinions
of the other, not only through the official education system but also through
social imagery, the mass media, and familial and social circles (Zembylas
2008).
Children in Cyprus are educated separately. Greek Cypriots attend
schools in the south, and Turkish Cypriots in the north. In the south, however, “multicultural” schools, attended by children from various cultures, including children whose parents are migrant workers or are married to someone from another culture, have emerged. Occasionally, Turkish-speaking
children, whose parents stayed in the south after the war of 1974 or moved
there recently, enroll in these schools. A few private secondary schools and
public primary schools in the south are also enrolling increasing numbers
of Turkish Cypriot students.8 Although in the south policy documents and
official curricula include strong statements about humanistic ideas and respect for human rights, justice, and peace, in practice non-Greek Cypriot
children are seen as deficient and needing to be assimilated (Panayiotopoulos
and Nicolaidou 2007). There are individual teachers and schools implementing reconciliation practices, but such practices are not official educational policy.
Methodology
Our sustained qualitative study of integrated/multicultural educational
contexts has provided a wealth of data and multiple insights into how identity is constructed and understood in these contexts and the implications of
such. In all three sites we gathered data according to qualitative ethnographic
principles (Maykut and Morehouse 1994). We carefully analyzed the qualitative data, looking for patterns and thematic issues of relevance, which were
then coded so as to allow for further analysis. Clearly, most of the data are
not included in this article because the goal here is to present vignettes—
representative events—from the different settings to offer glimpses of the
larger set of data that foregrounds them.9
The Israeli vignettes are drawn from data gathered using a variety of
7
Kizilyürek (1999); Spyrou (2001, 2002, 2006); Bryant (2004); Zembylas (2007a).
It should be noted that it is in English or American private schools that the most diversity exists.
The public schools teach only in Greek, in which immigrants and Turkish Cypriots are not usually
fluent.
9
For more detailed accounts of the events described and methodologies used, see McGlynn (2001,
2003, 2005, 2007a, 2007b, 2008); Bekerman (2003, 2004, 2005a, 2005b); Bekerman and Shhadi (2003);
Bekerman and Horenczyk (2004); McGlynn et al. (2004); McGlynn and Bekerman (2007); Zembylas
(2007a, 2007b, 2008); Zembylas and Bekerman (2008).
8
000
May 2009
DE-ESSENTIALIZATION OF IDENTITY IN ISRAEL, CYPRUS, AND NORTHERN IRELAND
ethnographic methods as part of a study of educational practices initiated in
1998 and geared toward identity formation and cultural development. The
research focused on the integrated schools described above. Between 1998
and 2006, researchers conducted over 200 interviews with parents, teachers,
principals, and pupils—most of them in individual sessions lasting approximately 1 hour each and the rest in small group meetings lasting approximately
90 minutes each. In addition, researchers videotaped and took field notes
based on observations of more than 200 hours of classroom activity. At all
stages of the research process, the research team included both Palestinian
and Jewish researchers, who conducted their interactions with the research
subjects in the language of the subjects’ choice (Bekerman 2004, 2008).
The vignette from Cyprus is based on an ethnographic study, ongoing
since 2001, in three Greek Cypriot primary schools and one private secondary
school, all of which are also attended by Turkish Cypriots and other minorities. The study aims to collect teacher and student narratives about their
experiences with members of other communities, especially in relation to
their understandings of identity issues. Through different ethnographic projects, researchers collect data via interviews with children, teachers, parents,
administrators, preservice and in-service teachers, and teacher educators;
observations of classroom teaching/learning activities and workshops at all
levels of the educational system; and analysis of policies and curriculum documents. The research team, composed of Greek Cypriot researchers, collaborates with Turkish Cypriot colleagues (i.e., Turkish-speaking social workers
and sociologists) who help in communicating and interpreting discussions
and findings concerning Turkish Cypriot children and parents (Zembylas
and Karahasan 2006; Zembylas 2008).
The Northern Ireland vignette comes from ongoing studies of integrated
schools that have focused alternately on the long-term impact of integrated
education on former pupils, leadership approaches to integration, and perceived good practice in response to cultural diversity. Since 1998, researchers
have collected extensive qualitative data via interviews with past pupils, current
pupils, school principals, classroom teachers, and support staff (including
classroom assistants) and from analysis of school policies and documentation.
The research team has included, at various stages, members of both the
Catholic and Protestant communities (McGlynn 2003, 2008).
Identity Vignettes
Israel
For the teachers in the integrated schools in Israel, dealing with national
and religious issues is a complicated task. These topics are never dealt with
as information but as central ideological elements of a curriculum with a
declared twofold goal of supporting integration toward coexistence and safeguarding and strengthening individual identity and sense of belonging to
Comparative Education Review
000
BEKERMAN, ZEMBYLAS, AND MCGLYNN
each “original group.” The children might easily relate to and learn about
a variety of ceremonies, festivals, texts, and other cultural or national artifacts.
Teachers, however, seem always to try to ensure that individual children understand to which group and traditions they are connected.
The following excerpt belongs to a larger segment in which Elle, a Jewish
teacher in a first-grade classroom, was conducting a short introduction to the
Passover (Pesach) festival. Until this point, the children had been referring
to the festival by its name without linking it to a specific group’s culture. This
pattern does not mean that the children did not know its connection to
Judaism. Instead, they did not mark it in their discourse. The Jewish teacher
was the one who emphasized the Jewish-specific nature of Pesach: “Who
chooses to celebrate, celebrates, but it is a festival of the Jews [and not a
festival of either Muslims or Christians].”
