This project has been funded with support from the European Commission.

This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained

therein.

GOOD PRACTICES

Project:

Talking about taboos: Website to help adult trainers address racism, xenophobia and other prejudices in their

classrooms

GRUNDTVIG Learning Partnerships. LLP 2007-2013 - N. 2013-1-FR1-GRU06-49587

Organization Ezzev Foundation

Theme Identity versus ethnicity

# Name/Field theme

of the good practice Source (f.i. literature)

Method and short description Owner, place and time of

the implementation Actual impact

1 Think and talk (Tat) Douglas Stone & Sheila Heen – Thanks for the feedback. 2014.

Stone & Heen interpret – in line with A.Giddens (see below) and others – an identity as a narration by ourselves on ourselves. This narration makes use of identity labels like smart in “I am smart” or dumb in “I am dumb”. The less broad these identity labels are defined, the more we have to defend ourselves against the outside world and the less we are open to feedback and

EF, FCP. The Tat good practice was implemented twice in Rugby, UK on the May 15th conference (ar. 40 present). The implementation was executed together with partner FCP. EF was co-organizer of TAT

The three sentences did not lead to much discussion or denial in the Dutch and the Polish meetings. The sentences were more or less sheepishly repeated. Occasionally a giggle could be heard that was caused by shame as the participants admitted.

This project has been funded with support from the European Commission.

This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained

therein.

learning. Stone & Heen describe a method to widen our identity label. Basically, it consists of accepting three sentences: - Sometimes I make mistakes - Sometimes my motivation is egoistic - I am part of the problem The first sentence makes sure that we understand that we are not infallible. Thus, we cannot claim to be right every time, or even this time. The second sentence implies that we are not morally superior. We cut corners. This might be the case now too. The third sentence ensures we cannot blame a “them” versus an innocent “us”. There is no “we” and “they”. We have to solve problems together. The three sentences should open us up to the words and nonverbal communication of others.

workshops in Poland – see the Polish good practices – where Tat was implemented. EF delegated an instructor to Polish conferences – see the Polish good practices – where Tat was implemented. Training and discussing the good practice with EF’s primary target groups: KIT (leading intercultural adult trainers in NL); Lightworks (independent adult training); school to train teachers and staff in parent contacts (UniC); marketers (to reach the general audience) – offline and online at the closed Facebook group: Addressing Zwarte Piet: https://www.facebook.com/groups/1395826584003663. EF implemented the good practice at the following

During the Rugby meeting two individuals did not agree with one or more sentences. Interestingly enough, they were project teachers rather than local participants. The two who objected against the sentences defined their identities in terms more explicit in terms of ethnicity than the other participants. Maybe there is a correlation here. When translated to the Dutch project subject, it was found in analyses of the questionnaire (see below) that the vast majority distinguishes between labels of acts (“racist” versus “oversensitive”) and labels of identity (“racist” versus

This project has been funded with support from the European Commission.

This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained

therein.

The good practice here is to have instructors say the sentences out aloud, one-by-one, have the participants repeat them and ask after every sentence who disagrees. The aim of the good practice is to open the field for a dialogue on (perceived) social exclusion without any of the participants getting defensive at once. The repeating of the sentences and the discussion is followed up by an analysis by the instructor. This analysis is based upon the discussion, in particular how hard it is for some participants to say one or more of the sentences and to agree with them or not. The harder it is to say a certain sentence or the less a participant agrees with a sentence, the more likely the sentence indicates a strategy of the participant to not have to listen to feedback (infallibility, moral superiority or no responsibility).

meetings and conferences: - With teachers and parents: Utrecht, Unic, 21.05.2014 (ar. 25 present; organized by EF), 18:30 – 21:00; - With teachers (to train them communicate with students and parents; organized by EF): Utrecht, UniC, 24.2.2014, 8:30 – 16:30 (6 present); Utrecht, UniC, 9.3.2015, 8:30 – 16:30 (5 present); Zutphen, Vrijeschool, 12.5.2015 (1 present; organized by EF), 13:00 – 13:45; Utrecht, UniC, 26.5.2015 (1 present; organized by EF), 13:30 – 15:00; - With the general audience at the Social Media Week, Rotterdam, nhow (ar. 60 present), 23.9.2014, 14:00 – 14:30; - With the general audience at a TAT-project conference, organized by EF in Amsterdam,

