Download citizenship and nationality: how young people

CITIZENSHIP AND NATIONALITY: HOW YOUNG PEOPLE DEVELOP
PREJUDICE
Cedric Cullingford
Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research, Edinburgh, 2023 September 2000
INTRODUCTION
Those who promote courses in citizenship, on a national or European scale, rarely
spend time reflecting on the ambiguities of their intentions. No one would wish to
disagree with aspiring to civic virtues, or defining the proper duties to the community
(Crick 1998). And yet such fostering of the role of the citizen is another way of
furthering the course of cultural identity; the depiction of the self as part of a group, or
a tribe, or a nation. Sometimes the connection between the benign side of citizenship
and the darker side of chauvinism is clearly, made particularly by politicians calling for
greater efforts for, or pride in, their country. But usually the deep underlying effects of
promoting citizenship are ignored.
One reason for this is simply the complexities of the subject. By the time an education
system introduces model concepts, the essential attitudes which form the cultural
outlook of the individual are firmly established. The ways in which people behave
towards each other, including the degree of tolerance and understanding, depend upon
the extent to which they are insecure, willing to be influenced or full of curiosity. These
are not matters easily learned, nor are they factors purely of personality. These are
certain kinds of behaviour, and that is what we are exploring here. Whilst recognising
1
that any true understanding of human development includes embracing the
complexities of nature or nurture, we should recognise that nature itself is a result of
cultural influences, in expression and behaviour.
Citizenship is formed early but only appears to be a matter of concern or study when it
is manifested in extreme ways. We do not need to go as far as Kosovo and Serbia to be
reminded of the consequences of extreme senses of identity. The suspicion of others,
and the almost tribal demarcations between groups of people, are constant and, some
might argue, necessary forms of distinction (Bourdieu 1984).
Courses in citizenship are ostensibly concerned with both civic duties and with
tolerating others, but they are notoriously ineffective in the promotion or changing of
attitudes (Greenfield 1995). This is because of the very complexity of the concept, and
the subtle influences both in the home as well as the neighbourhood and school which
are brought to bear. The very mention of nationalism, however, suggests how important
it is that some effort is made both to understand and deal with the phenomenon, and to
make the distinction between the positive and negative sides.
Perhaps the most potent example of the extremes of citizenship remains Nazi Germany.
It illustrates several factors in understanding human behaviour. The opportunity for the
insecure and beleaguered to bully others, and the pleasures of hysteria are clearly
manifested. So is the ability of people to hold contradictory and self-deceiving beliefs,
like both knowing what was happening to the Jews and not knowing at the same time.
The ability to cut out certain insights and realisations, deliberately, because of fear, or
subconsciously out of psychological shock, are illustrated by the reactions of many
2
ordinary people to the rise of Nazism. The Nazi regime, however, illustrates very
clearly the two sides of the concept of national identity, the positive belief in certain
virtues, and the correlative antipathy to certain others, in that case defined both as other
races, ‘untermenschen’ and as the disabled.
Nazi Germany illustrates the most extreme course in citizenship. The propaganda
within the schools and through the media was pervasive. On the hand lay an intense
belief in, and promotion of, an ideal. Ritual was at the heart. Anyone who has been
officially warned against it and then seen Leni Riefenstahl’s film about Hitler –
“Triumph of the Will” – must have been struck by the strong belief, as in the laying on
of hands on many flags, in some intense spiritual force. There is more than a hint of the
absurd, and certainly a hefty dose of vulgarity in all the posturings, but there is no
doubting the belief of those who took part. This might be a long way from the
promotion of everyday citizenship, but it is merely the pathological extreme.
The other side of the development of the nationalism was the need for an enemy, for an
evil force to balance the good. Whilst the Jews in Germany felt themselves to be loyal
citizens, and had fought with equal courage in the first world war, they very early on
became blamed for all the troubles, world-wide. The way the collective antipathy was
played up has often been descibed, if not always understood. Ordinary people found
themselves carrying out actions that with hindsight were blatantly wrong, if official
(Arendt 1968). Let us take one example. A small town in Southern Germany,
Freudental, was inhabited by a large majority of Jews. One day, before the war, all the
men were rounded up and marched along the long road to the nearest town with a
3
railway station. At first, they were comparatively cheerful, assuming there was some
purpose in this. By the time they got there, those ordinary citizens doing their duty had
already begun to give unnecessary beatings, to see what had been their neighbour as
objects of hate (Goldhagen 1996).