On another occasion in class, Elle asked three children to bring out food
to prepare for a break. Two of them followed her instructions, but one boy
(H.) pulled out a small game. Noticing H.’s action, Elle said, “H., you cannot
go on identifying with Muslims; Ramadan is over and you need to eat.” H.
was a Jewish boy well known for fasting with the Muslim children during
Ramadan. He was always noted as an exception; for instance, when one
morning during Ramadan the Palestinian teacher, Mem, and Elle blessed
the children with the traditional “Ramadan Karim” blessing, they added “and
to you, H., too.” There seems to be a double play in these short statements.
On the one hand, the teachers seem to mark the fact that there is one Jewish
exception to the unstated rule of “do not cross identity borders.” On the
other hand, it is a demonstration of a liberal perspective that offers recognition to the choice of the child who, in this case, prefers to cross what at
least for adults might be understood as an identity border. In contrast, Palestinian and Jewish children seldom refer to H.’s idiosyncratic choice. When
they do so, some students indicate they do not believe that H. truly follows
all the days of the fast, while other students suggest that they do. They seem
to agree, however, that H. should be allowed to act upon his choice and “do
as he wishes.”
Data regarding national events reveal similar observations. When discussing Memorial Day (the holiday that commemorates Israeli soldiers who
lost their lives in all Israeli wars) in the third-grade classroom, the teachers
drew two windows on the board to represent the different perspectives that
the groups and individuals within them may have concerning the historical
accounts related to the holiday. The teachers opened the discussion and were
the main speakers for the larger part of the class session. Each teacher presented her own version and understanding of the events of the 1948 war, its
reasons, and its consequences. The two teachers presented their accounts in
a careful way, respectful of the other, but with difficulty and guarded tension,
000
May 2009
DE-ESSENTIALIZATION OF IDENTITY IN ISRAEL, CYPRUS, AND NORTHERN IRELAND
which were clear from their frequent hesitations and self-corrections. For
example:
MEM: I see this, through this window that there was a country here [long pause].
Palestinians [long pause] lived in all the areas. . . . Suddenly came the Jews and
they came and told them [long pause] you must go out of this country, this is not
your country.
This approach contrasts with that of the students who presented their views,
which for the most part reflected the views held by their own groups within
the general Israeli society, in a respectful way, acknowledging the existence
of different narratives belonging to different national groups. For instance:
JEWISH BOY: I can look through both. . . . I go every year to the Nakbe Memorial
too. . . . We can divide each window into two.
PALESTINIAN GIRL: [I want to say] why I don’t want to participate. . . . Eh, because,
eh, the ceremony . . . is not for us. [It is] for—for the Israeli people and the—
the Jews that remember it, not us.
The difference between the teachers’ discomfort, marked by long pauses,
and the students’ ease could be attributed to the teachers’ heightened awareness of the social and political nuances and implications of the topic. Thus,
while the teachers’ side-by-side discussion of Memorial Day conveyed more
unifying messages, the manner in which the teachers led the discussion may
exemplify how they use language as an ethnic identity marker and to suggest
that ethnicity is organized through differentiation and practiced as a separatist
activity. Differentiation is achieved as the students witness the teachers’ unease
or tension in talking about national and ethnic issues.
Our interviews with children show that they are aware that their teachers
find it difficult to discuss national issues. For example, a Jewish girl observed,
“They only speak about these issues [national issues] in special events and
not throughout the year,” and a Palestinian boy said, “Yes, yes, there were
Arabs here first and then came the Jews and conquered the land. Some Arabs
hate Jews and the other way round but here Arab[s] and Jews are like
brothers.”
Northern Ireland
In Northern Ireland we also observed differences between the discursive
practices of educators and children regarding identity marking. Catholic and
Protestant adults, with a heightened awareness of social and political nuances
similar to the Palestinian and Jewish teachers’ perspective, struggle to reconcile agendas of identity affirmation and integration. There is tacit agreement among adults in the schools that while attending an integrated school
will provide opportunities for cross-group friendships and mutual understanding to develop, it will not negate or devalue group identity or group membership (e.g., “We recognize differences and encourage children to celebrate
Comparative Education Review
000
BEKERMAN, ZEMBYLAS, AND MCGLYNN
these differences. Everything should be out in the open,” a Catholic primary
school principal said). Indeed, some principals claim that Protestant and
Catholic identities are strengthened, not threatened, by attendance at an
integrated school (e.g., “We celebrate cultural diversity. . . . You should be
proud of who you are and what you believe in,” a Protestant postprimary
school principal said).
That being said, practices that aim to “enable each child to develop a
positive self-identity [as Catholic or Protestant] and then a positive view of
his/her own [Catholic or Protestant] culture” (in the words of a Protestant
primary school principal) risk reification of difference by presenting group
identity as homogeneous and fixed. Such practice suggests a belief among
adults that the integrated school should socialize children into a predetermined cultural identity rather than provide them with the skills to make
autonomous identity choices. For example, the Catholic primary school classroom assistant quoted below appeared anxious that children were not as
aware of their religious identities as they should be:
A lot of these children don’t even realize what religion they are. I mean, my own
children didn’t realize what religion they were until they were making their first
[Holy] Communion and then it all of a sudden became an issue. It depends on
the parents and how they are brought up, whether they are brought up knowing
there is a difference between me and that one down [at] the school. And most of
the children here would be exactly the same, they wouldn’t realize what religion
they were. . . . Especially the younger kids, they wouldn’t question it.
