What is in Kelvin's Head?

  • British Values and Education

    I do wish that Mr Gove, the Education Secretary, (and everyone else for that matter) would stop trying to wrap progressive values in a national flag.

    I feel uncomfortable about it, whatever the flag – and there’s a lot of it going on in Scotland at the moment too.

    According to the Prime Minister, the kinds of values that he and Mr Gove mean by British values are:

    • freedom
    • tolerance
    • respect for the rule of law
    • belief in personal and social responsibility
    • respect for British institutions

    Well, with the exception of the last on (which institutions? – there’s plenty of good British people who have little respect for parliament and parliamentarians at the moment) this has nothing whatsoever to do with being British and mostly to do with being a good citizen. (I say mostly because I’ve no interested in being merely tolerated by anyone).

    I think that if we want such things taught in schools then we should defend the idea of having proper civics classes and agree a strategy that doesn’t come waving flags of any kind.

    There’s also one or two things missing from that list like equality, being a global citizen, human dignity in work and human rights. If the Prime Minister was talking about some of that then I might be cheering him on. As it is, we are left with sound bites that sound like they have been left over from John Major’s Back to Basics campaign.

    It seems to me that very many people are weary of religion being such an issue in schools and think that schools would be better without it. Those who promote faith schools seem particularly defensive at the moment and not without good reason.

    The things is, it seems to me that it is obvious that faith schools are not part of the problem insofar as they are known to promote rather than detract from community cohesion. However, it is equally obvious that faith schools are part of the problem in that some religious groups have ready access to them and some don’t. Their existence automatically makes people think that everyone should have the right to a religious education no matter what kind of religion the state is being expected to endorse. Furthermore, we know that at least some of those faith schools have strong input (including clergy governors) who walk a long way away from equality and tolerance in the rest of their lives.

    My view – the state should be investing less in faith schools not more and it should be promoting the teaching of civics rather than British (or any other pseudo-nationalistic) values.

    And if we want progressive values taught in schools (and I do) then we should be prepared to come out and name those values and say so.

    , , , ,

52 responses to “Inclusive Language – again”

  1. ryan Avatar
    ryan

    Kelvin – that cracked me almost as much as your last tweet on the left of your blog ;-)!

    Reply
  2. Jimmy Avatar
    Jimmy

    Ryan, although you address your comment to Kelvin like I am not there. I assume you are referring to my poem, I can assure you that it does not crack me up watching you making any opinion you may have untenable.

    Reply
    1. kelvin Avatar
      kelvin

      No Jimmy – I think Ryan was indeed referring to my last comment, above.

      Reply
  3. Jimmy Avatar
    Jimmy

    Thank you Kelvin and Sorry Ryan.

    Reply
  4. ryan Avatar
    ryan

    No worries! Was indeed referring to the v.amusing coming out day tweets at the side.

    I’m not sure there’s ever existed anyone, anywhere,at any time, of whom it could be said that *all* their opinions are ‘untenable’, so such rhetoric is dehumanising at best. Apropos nothing, I was moved to google the poetic stylings of the great David Brent. Who needs Auden? šŸ˜‰
    http://murfinsandburglars.com/2009/04/14/bad-poetry-for-tuesday-david-brent-edition/

    Reply
  5. Peter Avatar
    Peter

    Kelvin; no, I think it distracts. It simp;ly reminds us that this is how your mind works: you make connections and delight in that sort of word-play. However, to sharpen up my point. Thank you for helping me to realise that, for some, ‘family’ is not a positive word in the way in which I experience it. For my part, this willl mean that I will be more careful about its use when others might feel excluded (and therefore hurt). Mutatis mutandi can you accept that I feel offended by what seems to be merely a casual linking between family and the f word? These are sensitive areas, but sensibilities are by no means confined to those who find family a painful or unhelpful concept.

    Reply
  6. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    I am slightly nervous aboaut the alternatives to the 1982 Liturgy, not because I don’t share the inclusive sentiments expressed above (I do). I fear that, as so often in the history of the church, the steps we take to avoid one kind of mistake in the way we talk about God can lead us into another. The avoidance of pronouns as a measure to achieve inclusivity produces inelegant, strained and stilted English. How would it be if one were to use it in day-to-day speech? ‘I saw John this morning. I asked John’s how John’s health was. John said that John was over his flu, and hoped to be back at work on Monday’. This may not in itself seem to be a problem. But in fact, what very quickly happens when we adopt this idiom in addressing/expressing God, is that the very idea of a personal God begins to recede. My basic instinct is that the church’s language of pulbic prayer is properly anchored in that of the scriptures. There are dangers in departing from this. The perceived problem (rightly perceived) is perhaps better tackled by good teaching about the nature of God, than by linguistic contortions that produce stilted prayers, and possibly a less real and vivid idea of God.

    Reply
  7. Melissa Avatar
    Melissa

    About the family imagery – another reason to drop it in church is for the sake ones who, like me, do actually have the signifying family relationships.

    There is too much pressure on day to day life with children when that life is forced to serve as some kind of example or testimony or witness to the world – or more likely one’s church friends – about the nature of God.

    I think it sours love because in that kind of scheme loving children is more fundamentally a means to an end.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Previous Posts

  • Every breath we drew was hallelujah

    Frankly, I prefer the versions by Mr Buckley and Mr Handel to this nonsense from the X-Factor. And all people of good taste agree with me.

  • Glasgow Terror Attack Broadcast

    There have been two things recently which have very strongly reminded me of the service which was broadcast on Radio 4 from St Mary's on 1 July 2008. Firstly, one of those responsible has just been found guilty in an English court. Reading the reports of the court case has been unnerving. It is hard…

  • Advent 3

    Here is this morning’s sermon in video. I’ll add the text later when I have access to it. UPDATE Here is the text: I want you to use your imagination this week and use it to answer a question that I have for you to think about during the week ahead. ā€“ It is this…

  • Myers-Briggs Blog Analysis

    Here is a wheeze. Type a blog url into this webpage and it will attempt to analyse the style of the writing in terms of the Myers-Briggs typology. It gets me bang on. Although I used to identify as an introvert in the first half of life, I think that those days are long gone.…