Desciptions of what took place abound, and explanations of the causes, from the
philosophy of Herder to the Treaty of Versailles in 1919, are well known. But
understanding how people could behave like that, or how they behaved in the breaking
up of Yugoslavia, is more difficult. To talk of coercion or simple obedience is not
enough (Milgram 1974). There are always some who will not put up with intolerance,
who will remain true to their deeper understanding. Why? What are the root causes of
certain attitudes and behaviour that develop, despite courses in citizenship? In a study
of one liberal democracy that has long made a point of teaching civics, it was found
that prejudice against gypsies increases in young people year by year (Toivonen and
Cullingford 1998). What are the insecurities that become antipathies?
The Research
The empirical research reported here is mostly based on lengthy semi-structured
interviews carried out over a number of years; a fuller explanation of the methodology
and the findings can be found elsewhere (Cullingford 2000). At the core of the research
are 160 interviews carried out with children from a variety of backgrounds aged
between 6 and 11. There are two important priciples that need to be borne in mind. The
young people interviewed were allowed to discuss what they wanted and the subjects
covered included a wide range of interest. They did not know anything about the
4
agenda, or any hint of what they were ‘supposed’ to say. Given the fact that a lot of
their experience of school is a matter of guessing what they are supposed to say, to
please the teacher and to fulfil the requirements of assessments, this is important.
The other important principle is that the analysis of the transcripts revealed unexpected
findings. Nothing was anticipated. The starting point was research into young people’s
attitudes towards other countries, including Germany and including interviews with
young Germans (Cullingford and Husemann 1995). As the interviews developed, the
range of interests not only grew wider but connected to other research interests (eg.
Cullingford 1999a). It was only gradually that the significance of the findings were
realised, as the richness of the data revealed certain consistent themes. The attitudes
towards other countries related to attitudes to home and school, to neighbourhoods and
communities and to groups. The influences that were brought to bear, from the media
more than the official curriculum, were also revealed. All we can do here is to try to
summarize some of the most significant of the consistent themes that run through the
findings irrespective of socio-economic background or gender. Whilst there are
developmental issues these are less important than the main themes.
Young People’s Perception of the World
We should not underestimate the intensity of the young person’s gaze. The ability of
infants to observe and analyse has now been generally recognised, even if the
significance of this has not always been understood (Pugh 1996). The social
understanding of other people’s points of view and emotional well-being is also
expressed at a young age (Dunn 1989). This means that young children are constantly
5
studying other people’s behaviour, forming relationships and seeing the distinctions
between truth and falsehood. Their analysis of their experience is always their aim and
does not depend on other people’s explanations. Such observation can be, for some,
very traumatic (Cullingford 1996b). It is, however, always at least a little traumatic for
all, since what they witness includes the inadvertent, the overheard. The mass of
information that they are faced with completely uncensored.
Long before they are simplified into stereotypes, young people understand and
experience social distinctions. They see them in their environment and they undergo
them in the home. To some extent stereotypes are inevitable; a form of necessary social
categorisation. Personal connections, intellectual and emotional warmth, are matters of
real importance. This is why children’s acknowledgement of truth and falsehood are so
significant; they see the distinction between public and private morality (Webb 1997).
The sense of belonging somewhere is such a strong desire that it has wide
ramifications. From the start, we see the incipient connection with both the intellectual
and emotional formation of a sense of groups. Whilst a lot is talked about bonding,
individual to individual, such personal connections only make complete sense because
they contrast with other kinds of relationship. The desire to be the centre of attention is
a form of manifest social rivalry. Already the personal definitions against others are
being formed.