This support worker was concerned that the primary school was failing because its students did not often self-identify as Catholics or Protestants, but
she also recognized that for the children this lack of self-identification was
not problematic.
Other data also suggest that for many integrated school pupils, awareness
of membership in the “Catholic” or “Protestant” group begins to emerge
only during Catholic children’s in-school preparations for their first Holy
Communion in the later stage of primary education (age 8 or older), at
which point children are often separated for religious education. Even at
this stage, children tend to pay little heed to these “adult” categories of
difference. This tendency is demonstrated in a short excerpt from a focus
group interview with six 9–10-year-old primary school children. The following
(partial) exchange occurred following a question about whether pupils in
their school were the same or different. Note that while they were able to
identify what was unique about their school, namely that Protestant and
Catholic children go to school together, they were keen to play down denominational distinctions.
PROTESTANT CHILD 1: It doesn’t matter. . . . If they are any different religion, we
don’t judge them, we just play with them.
CATHOLIC
000
CHILD
2: I think it is because, like, some of our schools are integrated
May 2009
DE-ESSENTIALIZATION OF IDENTITY IN ISRAEL, CYPRUS, AND NORTHERN IRELAND
and some are just Catholics and some are just Protestants and some can be different
[mixed/integrated] schools as well.
CATHOLIC CHILD 3: We are not different because everybody is the same, only religion. Religion doesn’t matter. [What matters is] . . . their personality and what
they do to other people, like their friendship and stuff like that.
The children appear to emphasize a wider range of identity aspects and
possibilities than the denominational ones that concern adults.
A Protestant teacher of young primary school children (4–7-year-olds)
suggested that the children themselves do not have an issue with denominational difference, but she expressed her anxiety about deciding how and
when she would address religious identity: “I don’t want to introduce problems where there are no problems. I don’t want to introduce it if not necessary
or too soon.” Although proud that the children coped so effortlessly with
difference, she narrated an example of a classroom event in which she drew
attention to identity. In one of her lessons, the subject of Protestants arose,
and one Catholic child said, “But I don’t know any Protestants.” The teacher
then explained to the girl that “wee Jimmy,” sitting beside her in class, was
a Protestant. Jimmy, blissfully ignorant of his religious identity, responded,
“Am I?” While adhering to her school’s policy of affirming religious identity,
this teacher nevertheless found it difficult to decide how and when these
issues should be addressed with young children, lest she unintentionally exacerbate the very issue integrated schools hope to ameliorate, namely, conflict
between Catholics and Protestants.
Cyprus
Greek Cypriot teachers have increasingly found themselves teaching in
multicultural classrooms, but they are ill prepared to deal with this challenge.10 This challenge becomes even more complicated in schools in which
Turkish Cypriots are enrolled. Although there are only a few such schools in
the south and the Turkish Cypriot student population in those schools is
small (5–10 percent), the situation is complex in light of the unresolved
political problem and the intractable conflict between Greek Cypriots and
Turkish Cypriots.
The following incident was narrated by a teacher who witnessed it in a
school in which approximately 10 percent of students were Turkish Cypriot.
It illustrates Greek Cypriot teachers’ intense struggle to deal pedagogically
with children from other cultures while teaching the Greek Cypriot children
not to forget that the “enemy” (Turkey) occupies part of the country. For
Greek Cypriot teachers there is usually tension between emphasizing Greek
identity (for Greek Cypriot children) and increasing multiculturalism, notably
in the presence of Turkish Cypriot children.
10
Trimikliniotis (2004); Gregoriou (2005); Panayiotopoulos and Nicolaidou (2007).
Comparative Education Review
000
BEKERMAN, ZEMBYLAS, AND MCGLYNN
Murat and Christos were third graders, spending a lot of time together, playing on
the schoolyard, sitting together in class, and getting together after school. Murat,
whose first language was Turkish, learned to speak Greek fluently and participated
in all religious [i.e., Greek Orthodox] events of the school [e.g., ceremonies, festivals, fasting], although he was Muslim. On this particular day, the teacher and
his third-grade students were out on the schoolyard where he was showing them
the direction of a mountain in the north, saying, “This is the direction of the
mountain Pentadaktylos. Unfortunately, it is still occupied by the Turks, so we can’t
visit it.” However, Christos added, “But I did go there with my parents! Now we are
allowed to go. We also visited Murat’s grandparents in Keryneia!” After a dead
silence, the teacher responded, “we are not allowed to go freely to the other side!
It is unacceptable to show our passports to visit our own land.” Then he turned to
Christos and said firmly, “Obviously, your parents have shown passports. This is a
personal decision made by each family. But a part of our country is still occupied
by the Turks who are responsible for all the evil we are experiencing in Cyprus
since 1974.” Another child said, “My parents told me that all Turks are evil and we
should never trust them,” to which the teacher responded, “Your parents are right,
Yianni. You should listen to them.” Then Murat, who was silent all this time, asked
in a voice that was clearly distressed, “Am I a Turk? Am I a bad person?” A few
children shouted, “Yes, yes!” The teacher responded with a smile, “You are a Turk,
Murat, but I don’t think you [personally] are a bad person!”
The next day, during the break, Murat found an anonymous note on his desk
saying, “Turks are bad. You are a Turk. Hooray for our nation [Zito to Ethnos]!”
This was the first time such a thing . . . happened. Murat started crying immediately
and went to tell his friend Christos. They both went to the teacher and showed
him the note. After the break, the teacher began yelling at everyone, saying, “I am
tired of your caprices and your fights all the time. You need to find a way to resolve
your problems without my intervention every time something happens. We don’t
have much time to waste. You need to pay attention to your lessons.”