“foreign”): a person thinking or doing something “racist” does not equal being a “racist” according to them. Just as a person expressing themselves or acting “oversensitive” to an element of Dutch culture automatically is “non-Dutch”. Some individuals on the other hand do define themselves strongly with ethnic identity labels, and perceive the world through ethnic “we”-“they” glasses. They do interpret someone having a “racist” opinion or acting “racist” as a “racist” and see someone opposing a Dutch tradition as “a foreigner who does not belong here”. Whereas in the Netherlands (and Poland) this definition

This project has been funded with support from the European Commission.

This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained

therein.

The instructor should then ask participants who find it hard to say a certain sentence or who disagree with a sentence to what identity label this applies most. They specifically ask whether this applies to ethnic identity labels. This way ethnic exclusiveness can be measured.

de Waag, 4.12.2014, 20:00 – 22:00 (38 present);

is an individual choice, in the UK it is part of official policy – see A.Hart. The “we” – “they” division in a strong ethnic identity opposes the third Tat sentence. If it is combined with a denial of the second Tat sentence it can be expected that an open discussion is impossible. The Tat sentences thus can be used to establish whether there is common ground at all to start a dialogue about (perceived) social exclusion.

2 Who are you until now?

Anthony Giddens – Modernity and Self-Identity. 1991. Zygmunt Bauman. Identity. 2004. Zygmunt Bauman. Liquid life. 2005.

The good practice is simple. An instructor asks a participant face to face the question: Who are you until now. The question is asked by an instructor who gives full attention (see C2C). When the question is answered the instructor moves to the next participant

EF, FCP. The good practice was implemented twice in Rugby, UK on the May 15th conference (ar. 40 present). The implementation was executed

Adults in the Netherlands and in Poland always in great majority followed the mold of the first participant. In Rotterdam and Rugby adults didn’t. In the adult groups where

This project has been funded with support from the European Commission.

This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained

therein.

Zygmunt Bauman. Liquid times. 2007. Erving Goffman. The presentation of Self in everyday life. 1959. Erving Goffman. Frame analysis. 1975. Adrian Hart. That’s racism. 2014. Dynamiczna Tozsamosc project. 2012. Dynamic Identity. 2012-2015.

and asks the same question. Full attention means that no references to the previous Q&A are made. Nor any other references. The instructor implements intense listening, patience, good will, honesty and respect. The theory behind this question is that, according to A.Giddens, we all have a default narration about ourselves available. This narration should be internally consistent and should exclude other narrations about one’s self. As we found in the project Dynamiczna Tozsamosc and later on in the project Dynamic Identity participants do not have a default narration prepared to answer our question: Who are you until now? Rather, participants seem to construct a narration semi-spontaneously on the spot, weighing what is being asked from them and how earlier participants framed their

together with partner FCP. EF was co-organizer of TAT workshops in Poland – see the Polish good practices – where the good practice was implemented. EF delegated an instructor to Polish conferences – see the Polish good practices – where the good practice was implemented. Training and discussing the good practice with EF’s primary target groups: KIT (leading intercultural adult trainers in NL); Lightworks (independent adult training); school to train teachers and staff in parent contacts (UniC); marketers (to reach the general audience) – offline and online at the closed Facebook group: Addressing Zwarte Piet:

the first participant’s mold was followed the participants knew each other more or less before the good practice was implemented. In the Rotterdam and Rugby they didn’t. The outcomes suggest the good practice is a usable measurement to measure the strength of group pressure in a group of participants. Ethnic identity labels were mentioned by a minority of adults. As could have been predicted – see f.i. A.Hart - ethnicity was more often mentioned by British citizens than in the Netherlands or in Poland. The reason for this probably being that in the UK ethnicity is highly

This project has been funded with support from the European Commission.