The awareness of the sense of being an insider or outsider, of having different kinds of
social relationship, is not only a matter of exclusive bonding but a result of observation
of other people. Young children are not blind to all but their own needs, nor is the
information they witness about human behaviour confined to the home. Their
6
understanding of the way that people relate to each other is not limited to a focus on
their own personal needs.
One of the earliest social phenomena in children is the awareness of norms, of
standards of behaviour that connect people. The desire to fit in, to conform, is clearly
demonstrated in the context of the school, but its earliest manifestations are already in
place in the home. The desire to please, to be approved of, to work out what kinds of
expectations others have is part of the experience of home; and conversely, when an
infant finds there is no response to this desire, no iterative dialogue of gesture and
voice, then the absence of emotions causes very early signs of social disjunction. Even
the youngest of toddlers can demonstrate behaviour like that of gangs when they define
themselves as entities by forcing reactions in others.
For most children the desire to fit in, to conform to expectations, is very strong. It is a
part of manners, of accepting cultural norms. Indeed, the wish to belong is
demonstrated in the complexities of children’s friendships (Davies 1983). We observe
in schools two pronounced attitudes. One is to avoid standing out, by being too
different. It is as if that final carelessness about what other people think were something
dangerous, a falling into such social unacceptability that there is a need to form
something alternative. The more one looks for evidence of the concept of normlessness,
the harder it is to find. If certain collective norms are rejected, this is not just for an
absence of boundaries or standards, but the seeking out of alternatives, often even
stronger in their discipline. No-one can be truly ‘alienated’ from the society in which
they are brought up (Williamson and Cullingford 1998). It is just that less complex
7
forms of belonging are sought, with a firmer, less lubricious hold of approval in the
minds of the peer group.
All want to belong, to have an ontological social centre where identity is gained
through the eyes of others. There is nothing but society. This conformity is seen in two
clear ways in school. At a formal level, the desire not to stand out, nor to be too clever
or too slow at work, indeed to be invisible, charges most pupils’ attitudes to their work
(Pye 1986). If they are too clever, too far ahead, or demand too much academic
attention from the teachers, then they are in danger of being branded by their peers as
‘snobs’ or ‘swots’. On the other hand, if they are so slow that the work of the class is
held up, they feel very guilty. This is social guilt, not academic. The emotional trauma
of being branded stupid derives from its social basis, from being a deviator from the
norm.
What children seek is the ‘middle way’. They do not want to stand out too much, and
academically this means doing just enough to keep up with the collective expectations.
The considerable energy, displaced form thinking, which is devoted to trying to guess
what the teacher and the system wants, is a form of cultural prejudice that relies on the
awareness of collective expectations, of belonging. Conformity is important. It is
important not to stand out.
If that is true of the academic experience, it is equally true of the underlying social
world of the school, of the personal connections with peer groups. Friendships are not
just necessary pleasures but sources of considerable pain. Certain people are ‘in’ or
‘out’ of the centres of popularity. To be different is to ask for trouble, whatever that
difference might be, from appearance to manners. Relationships are constantly being
8
tested, not so much deliberately as because they are means of finding out about
culturally shared standards and agreements. It is hard to go against the trend, and even
harder to avoid an extreme alternative if the sense of collective belonging is lost.
The desire to conform, allied to te awareness that there are alternatives to the large
complex standard sharing of collective even hierarchical attitudes, is the seed bed of
this incipient manifestation of prejudice and the definitions of the self against collective
‘others’.
The definition of differences is a combination of general information, seeing the world
as divided and disunited, and of emotional need. The longing of belong to a group is
strong and the more difficult that group is to enter, the more desirable. We see young
children looking to slightly older ones longing to please them. In the world of
childhood age is an extremely important factor in collective definitions of difference.
We see ‘victims’ assiduously and painfully admiring and following their bullies.
Nothing is more painful than social exclusion; nothing so emotionally necessary as
seeking comfort from the very person who has most hurt you.