Interviews with teachers and students as well as further observations of
student interactions at this school showed a transformation taking place in
children’s views as a result of this incident. For example, the teacher who
narrated this incident pointed out:
Something has changed after this incident. I have noticed, for instance, that Murat’s
classmates do not want to sit next to him or play with him in the schoolyard. At
least not in the way they used to play before. . . . Also, a Greek Cypriot child came
and told me that his parents do not approve of him sitting next to Murat. I . . .
see these kids every day . . . so I see what’s going on and there are definitely some
changes happening. . . . Now Christos is basically the only one who hangs out with
Murat.
The following dialogue with a Greek Cypriot girl (from Murat’s class) also
revealed some of the implications of the incident.
RESEARCHER: How did you feel when this incident happened?
GIRL: I was afraid.
RESEARCHER: Why were you afraid?
000
May 2009
DE-ESSENTIALIZATION OF IDENTITY IN ISRAEL, CYPRUS, AND NORTHERN IRELAND
GIRL: Because Murat is a Turk.
RESEARCHER: Yes, but why did this make you afraid?
GIRL: Because he can get into fights . . . and hit me.
RESEARCHER: Did you and Murat have fights before?
GIRL: No.
RESEARCHER: Then why do you think he is going to hit you now?
GIRL: Because he is a Turk . . . and my dad says Turks are different from Greeks.
. . . Turks do bad things to people. . . . The teacher says so too.
RESEARCHER: Do you play with Murat in the schoolyard?
GIRL: Not anymore. . . . We used to play with him. . . . Once, he sat next to me
. . . but [that was] before he was a Turk.
A teacher also confirmed that
With the younger children, we never used to have any fights around issues that
have to do with children’s national origin and things like that. I mean, children
have fights about stupid things all the time . . . someone steals a pencil . . .
everybody wants to be first in line, you know, things like that. But there has never
been a fight about one’s ethnic identity!
This incident with Murat and its fallout illustrate the complex challenges
faced by teachers in their efforts to deal with children who are “different,”
particularly those who “belong” to a different ethnic category. The children
did not find it necessary to identify each other strictly as “Turk” or “Greek”
(although they seemed to be aware that there are differences) until their
teacher—or any adult in their lives—did so firmly. At that point, the children’s
perceptions and relations seemed to change, and the teacher’s attempt to
disavow that the negative Turkish identity applied to a Turkish student in the
class did not discourage other students from drawing this conclusion based
on what the teacher said generally about Turks.
Further Analysis and Implications
The vignettes presented above, though drawn from different geographical
regions, have in common the political context from within which they evolve.
They were all produced in societies that are still in or are slowly moving out
of situations of intractable conflict. These conflicts involve states or other
actors that maintain historical grievances, polarized perceptions of hostility,
and enmity. They also involve intangible issues such as identity, sovereignty,
values, and beliefs. In addition, these countries have developed educational
contexts that aim to encourage cross-cultural understanding and, in the case
of Northern Ireland and Israel, were intentionally created to bridge differences and encourage coexistence.
As the vignettes clearly show, the attitudes of adults and children seem
Comparative Education Review
000
BEKERMAN, ZEMBYLAS, AND MCGLYNN
to reflect very different approaches to and understandings of the construction
of identity and its relevance within the social context that foregrounds it.
The adults in all three cases appear concerned with the promotion of children’s awareness of their denominational or national identities, although, at
least in the school context, these categorizations seem to be of little concern
to the children themselves. Adults hold—or at least articulate—very essentialized perspectives about ethnic/religious origin, while children, not yet
fully socialized into the ethnopolitical realities of their societies, do not find
it necessary to emphasize each other’s ethnic/religious identities.
Theoretically, these positions are not surprising. Studies in the field of
identity development show that children develop a sense of uniqueness when
differentiating self from parents and other adults (Erikson 1966). Young
children are aware of gender and racial differences as early as 4–6 years of
age (Aboud 1988; Katz and Kofkin 1997) and recognize discrimination at an
early age (Verkuyten et al. 1997; Theimer et al. 2001). Similarly, studies suggest
that children as young as preschoolers regularly harbor negative attitudes
toward members of ethnic or racial groups other than their own (Abbink
1984; Aboud 1987). Prejudice appears to be learned (Aboud 1988), and its
development can be explained almost exclusively in environmental terms.11
Sellers and colleagues (1998) argue, however, that racial or ethnic identity
research has failed to address adequately the importance of situational contexts in relation to identity development. Studies that investigate issues of
national/subgroup identity illustrate that ethnic identities are not simple and
stable, nor do they carry with them a rigid sense of self. Instead, they are
complex and dynamic.12 Yip and Fuligni (2002) identify situational characteristics (i.e., during traditional meals, festivals, and other family activities)
as being responsible for fluctuations in feelings of ethnic salience.
A central issue, therefore, concerns the extent to which race, religion,
or ethnicity should be highlighted or obscured in educational settings and
what form such saliency (or dimness) should take. There are concerns
whether emphasizing group affiliation leads youth to the development of
maladaptive coping strategies (Fordham 1988) or whether it has a more protective and enhancing role (Phinney and Alipuria 1990; Phinney and Ong
2007). Particularly in conflict-ridden societies, if youth are educated through
a metanarrative discourse that maintains a state of intractability and negative
interdependence (Hammack, forthcoming; Kelman 1999), the possibility for
a truly transcendent experience seems unlikely.