This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained

therein.

answer. This is in line with the theories of Z.Bauman who states that in our times we do not try to build one, definite narration out of the puzzle pieces that make up who we are, but that we all the time reconfigure the puzzle pieces and fit them to the circumstances. The aim of this good practice is to show that our identity narrations are constructs and thus are open to change. Our ethnic identities are constructs too. After all participants have answered the same question individually, the instructor shows patterns in the answering. Mostly it will be the case that the first person takes the longest to answer. Applying Goffman’s insights this would be because there is no apparent frame ready for this participant to build upon. There is no ready-made mould to model the answer after.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1395826584003663. EF implemented the good practice – small version - at the following meetings and conferences: - With teachers and parents: Utrecht, Unic, 26.2.2014, 18:00 – 20:00 (ar. 25 present; organized by EF), 18:30 – 21:00; - With teachers (to train them communicate with students and parents; organized by EF): Utrecht, UniC, 24.2.2014, 8:30 – 16:30 (6 present); Utrecht, UniC, 9.3.2015, 8:30 – 16:30 (5 present); Zutphen, Vrijeschool, 12.5.2015 (1 present; organized by EF), 13:00 – 13:45; Utrecht, UniC, 26.5.2015 (1 present; organized by EF), 13:30 – 15:00; - With the general audience at

political while in the Netherlands and Poland ethnicity is left to civil society. This means that the good practice could probably be considered to be a reliable instrument to establish the importance of ethnicity labels for the participants. Self-reporting by the participants after the implementation of the good practice indicated that many considered this simple instrument to be very useful and very interesting.

This project has been funded with support from the European Commission.

This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained

therein.

The second and following participants typically answer quicker. For them a mold does exist – the one created by the first participant. If the participants have mostly or exclusively used the frame that was created by the first participant, it can be concluded that the participants are highly open to peer pressure. A second element of analysis is self-reporting by the participants. Why did they select some identity characteristics (for instance: age, hobbies or roles they fulfill in life) and not others (for instance: ethnicity, current mood or occupation). By discussing why certain elements were selected and others weren’t the importance of ethnic identity labels for the participants present can be established.

the Social Media Week, Rotterdam, nhow (ar. 60 present), 23.9.2014, 14:00 – 14:30; - With the general audience at a TAT-project conference, organized by EF in Amsterdam, de Waag, 4.12.2014, 20:00 – 22:00 (38 present);

3 C2C (citizen to citizen)/ full attention

Emmanuel Levinas. Totalite et Infini. 1961.

From a group of participants pairs are formed. Each pair consists of two participants. The pairs will engage in a

EF, FCP. The C2C good practice was

During the meetings with Dutch partners open dialogues took place both

This project has been funded with support from the European Commission.

This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained

therein.

Joshua Greene. Moral tribes. 2013. Leonard Mlodinow. Sublimal. 2012. Timothy Wilson. Strangers to ourselves. 2002. Dynamiczna Tozsamosc project. 2013.

90 seconds dialogue. The subject of the dialogue is to be decided by the instructors. Next, the entire group is asked whether 90 seconds is a short or a long time. Then, the group is asked to stay silent and do nothing during 90 seconds to experience 90 seconds intensively. The framework of the dialogue is then explained. One participant will ask the other participant about the established theme. This is not an interview. The goal is to establish what the two participants have in common and what they do not have in common within 90 seconds. Ten seconds before the end of the 90 seconds the asking participant receives a sign by the instructors that it is time to wrap up. The instruments that are to be used in the dialogue are: intense listening, patience, good will, honesty, respect. The two participants draw straws – to decide who will ask and who will answer. The participants are seated on chairs,

implemented twice in Rugby, UK on the May 15th conference (ar. 40 present). The implementation was executed together with partner FCP. EF was co-organizer of TAT workshops in Poland – see the Polish good practices – where C2C was implemented. EF delegated an instructor to Polish conferences – see the Polish good practices – where C2C was implemented. Training and discussing the good practice with EF’s primary target groups: KIT (leading intercultural adult trainers in NL); Lightworks (independent adult training); school to train teachers and staff in parent contacts (UniC); marketers (to reach the

on the Dutch project subject an on (perceived) social exclusion – even though often there was little agreement about the fundamentals of the subjects. The most thrilling example of full attention was performed at the Amsterdam conference. Two (professional) friends – one of which an EF TAT trainer -had asked the moderator – a EF TAT trainer - to be as sharp in the planned debate on stage as he possibly could. They were afraid that they otherwise would agree amongst each other too much to engage in a discussion that would be engaging for the audience. What followed was a very

This project has been funded with support from the European Commission.