This complexity of attitudes comes about because there are two often misunderstood
phenomena about human behaviour. In the literature on bullies and victims, for
example, much is made of the way in which the roles are defined. There are separate
typologies for bullies or victims but the more we study children’s inner personal
experiences the less we can rely purely on observable typologies (Boulton 1996). The
inner psychological traumas are not only more subtle, but more complex. The notion of
importance of ‘intention’ – to hurt or humiliate – whilst an upright moral principle of
9
responsibility – is not helpful in understanding young children. For them the
inadvertent is as important as the deliberate. The crucial factor is the sense of hurt and
isolation, not the cause or the intention as such.
If this were not the case, and if the inadvertent hurt were not so traumatic, we could not
explain this willingness of ordinary people to enjoy the power of torturing others, often
people unknown to themselves. The general psychological feeling that an individual
has become an ‘outsider’ who deserves what he gets is bolstered by the incipient
memories of personal hurt. All feel, at some stage of another, that they are victims.
‘Intentionally’ is an unhelpful concept in understanding the experience of young
people, although, like courses in citizenship, we cannot disagree with its moral
principle. The distinction between bully and victim is, however, the more difficult
because of the difficulties some people have in distinguishing between role and
personality. A teacher or a policeman might have a job to do and impose discipline. It is
part of the function of authority and the acceptance of authority. From the point of view
of the recipient, however, the pain of being told off or ‘picked on’ is felt personally.
The injury might not be deliberate but it is caused by someone who is palpably an
individual. All the acceptance of distinction of role – ‘I have to do my job’ – can be
quickly discarded by those who feel victimised. For the disfunctional, all roles become
personal and personally directed. The irony is that the absence of personality in most
relationships with teachers is turned into the most violent of personal confrontations in
those who have not mastered the art of delicate impersonal and interpersonal
relationships.
10
This confrontation with teachers is not far away from the sight of hooligans having
objections against ‘foreigners’; those who are from another club or country or race, and
who become at once impersonal and the personification of all that is wrong. In the
experience of school we see the perfect breeding ground of prejudice, of norms and
their alternatives, of conformity and the choices between conformity, of society in its
hierarchy and its expectations and the sense of injustice which accompanies it.
The Glimpse of the Social World Internalized
The desire to belong and the sense of social conformity ironically make people the
more vulnerable to manipulation. The very need to have a personal world view
corroborated by others means that the analytical insights being collected by the young
can never remain purely objective. They might be disinterested and they could be
idiosyncratic, but the desire to conform feeds the desire to seek out what can be
conformed with. Other people manifestly have their points of view. These are part of
their limitations and their strengths. It is, given the linguistic cultural inheritance that
creates the sense of a norm defined against others, difficult to resist the arguments and
explanations for reasons that are presented by others, unless there is already some sense
of an ontological centre. There are always those at the extremes who will need to find
their own alternative group – in a gang of hooligans or criminals. They redefine
themselves as ‘members’ of a social outlook which is the clearer for being an
alternative to what is collectively taken for granted. These gangs might not be articulate
in expressions of what they stand for. They are articulated through what they stand
against. They give a home to those on the edges of conformity.
11
There are two extremes that young people experience. One is the result of laissez-faire,
a sense of personal libertarianism that in the end is revealed to be the lack of personal
interest in them, and a lack of discipline. In the end, these young people feel they do not
belong, and sense they need to belong somewhere. They therefore seek out groups
which will give them identity. The other extreme is the opposite: over-authoritarianism.
This is the encroachment of some kind of social meaning, however distorted, not
allowing for an individual’s personal alternative. This causes a reaction against the
imposition of someone else’s norms. Over-authoritarianism often leads to rebellion, and
this can be seen taking place in the home, with the lack of dialogue being not so much a
manifestation of absence, of lack of interest, but of too much insistence on one point of
view. The crucial iterative relationship is missing. Here, too, young people are
vulnerable to manipulation, seeking out their personal identity somewhere else.
The home is the starting point for both the phenomenon of belonging and the discovery
of disjunction. There are two symbolic points in the understanding of the social world.