Adults’ socialization and enculturation experiences encourage them to
connect their identities with a large-group identity, for which conflict is a key
11
Allport (1958); Dovidio and Gaertner (1986); Lynch (1987); Katz and Taylor (1988); Bar-Tal et
al. (1989).
12
Helms (1995); Deaux and Ethier (1998); Sellers et al. (1998); Yip and Fuligni (2002); Hitlin et
al. (2006).
000
May 2009
DE-ESSENTIALIZATION OF IDENTITY IN ISRAEL, CYPRUS, AND NORTHERN IRELAND
link between individual and large-group psychology. Teachers, though involved in initiatives geared toward changing these perspectives, are still heirs
to a tradition that persists in their immediate contexts and challenges them
from escaping from particular forms of national(istic) socialization. They
came of age under circumstances that supported the forming of an “us vs.
them” mentality accomplished through “myth-making” that idealizes one’s
own group and demonizes others (Aho 1994).
Our data show that for teachers involved in initiatives to instill in their
students perspectives different from those that contemporary adults have, it
is not easy to overcome their own position as historical actors. These difficulties are not only related to individual constraints and beliefs but also have
to do with the educational setting within which these teachers function.
Needless to say, there are variations among teachers and among students in
the three countries we studied, yet the pattern we sketch applies in all three
settings.
In particular, the educational settings within which educators work seem
to carry what could be understood as a “double bind” (Bateson 1972), expressing both a desire to create a peaceful and multicultural society in which
all groups coexist and a desire not to weaken individuals’ group identity. In
other words, there are two discourses—one emphasizing peace and multiculturalism and the other focusing on group identity. The double bind is in
the effort to have both at the same time: to educate toward peace and multiculturalism so it seems that peace is favored and, at the same time, to prevent
children from forgetting their ethnic/religious identity.
We believe that the tension between these two desires creates a dangerous
paradox that might threaten the success of such educational initiatives. At
the same time, it must be acknowledged that the educational objectives themselves contain this paradox, and it is not just the teachers’ identity that challenges a peace or coexistence curriculum. The consequence is that the “us
and them” divide is never overcome. While the intentional effort of one
group to accentuate its identity in relation to another might be relaxed
through the educational practices implemented in some schools, the ongoing
emphasis in and outside school on the in-group identity might end up reinforcing it.
The haunting question that lies at the core of this research—and indeed
any research on identity formation and issues of difference, prejudice, and
conflict—is whether schools and teachers are really in a position to draw on
and reinforce the children’s perspective of backgrounding ethnic/religious
identity, when in fact society (including the children’s parents and community) foregrounds such identities. How do we deal with the reality that
this longer and more sophisticated socialization process, which inevitably
Comparative Education Review
000
BEKERMAN, ZEMBYLAS, AND MCGLYNN
happens in the lives of all children, will have a huge effect on the “innocence”
of children’s disinterest in social and political nuances?13
Conclusions
Vignettes such as those drawn from these three societies tell us something
valuable about curriculum development, instruction, and policy making in
places of conflict. They emphasize the need to look for small openings and
steps that we, as educators, can take to prepare children in a caring way so
that they can create positive intergroup relations as adults. The real question
is, can we bring about these openings in contexts in which societal structures
and practices continue to establish conflicting relations, without replacing
“one kind of tyranny with another” (Appiah 1994, 149)?
Imagine a child belonging to one of the groups in conflict approaching
a teacher and asking, what is a Protestant, Jew, or Turk? Given present realities,
the teacher may be inclined to provide some culturally descriptive and benevolent characteristics of the group in case. Though this response might
seem appropriate for accommodating perspectives expected from a crosscultural initiative, we believe that in the long run this response sustains the
basis on which the conflict initially developed and thus is inappropriate. We
believe a better answer to be a “correction” of the epistemological basis that,
though potentially unknown to the child, substantiates his or her question.
Thus, a more appropriate answer might be that Catholics, Palestinians, or
Greeks are not a “what” but a “when” and/or a “how.”
Such an answer represents an attempt to move from learning the fixed
and isolated, the reified and abstract, the modern/positivist and monologic
(Todorov 1984; Sampson 1993) to learning the fluid, changing, and negotiated, in concert with coparticipants in complex socio-historical-political contexts. We also realize this vision to be a necessary but insufficient step. All by
itself it cannot afford much. Putting an emphasis on the constructed/constituted nature of identity does not offer solace from the suffering or benefit
arising from a marginalized or centered status. Our educational efforts need
to go further. They need to bring the social to predominate over the ideological, without ignoring the power relations involved that often make the
social and the ideological difficult to distinguish. We need to help our children to become ingenues about the ways in which social categories are constructed and the ways in which their work is engineered in society. We need
to teach our students to become artists of design—explorers who uncover
the ways society is organized and have the knowledge and skills to envision
an alternative “design” of this society.
If a student is labeled Palestinian/Turk/Catholic or Jewish/Greek/Protestant, then it is likely that his or her ethnic/religious origin is reified. We
13
000
We are indebted to one of the anonymous reviewers for suggesting that we move in this direction.
May 2009
DE-ESSENTIALIZATION OF IDENTITY IN ISRAEL, CYPRUS, AND NORTHERN IRELAND
are not saying, however, that peace and coexistence education should be
promoted by erasing cultural differences. What we argue is that by using
these terms unproblematically we end up paving the way to reified understandings and practices. Instead, we suggest directing efforts to theorize the
sphere of daily localized and contextualized interactions from within their
historical trajectories, trying to identify the specific practices, discursive and
material, that enable them. Engaging in such theorizing requires familiarity
with a variety of disciplines and discourses: an economic discourse to discuss
commodities; an aesthetic discourse to discuss space, positioning, and display;
a political discourse to discuss the design of power relations; and a historical
discourse to talk about change. Teachers and students also need interpretative
discourses to articulate understandings of each of the texts and their necessary
intertextuality in practice, which, in concert, create culture.