This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained

therein.

facing each other. The other participants watch them from the side. The good practice is based on E.Levinas assumption that when we open up to another person all external definitions disappear and a transcendent communication remains. According to T.Wilson and L.Mlodinow our unconsciousness is the gathering place of prejudices. Wilson goes so far as to call the unconsciousness a second personality. According to J.Greene racism is a prejudice that has come late in the evolution of men. In the good practice it is tested how easy or hard it is to overcome prejudices during a dialogue with a stranger in a Levinasian setting. To measure this ideally a therapist instructor is present who analyzes the verbal but also the nonverbal communication of the two participants forming a dialogue pair for 90 seconds.

general audience) – offline and online at the closed Facebook group: Addressing Zwarte Piet: https://www.facebook.com/groups/1395826584003663. EF implemented the good practice (light version) at the following meetings and conferences: - With teachers and parents: Utrecht, Unic, 18.11.2013 (35 present), 18:00 – 20:00; 26.2.2014, 18:00 – 20:00 (16 present); 21.05.2014, 18:30 – 21:00 (ar. 25 present); - With teachers (to train them communicate with students and parents): Utrecht, UniC, 24.2.2014, 8:30 – 16:30 (6 present); Utrecht, UniC, 9.3.2015, 8:30 – 16:30 (5 present); Zutphen, Vrijeschool, 12.5.2015, 13:00 – 13:45 (1 present); Utrecht, UniC, 26.5.2015, 13:30 – 15:00 (1

sharp debate that was supported by the good practice of full attention. Neither the panelists nor the moderator held back. But because of the intense listening, respect, good will, patience and honesty the dialogue was no longer an exchange of opinions but rather became a common search for probable answers. Although the audience was invited several times to join no one reacted. Later on many declared that they did not want to interfere in the electrifying process on stage. This, probably, is the maximum of what full attention can achieve: overcoming opinions and creating the bedding for a common quest.

This project has been funded with support from the European Commission.

This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained

therein.

In line with Mlodinow f.i. it is assumed that the vast majority of human meaning is constituted by nonverbal communication. The more the participants assume an open posture, engage in eye contact and bow towards each other the more open they are assumed to be. For verbal communication the criteria are: asking open questions rather than closed questions, asking neutral questions rather than leading questions, waiting for the other participant to finish their sentences, answering personally rather than generally, speaking in a thoughtful tone of voice, referring to the words of the other participant – all these are signs of assumed openness. An additional way of assessing the effectiveness of the good practice is by asking participants to self-report. An alternative, smaller version of this good practice is giving one’s partner in communication full attention: intense

present); - With the general audience at the Social Media Week, Rotterdam, nhow, 23.9.2014, 14:00 – 14:30 (ar. 60 present); - With the general audience at a TAT-project conference, organized by EF in Amsterdam, de Waag, 4.12.2014, 20:00 – 22:00 (38 present);

The worst performance of the good practice was during the meeting in Rotterdam. The chosen meeting topic, new technology and (perceived) social exclusion, was so overwhelming for the audience that no real dialogue occurred.

This project has been funded with support from the European Commission.

This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained

therein.

listening, patience, good will, honesty, respect and no references to others. The aim of the good practice is to show how to start a dialogue on (perceived) social exclusion.

4 Online intervention Roy Voogd/ Slow Dialogue. Dick Swaab. We are our brains. 2014.

The good practice is to implement the full attention good practice – see above – online. The practice is to be implemented during online discussions on ethnic-sensitive themes.

EF. The good practice was implemented online in the period 22.8.2014 – 4.12.2014. A dedicated Facebook page, Slow Dialogue, was dedicated to this good practice: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Slow-Dialogue/1461032810850493.