The first is the sense of personal space, somewhere to hide a room of one’s own, or
enough of the countryside to roam around in safety. Whether it is part of the
psychological definition of space as personal security and freedom from threat, or
whether it is a more palpable desire for the avoidance of overcrowding, space is seen as
of great importance. The second symbolic point is the desire to be the centre of
emotional attention, the sense of personal space as personal interest. In many
descriptions of the rise of prejudice, much is made of external threats, the phenomenon
of other people encroaching, or people who are felt to be encroaching, either financially
or physically. Prejudice is also defensive. Personal space has a strong psychological
value and is the centre of the home.
12
In descriptions of home life, much is made of sibling rivalry and children’s arguments
for their parents’ attention; that is when the adults do give attention. What appear to be
banal quarrels not only take on all the properties of incipient traumas, but are formative
in learning how to define the self against others.
“I want to be on by own. I don’t want to have any brothers and sisters.
My brothers won’t let me play with them”. (girl, 8)
Being excluded is the consequence of rivalry for attention, for each other and their
parents. The eternal phrase ‘it’s not fair’ underlies the early realization of social
inequality.
“She gets cuddles… I, I don’t usually get them”. (girl, 8)
When describing the discontents which feed outbreaks of chauvinism and nationalism,
much is made of the fertile ground of the sense of disjunction, of an incipient feeling,
easily exploited, that an individual or a group are uniquely got at, whether for religious
or economic reasons. Discontent feeds on itself. When we consider the phrases that
young people consistently use, we see just such a strong feeling of disequilibrium.
Think how often children say ‘it’s not fair’. This is true of sibling rivalry and the
judgements their parents make, and even more so of school. The expectation of a
perfect social system is disappointed. There is too much injustice, of decisions made on
the spur of the moment without evidence, and of particular individuals being able to
exploit the system. ‘It’s not fair’ is at the heart of children’s experience.
13
The lack of social justice manifested by the hierarchical system of the school is
matched by the volatile and turbulent relationships of groups. The possibilities of
harassment and of conflict are always there. To some extent peers are not expected to
behave as ‘fairly’ as teachers and those in authority. Personal motivations are
recognised, and psychological reasons given for the sudden changes of relationship.
“She’s been through a rough patch…whenever somebody’s not nice to
her or they don’t want to do things she always takes, gets a bit frustrated
and angry and takes it out of everyone…! (girl, 8)
The delicacy of knowing how to tackle difficult people, and how to avoid
confrontation, is a constant necessity in the social life of a group. Pupils ‘take it out’ on
each other; they, like teachers, are perceived to be moody, to have ‘rough patches’.
Bullying and teasing and their consequences are part of the everyday experience of
school.
The threat of being hurt is compounded because bullying is rarely and individual act.
The victim might be isolated but those who perpetuate the harm are nearly always in
some kind of group, and even if not, are supported by a complying audience of
witnesses. Those who look the other way also add to the sense of helplessness against
the power enjoyed by some over others. Bullying can become ritualized into revenge as
well as ostensible self-protection.
“It makes me sad when my brother gets beaten up or something. So I go
and have a go at the people who beat up my brother and they regret it.
14
The people that come back at me and start punching me and that – I don’t
like people that want to come back at me”. (boy, 8)
Distinctions between victimisation and bullying are hard to make. Distinctions between
rival groups are not.
There is a melancholy pleasure in seeing other people being ostracised as there is a
secret excitement in watching individuals fall into trouble. This comes about partly
because of the psychological relief in not being the one at the end of the ‘unfairness’.
What happens to other people gives a frisson of excitement. The school is a perfect
breeding ground for the phenomena of prejudice. It replaces a sense of the complexity
and diversity of the world and of society with a systematic series of norms, or
behaviour and of obedience to the authority of received knowledge that make the
contrasts between collective expectations and private endeavour the more extreme. The
curriculum is understood to belong to the teachers. The standards of conformity are
those associated with passing tests. The teachers dispense impersonal justice. Beneath
these surfaces are the rages of relationships, the questioning of values and the seeking
of alternative conformities.