The theorizing effort undertaken also implies returning to the children’s
perspectives as expressed in the vignettes above, trying to understand them
and taking them seriously in curriculum, instruction, and policy making.
Plenty of research has demonstrated the powerful subcultures children organize (Harris 1998; Hirschfeld 2002); sustaining these cultures is a possibility
adults need to consider, especially when it offers openings for overcoming
some of the greatest ailments that trouble our society and are conducive to
intractable conflicts. Recognizing the children’s subculture and supporting
it through curriculum and instructional activities, guided by the theorizing
mentioned, might offer this chance.
Needless to say, policy makers, administrators, and teachers (i.e., adults)
first need to consider critically their own essentialist perspectives about children being “ignorant” and “incomplete” and thus in need of being introduced
into the “real” (adult) world. Adults also need to acknowledge how their
beliefs and educational goals socialize children, for better or worse, in particular worldviews that may often be limiting. Curricula and policies that
reflect this view include critical strategies and educational activities that allow
not for the rejection of social categories—for this would essentially constitute
the replacement of one “tyranny” for another—but for their constant historicization. That is, the issue is not about “adding” new curriculum content
or contemporary methods of instruction that helps children understand each
other’s cultural perspectives. What policy makers, administrators, and teachers might change about policies and practices in the settings for which we
have provided vignettes—and, by implication, other settings—is their fixation
with an epistemological worldview that leaves no room for historicizing the
categories we make and understanding their consequences in everyday life.
Given that curriculum and policy making for education are central political arenas that attempt to produce particular citizens within a nation-state,
any effort that endangers the status quo is naturally not welcomed. Yet there
is an aspect of our argument that can hardly be rejected by education skeptics
Comparative Education Review
000
BEKERMAN, ZEMBYLAS, AND MCGLYNN
and enthusiasts alike. As adults, parents, and community leaders, we need to
learn how to listen to others, including our own children, and to appreciate
their perspectives without imposing—at least, not always—our own beliefs.
There may be different points of departure for essentialists and nonessentialists of identity. There is, however, a common point of departure for all
when it comes to respecting the growth of our children. This opening is
small, yet much needed.
References
Abbink, J. 1984. “The Changing Identity of Ethiopian Immigrants (Falashas) in
Israel.” Anthropological Quarterly 57:139–53.
Aboud, F. E. 1987. “The Development of Ethnic Self-Identification and Attitudes.”
In Children’s Ethnic Socialization, ed. J. S. Phinney and M. J. Rotheram. London:
Sage.
Aboud, F. E. 1988. Children and Prejudice. Oxford: Blackwell.
Aho, J. A. 1994. This Thing of Darkness: A Sociology of the Enemy. Seattle: University
of Washington Press.
Al-Haj, M. 1996. Education among the Arabs in Israel: Control and Social Change. Jerusalem: Magnes.
Allport, G. W. 1958. The Nature of Prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Appiah, K. A. 1994. “Identity, Authenticity, Survival: Multicultural Societies and
Social Reproduction.” In Multiculturalism, ed. A. Gutmann. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Banks, J. A. 2004. “Multicultural Education: Historical Development, Dimensions,
and Practice.” In Handbook of Research on Multicultural Education, 2nd ed., ed. J. A.
Banks and C. A. M. Banks. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bardon, J. 2001. A History of Ulster. Belfast: Blackstaff.
Bar-Tal, D. 2004. “Nature, Rationale, and Effectiveness of Education for Coexistence.” Journal of Social Issues 60 (2): 253–71.
Bar-Tal, D., C. F. Graumann, A. W. Kruglanski, and W. Stroebe, eds. 1989. Stereotyping
and Prejudice: Changing Conceptions. New York: Springer.
Bateson, G. 1972. Steps to an Ecology of Mind. New York: Ballantine.
Bekerman, Z. 2003. “Reshaping Conflict through School Ceremonial Events in
Israeli Palestinian-Jewish Co-education.” Anthropology and Education Quarterly 34
(2): 205–23.
Bekerman, Z. 2004. “Multicultural Approaches and Options in Conflict Ridden
Areas: Bilingual Palestinian-Jewish Education in Israel.” Teachers College Record 106
(3): 574–610.
Bekerman, Z. 2005a. “Are There Children to Educate for Peace in Conflict-Ridden
Areas? A Critical Essay on Peace and Coexistence Education.” Intercultural Education 16 (3): 235–46.
Bekerman, Z. 2005b. “Complex Contexts and Ideologies: Bilingual Education in
Conflict-Ridden Areas.” Journal of Language Identity and Education 4 (1): 1–20.
Bekerman, Z. 2008. “The Ethnography of Peace Education: Some Lessons Learned
from Palestinian-Jewish Integrated Education in Israel.” In Handbook of Conflict
000
May 2009
DE-ESSENTIALIZATION OF IDENTITY IN ISRAEL, CYPRUS, AND NORTHERN IRELAND
Analysis and Resolution, ed. S. Byrne, D. Sandole, J. Senehi, and I. Staroste-Sandole.
New York: Routledge.