The good practice implementation failed gloriously. Inserting reflective comments in heated discussions and requesting restraint and reflection at extremist Facebook groups on the EF project topic of Zwarte Piet did not lead to the effect that was aimed for but rather triggered (very) negative reactions, ranging from accusations of being presumptuous and arrogant to accusations of conscious trolling. D.Swaab sheds some light on this outcome: “If you’re

This project has been funded with support from the European Commission.

This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained

therein.

open to everyone and trust everyone ... others will perceive your behavior as abnormal and shut you out.” Probably this is more true online even because we cannot establish nonverbal communication online. The typical nonverbal reassurances that come with empathy are blatantly absent online so that extremely empathetic behavior is seen as even more abnormal.

5 Online publication Zygmunt Bauman. Identity. 2004. Zygmunt Bauman. Liquid life. 2005. Zygmunt Bauman. Liquid times. 2007. Phil Rosenzweig. Left brain, right stuff. 2014. Tim Wise. White like

The good practice is to trigger reflections and discussions by means of online publications – be it by means of essays, articles, questionnaires and results analyses or videos – on ethnically sensitive themes. Indications of success are: - Amount of views - Amount of reactions

EF. A video was published on 12.11.2014 featuring the Tat sentences – YouTube: https://youtu.be/64FQ-_XtHsw. The video asked viewers to create their own video while being silent as a protest against the tone of the

The video published fell flat. It attracted only 100 views and no reactions. Offline people from EF’s network reacted favorably to the video but the impact was zero. The questionnaire on the other hand attracted a lot

This project has been funded with support from the European Commission.

This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained

therein.

me. 2008. - Type of reactions (least interesting: likes; most interesting: long reflections)

Zwarte Pieten discussion in the Netherlands. An online questionnaire- was published on 30.4.2014 – SurveyMonkey: https://nl.surveymonkey.com/r/6NM8Z69 The results plus analyses were published on Slideshare: 9.6.2014: http://www.slideshare.net/onnohansen/the-black-pete-discussion-survey-results-june-2014 and 1.7.2014: http://www.slideshare.net/onnohansen/the-black-pete-discussion-survey-results-def-36521585; The questionnaire addressed the Zwarte Pieten discussion and tried to find a correlation between action labels (I judge their opinions/ actions to be ...) and identity labels (I judge people who have these

of online interest. Being propagated by individuals from the EF network the questionnaire caused vehement discussions at the profile pages of these individuals. 472 individuals filled out the questionnaire. Preliminary results and analyses and definite results and analyses were published on Slideshare. They were read 105 times (preliminary) and 503 times (definite). The essays published on Slideshare were read over 300 times each (381, 386, 342 times), liked once and downloaded 2 times. In comparison: the essay published on the portal Frankwatching (nearly 200,000 subscribers) was

This project has been funded with support from the European Commission.

This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained

therein.

opinions, undertake these actions to be ...). Essays were published on the largest online Dutch language platform on Internet trends - Frankwatching, at the occasion of commemorating the dead of WW II in the Netherlands: 4.5.2015: http://www.frankwatching.com/archive/2015/05/04/hoe-reageer-op-online-racisme/ on the subject of how to react to online racism; and on Slideshare: 3.7.2014: http://www.slideshare.net/onnohansen/ppt-essay-36579237; 6.7.2014: http://www.slideshare.net/onnohansen/persbericht-waar-ligt-de-oplosing-in-de-zwarte-pietendiscussie (press release); 12.11.2014: http://www.slideshare.net/onnohansen/ik-ben-klaar-met-

read 630 times and shared 174 times (36 times on Facebook, 47 times on Twitter, 86 times on LinkedIn and 5 times on Google+). The essays on Slideshare overperformed while the essay on Frankwatching underperformed. Possibly this has to do with the subjects of the essays: the Slideshare essays covered the EF project topic (discussion on Zwarte Piet) while the Frankwatching essay covered the topic of how to react to online racism. The video, questionnaire and Slideshare essays did not attract online reactions. The Frankwatching essay did attract one direct reaction and tens of

This project has been funded with support from the European Commission.

This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained

therein.

de-zwarte-pieten-discussie - all about interpretation frames for the Zwarte Pieten discussion, applying identity literature to the discussion;

positive reactions in tweets. The positive reactions were all framed in terms of “nice”, “useful” and did not include long reflections.