In addition to the private social tensions of home, and the more visible complexities of
groups in school is the awareness of a large social world where the same distinctions of
unfairness apply. At no measurable point are children unaware of the larger
environment, of people, of attitudes and of cultures. Even in the psychological
insecurities of their own home, of night and neighbourhoods, they are aware of other
people, of threats either personal, like burglary, or impersonal, like traffic. The world as
15
witnessed or as depicted on television is not a safe place. The fundamental sense of
inequity is always there. When children talk of space they do so with a clear awareness
of the differences between what they themselves have and what other people possess.
Their thirst for the middle way at school is corroborated and repeated in their desire to
avoid the extremes of being rich or poor. The poor they are aware of. The rich are
flaunted through the media every day.
In describing the world as they know it, children start with the contrast between the
very rich and the very poor. This structural inequity is the crucial distinction between
groups; like unfairness, it is the difference between those who ‘have’ and those who
have not. They have all witnessed those who are very poor
“And they haven’t got homes so they have to live in cardboard boxes” (girl, 9)
“Ragged homes with smashed windows and people sleeping in cardboard
boxes” (boy, 8)
How do they explain this to themselves? The reasons given for such sights are
interesting for their idiosyncratic originality since no-one, it appears, has given any
explanation, least of all the education system. The sense of inequity is left unexplored.
It remains a crucial part of young people’s social understanding and it is not difficult to
see how it could connect with those who feel socially disenfranchised. At first there is
no blame attached to this fact as it appears to children a general phenomenon. They also
feel the latent possibility that there are responsibilities being eschewed for which
someone can be blamed. Those politicians who can identify a group against whom
16
prejudice could be diverted will always have a following. Children wonder how things
can be so unfair without someone being responsible.
Children’s attitudes to the rich play an interesting part in their conception of the world.
Their analysis is essentially moral. They are normally not jealous to any great extent
since the very rich are not perceived in the same terms as themselves. With some
significant exceptions, they do not express any great desire to be rich themselves. They
wish to seek more modest goals and more obtainable ends. Their sense of the very rich
is of people who are snobs, who, like the too clever ones at school, deserve pulling
down. Essentially their view is moral. The rich ought to give to the poor. They have
power to overcome the unfairness of the world. They have a duty to do good and live
on what is adequate rather than extravagant.
This deep-seated attitude, a feeling for the need for fairness and equity, is vulnerable to
disappointment. Children might not be good but they have a strong desire to be so, and
this is linked to their general judgements of other people. When the world that is
presented to them is instinct with divisions and contrasts, they naturally need to find
both a general explanation and a personal modus operandi.
Riches and poverty are, however, more than a personal matter. There is also a strong
view of the large world, of nations and nationalities, of global rights and wrongs and of
peculiarities of culture and distinctions of language. That this is the case is obvious.
That young children are, from their earliest years, aware of this is less so, but still
unsurprising. What is interesting is what they make of this and how it can connect with
their own sense of relativity. Knowing that there are different cultures is a neutral
17
matter, but such knowledge does not remain strictly neutral. As has often been noted
before, children have favourite countries and those to which they are antipathetic
(Piaget and Weil 1951). This is not such a matter of culture shock (Furnham and Stacey
1991) as a recognition of the widespread nature of contrasts. Thanks largely to
Hollywood propaganda and fast food, the United States are favoured. Thanks to
memories or the last war perpetuated in films and comics, the Germans, as a people, are
not. There is a complete mental map of the world.
This map sees the world divided essentially into the rich and poor. It is not difficult to
translate such differences into prejudice, since prejudice does not have to be the result
only of threat. There is a fundamental sense of countries to be treated with distaste as
having such deep-sealed problems that they have to be accepted as unable to change.
The images are not just of poverty but of cultural a well as linguistic ugliness. Above
all, other nations either make their own country seem the less adequate, or other
countries lack those amenities which define children’s own norms.
“They speak a different language and they don’t have personal stereos
and televisions if they’re poor”
And coffee-makers and milk shakes and things” (girl, 9)
At one level, the sense of the world elsewhere being different can be neutral. It is a fact:
They’re completely different. Just completely and utterly different to
us. They speak different and look different” (boy, 9)
18
It does not take much, however, to make difference into threat, especially if such
distinctions are ostensibly disguised.