Bekerman, Z., and G. Horenczyk. 2004. “Arab-Jewish Bilingual Coeducation in
Israel: A Long-Term Approach to Intergroup Conflict Resolution.” Journal of
Social Issues 60 (2): 389–404.
Bekerman, Z., and N. Shhadi. 2003. “Palestinian Jewish Bilingual Education in
Israel: Its Influence on School Students.” Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural
Development 24 (6): 473–84.
Bew, P. 2007. Ireland: The Politics of Enmity, 1789–2006. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Bryant, R. 2004. Imagining the Modern: The Cultures of Nationalism in Cyprus. London:
Tauris.
Constantinou, C. 2007. “Aporias of Identity: Bicommunalism, Hybridity, and the
‘Cyprus Problem.’” Cooperation and Conflict 42:247–70.
Deaux, K., and K. A. Ethier. 1998. “Negotiating Social Identity.” In Prejudice: The
Target’s Perspective, ed. J. K. Swim and C. Stangor. New York: Academic Press.
Donnelly, C. 2004. “Constructing an Ethos of Tolerance and Respect in an Integrated School: The Role of Teachers.” British Journal of Educational Research 30
(2): 264–78.
Dovidio, J. E., and S. I. Gaertner. 1986. Prejudice, Discrimination and Racism. Orlando,
FL: Academic Press.
Erikson, E. 1966. Identity, Youth, and Crisis. New York: Norton.
Feuerverger, G. 2001. Oasis of Dreams: Teaching and Learning Peace in a Jewish-Palestinian Village in Israel. New York: Routledge Falmer.
Fordham, S. 1988. “Racelessness as a Factor in Black Students’ School Success:
Pragmatic Strategy or Pyrrhic Victory?” Harvard Educational Review 18:176–206.
Fountain, S. 1999. Peace Education in UNICEF. New York: UNICEF.
Gallagher, T. 2005. “Balancing Difference and the Common Good: Lessons from
a Post-conflict Society.” Compare 35 (4): 429–42.
Gallagher, T., and A. Smith. 2002. “Selection, Integration and Diversity in Northern
Ireland.” In Social Attitudes in Northern Ireland: The Eighth Report, ed. A. M. Gray,
K. Lloyd, P. Devine, G. Robinson, and D. Heenan. London: Pluto.
Ghanem, A. 2001. The Palestinian-Arab Minority in Israel, 1948–2001: A Political Study.
Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Gregoriou, Z. 2005. “Before the Educational Violence of Commemoration: Derrida
and the Philosophical Work of Mourning.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain, London.
Hammack, P. Forthcoming. “The Cultural Psychology of American-Based Coexistence Programs for Israeli and Palestinian Youth.” In Peace Education in Conflict
and Post-conflict Societies: Comparative Perspectives, ed. C. McGlynn, M. Zembylas,
Z. Bekerman, and T. Gallagher. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Harris, J. R. 1998. The Nurture Assumption: Why Children Turn Out the Way They Do.
New York: Free Press.
Helms, J. E. 1995. “An Update on Helms’s White and People of Color Racial Identity
Models.” In Handbook of Multicultural Counseling, ed. J. G. Ponterotto, J. M. Casas,
L. A. Suzuki, and C. M. Alexander. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Comparative Education Review
000
BEKERMAN, ZEMBYLAS, AND MCGLYNN
Hirschfeld, L. A. 2002. “Why Don’t Anthropologists Like Children?” American Anthropologist 104 (2): 611–27.
Hitlin, S., J. S. Brown, and G. H. Elder. 2006. “Racial Self-Categorization in Adolescence: Development and Social Pathways.” Child Development 77 (5): 1298–1308.
Hughes, J., and C. Donnelly. 2007. “Is the Policy Sufficient? An Exploration of
Integrated Education in Northern Ireland and Bi-lingual/Bi-national Education
in Israel.” In Addressing Ethnic Conflict through Peace Education: International Perspectives, ed. Z. Bekerman and C. McGlynn. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Johnson, L. 2007. “From Piecemeal to Systemic Approaches to Peace Education
in Divided Societies: Comparative Efforts in Northern Ireland and Cyprus.” In
Addressing Ethnic Conflict through Peace Education: International Perspectives, ed. Z.
Bekerman and C. McGlynn. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Katz, J. H., and D. A. Taylor. 1988. Eliminating Racism: Profiles in Controversy. New
York: Plenum.
Katz, P. A., and J. A. Kofkin. 1997. “Race, Gender, and Young Children.” In Developmental Psychopathology: Perspectives on Adjustment, Risk, and Disorder, ed. S. Luthar,
J. Burack, D. Cicchetti, and J. Weisz. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kelman, H. C. 1999. “The Interdependence of Israeli and Palestinian National
Identities: The Role of the Other in Existential Conflicts.” Journal of Social Issues
55:581–600.
Kimmerling, B., and J. S. Migdal. 2003. The Palestinian People: A History. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Kizilyürek, N. 1999. “National Memory and Turkish-Cypriot Textbooks.” Internationale Schulbuchforschung 21:387–96.
Lynch, J. 1987. Prejudice Reduction and the Schools. New York: Nichols.
Maykut, P., and R. Morehouse. 1994. Beginning Qualitative Research: A Philosophic
and Practical Guide. London: Falmer.
McGlynn, C. 2001. “The Impact of Post Primary Integrated Education in Northern
Ireland on Past Pupils: A Study.” EdD thesis, University of Ulster at Jordanstown.
McGlynn, C. 2003. “Integrated Education in Northern Ireland in the Context of
Critical Multiculturalism.” Irish Educational Studies Journal 22 (3): 11–27.