CONCLUSIONS
The idea of teaching citizenship is clearly attractive. To help people understand each
other and collaborate, to be tolerant and full of curiosity about diverse cultures is hardly
something to be argued against. The question is whether such approaches are more than
well meaning invocations of cultural artefacts from saris to samosas. I have heard many
a European expounding on the virtues of travel, of sending young people abroad to
experience the delight of other places. Being there is supposed to be enough. The more
I hear the pleas for broadening the mind, the more pressing do the images of the actual
experience of travel become: groups of French and Italians ganging together in seaside
towns, football supporters enjoying the delights of other nations’ opposing fans or solid
meals of fish and chips in Benidorm or Torremolinos with plenty of Sky Television
coverage of domestic football matches. Sometimes political solutions can exacerbate
the very problems they are supposed to deal with.
Nationalism is a comparatively recent phenomena. It is, in its manic side, quite
unnecessary. Prejudice, on the other hand is so deep-seated that it not only helps
explain taste, but is a part of the development of growing up. The question is whether
preudice can be turned away from the sourly destructive into something altogether
more positive. If there is any real intention to deal with the way the people treat each
other, both in terms of understanding and behaviour, then the whole subject has to be
19
treaated far earlier and in greater depth. That would mean re-thinking the purpose of the
curriculum and the nature of schooling.
Perhaps such a reappraisal is wishful thinking. After all nationalism is useful to
politicians. Prejudice against foreign competitors in the fields of sport or industry are to
be encouraged. Market forces depend on rivalry and antipathy. What kind of citizenship
is that?
References
Arendt H (1969) The Banality of Evil: The Trial of Adolf Eichman. Seeker and
Warburg, London.
Boulton M (1997) Teachers’ Views on Bullying: Defunctions, Attitudes and Ability to
Cope. British Journal of Educational Psychology. Vol. 67, No. 2, pp 223-33
Bourdieu P (1984) Distinctino: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. London.
Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Crick B (1998) Report of the Advisory Committee on Citizenship Education. London
HMSO.
Cullingford C (1999a) The Human Experience: The Early Years. Aldeshot. Ashgate.
20
Cullingford C (1996b) The Causes of Exclusion: Home, School and the Development
of Young Criminals. London. Kogan Page.
Cullingford C and Husemann H (1995). Anglo-German Attitudes. Aldeshot. Ashgate.
Davies B (1982) Life in the Classroom and Playground: The Accounts of Primary
School Children. London. Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Dunn J (1988) The Beginnings of Social Understanding. Oxford. Bard Blackwell.
Furnham A and Stacey B (1991) Young People’s Understanding of Society. Routledge.
London.
Goldhagen D (1996) Hitler’s Willing Executioners. Little Brown. London.
Greenfield C (1996) The Teaching and Learning of Citizenship in an English
Comprehensive School. Ed. D. Bristol University.
Milgram S (1974) Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View. London. Tavistock.
Piaget J and Weil R (1951) The Development in Children of the idea of the Homeland
and of Relations with Other Countries. International Social Science Bulletin. No. 3 pp
561-78.
21
Pugh G (1997) Early Childhood Education find its Voice: But is Anyone Listening? In
Cullingford C (Ed) The Politics of Primary Education. Buckingham. Open University
Press. Pp 15-33.
Pye J (1089) Invisible Children: Who are the Real Losers at School? Oxford University
Press.
Toivonen K and Cullingford C (1998) Racial Prejudice in a Liberal Democracy: A
Case Study. Politics, Groups and the Individual. Vol. 7. Nos. 1 and 2. Pp45-56.
Webb, C (1998) Young Childrens’ Views of Social Behaviour. PhD. University of
Huddersfield.
Williamson I and Cullingford C (1997) The Uses and Misuses of ‘Alienation in the
Social Sciences and Education. British Journal of Educational Studies. Vol. 45, No. 3,
pp 263-275.
22