McGlynn, C. 2005. “Integrated Schooling and Faith-Based Schooling in Northern
Ireland.” Irish Journal of Education 36:49–62.
McGlynn, C. 2007a. “Integrated Education in Divided Societies: The Northern Irish
Case for Bridging Liberal and Multicultural Approaches.” Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the Peace Education Special Interest Group of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
McGlynn, C. 2007b. “Rhetoric and Reality: Are Integrated Schools in Northern
Ireland Really Making a Difference?” Irish Educational Studies 26 (3): 271–87.
McGlynn, C. 2008. “Leading Integrated Schools: A Study of the Multicultural Perspectives of Northern Irish Principals.” Journal of Peace Education 5 (1): 3–16.
McGlynn, C., and Z. Bekerman. 2007. “The Management of Pupil Difference in
Catholic-Protestant and Palestinian-Jewish Integrated Education in Northern Ireland and Israel.” Compare 37 (5): 689–705.
McGlynn, C., U. Niens, E. Cairns, and M. Hewstone. 2004. “Moving out of Conflict:
The Contribution of Integrated Schools in Northern Ireland to Identity, Attitudes, Forgiveness and Reconciliation.” Journal of Peace Education 1 (2): 147–63.
000
May 2009
DE-ESSENTIALIZATION OF IDENTITY IN ISRAEL, CYPRUS, AND NORTHERN IRELAND
Montgomery, A., G. Fraser, C. McGlynn, A. Smith, and T. Gallagher. 2003. Integrated
Education in Northern Ireland: Integration in Practice. Coleraine: UNESCO Centre,
University of Ulster.
Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. 2005. A Shared Future: Policy
and Strategic Framework for Good Relations in Northern Ireland. Belfast: OFMDFM.
Panayiotopoulos, C., and M. Nicolaidou. 2007. “At a Crossroads of Civilizations:
Multicultural Education Provision in Cyprus through the Lens of a Case Study.”
Intercultural Education 18 (1): 65–79.
Phillips, D., and M. Schweisfurth. 2006. Comparative and International Education: An
Introduction to Theory, Method and Practice. Bristol: Continuum.
Phinney, J. S., and L. L. Alipuria. 1990. “Ethnic Identity in College Students from
Four Ethnic Groups.” Journal of Adolescence 13:171–83.
Phinney, J. S., and A. D. Ong. 2007. “Conceptualization and Measurement of Ethnic
Identity: Current Status and Future Directions.” Journal of Counseling Psychology
54 (3): 271–81.
Rouhana, N. N., and D. Bar-Tal. 1998. “Psychological Dynamics of Intractable Ethnonational Conflicts: The Israeli-Palestinian Case.” American Psychologist 53 (7):
761–70.
Sampson, E. E. 1993. Celebrating the Other: A Dialogic Account of Human Nature.
Hertfordshire: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Sellers, R. M., M. M. Smith, J. N. Shelto, S. A. Rowley, and T. M. Chavous. 1998.
“Multidimensional Model of Racial Identity: A Reconceptualization of African
American Racial Identity.” Personality and Social Psychology Review 2:18–39.
Spyrou, S. 2001. “Being One and More than One: Greek Cypriot Children and
Ethnic Identity in the Flow of Everyday Life.” disClosure 10:73–94.
Spyrou, S. 2002. “Images of ‘the Other’: The Turk in Greek Cypriot Children’s
Imaginations.” Race, Ethnicity and Education 5:255–72.
Spyrou, S. 2006. “Constructing ‘the Turk’ as an Enemy: The Complexity of Stereotypes in Children’s Everyday Worlds.” South European Society and Politics 11:
95–110.
Theimer, C. E., M. Killen, and C. Stangor. 2001. “Preschool Children’s Evaluations
of Exclusion in Gender-Stereotypic Context.” Developmental Psychology 37:321–32.
Todorov, T. 1984. M. Bakhtin: The Dialogic Principle. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Trimikliniotis, N. 2004. “Mapping Discriminatory Landscapes in Cyprus: Ethnic
Discrimination in a Divided Education System.” Cyprus Review 16 (1): 53–86.
Verkuyten, M., B. Kinket, and C. Van der Weilen. 1997. “Preadolescents’ Understanding of Ethnic Discrimination.” Journal of Genetic Psychology 158:97–112.
Yip, T., and A. J. Fuligni. 2002. “Daily Variation in Ethnic Identity, Ethnic Behaviors,
and Psychological Well-Being among American Adolescents of Chinese Descent.”
Child Development 73 (5): 1557–72.
Zembylas, M. 2007a. “The Affective Politics of Hatred: Implications for Education.”
Intercultural Education 18 (3): 177–92.
Zembylas, M. 2007b. “The Politics of Trauma: Empathy, Reconciliation and Education.” Journal of Peace Education 4 (2): 207–24.
Zembylas, M. 2008. The Politics of Trauma in Education. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Comparative Education Review
000
BEKERMAN, ZEMBYLAS, AND MCGLYNN
Zembylas, M., and Z. Bekerman. 2008. “Education and the Dangerous Memories
of Historical Trauma: Narratives of Pain, Narratives of Hope.” Curriculum Inquiry
38 (2): 125–54.
Zembylas, M., and H. Karahasan. 2006. “The Politics of Memory and Forgetting
in Pedagogical Practices: Towards Pedagogies of Reconciliation and Peace in
Divided Cyprus.” Cyprus Review 18 (2): 15–35.
000
May 2009