‘Democracy means people successfully speaking and listening to each other’

The 15-year-old boy was from a region of Germany characterised by a high degree of right-wing extremism and vigilante subcultures ('Reichsbürger'), where some students even carry hidden iron swastikas. Our group session with him was part of our work for the non-governmental organisation (NGO) Cultures Interactive, which has been practising 'Narrative Dialogue Group Work in School' within the Horizon-Europe project OppAttune. 

The boy began to talk about the Holocaust in the most inhumane and cynical ways, citing what he had gleaned from 'forbidden web pages'. Amongst the group, there were reactions of laughter, fear, hesitation, various small comments. Could these be the foundations for change?

Countering his scandalous statements about the Holocaust, morally reprimanding him or correcting him through historical sources, would most likely have little or adverse effect. Instead, the narrative dialogue approach sees an opportunity for a direct personal exchange with the young man, within the group, by facilitating an authentic and respectful conversation that focuses on sharing first-hand experiences, lived-through narratives, rather than discussing issues.

After expressing appreciation for his openness, and duly signalling non-agreement with his sentiments – 'By the way, I disagree with you about the Holocaust, which you probably already thought anyway' – the facilitators enquired of the boy how he came to say such things. 'Do you often have conversations about these issues? Can you describe them? What moves you? Tell us something of the people you mix with'. 

Whilst reassuring the whole group of confidentiality, the facilitators also elicited students' comments on the boy's behalf ('that's just his thing'), as they distanced themselves or pointed to their own personal experiences. Most agreed with the assumption that 'you can't talk about this in school'.

Since the level of openness and mutual trust in this group was quite well developed, at the next session the facilitators asked the boy a more personal and narrative question: 'Thank you again for your openness last week. In fact, when I listened to you talk about the Holocaust, I found myself wondering if you might be a cruel person. What do you think? Is that so? Can you maybe remember a concrete situation in your life where you would say "I was cruel?" How might that have been good or bad for you?'. This reflection was given to the whole group as homework.

Until the following session, some of the group had apparently talked and thought a lot about cruelty and concluded they were not cruel people, but that they sometimes feel 'callous' ('we often do not have strong feelings'). Also, there was a big shift in the general mood of the group, which, to the facilitators' surprise, became more contemplative and reflected on experiences of bereavement and sadness, unrelated to the Holocaust. 

This led to a remarkable statement by the 15-year-old about the loss of his grandmother: 'My father did not flinch at all… he went about his business as usual the next day, sweeping the yard'. He then made the devastating observation that he was deeply convinced that his parents would not be sad if he died.

Ultimately, the young man, surrounded by his classmates, had come to the point where – in an outwardly unaffected but genuine way – he had shared an incredibly sad personal experience. The facilitators thanked him and added: 'Somehow we're not so surprised anymore that you sometimes say such cruel things and don't seem to realise it'. During the remainder of the semester, the topic of right-wing extremism arose repeatedly in conversations, among many other topics, including observations about fathers who are 'right-wing' and are occasionally also cruel.

Persisting with narrative dialogue

It's not just about this young man. Narrative dialogue groups can be places where students exchange about experiences with any kind of anti-democratic movements as well as deeply personal issues. A sensitive and heart-warming conversation about what it is like to flirt can suddenly have a pro-Hitler comment from a 14-year-old girl with multiple family challenges. 

These can be students who are alienated from democratic and human rights-based dialogue, they are students we urgently need to win back, and persisting with narrative dialogue – instead of disputing – is important.

And so our initiative invites school students to engage in open conversations within a safe space during schooltime, with facilitators and guarantees of confidentiality. We underline that this is parallel to social, language and creative subjects, and not only totally different from, but equally important as, taught lessons.

For one hour per week, during at least one school semester, narrative dialogue groups involve existing classes, from which up to four smaller sub-groups are formed, each with its own room, facilitated by four NGO practitioners. 

Preferably these practitioners are of mixed gender and from socio-culturally diverse backgrounds, so that sub-groups may be formed spontaneously, reflecting gender or other social criteria, or indeed group dynamics. A fifth time-out room with a further facilitator is on hand, so students can withdraw temporarily as necessary, or to protect the group conversation.

Facilitators are trained to moderate open-process, narrative group conversations in which only the students define what topics they exchange on, thus suspending external controls. Instead, facilitators focus on narrative dialogue, encouraging and enabling students to talk about personal experiences, sharing their own observations and listening to others. 

Such subjective perceptions are the experiential background of more political views and opinions, which, taken on their own, can lead us quickly into heated arguments and fruitless rhetorical escalation. If, however, students are given a space in which they can calmly be aware of each other's experiences, views and circumstances, they will also learn to be more understanding and honest with each other and with themselves.

They also learn to be attuned to their own experiences, feelings and insecurities – and to negotiate disagreements free of aggression and resentment and of denigration of others. Accordingly, facilitators limit the opening of the group conversation to a cordial 'So, how's it going?', or 'We are here to provide you with an open and confidential space, so you can talk among yourselves – and we are to help.' Moreover, all follow-up interventions will always avoid any 'Why?' questions and adhere to narrative 'How?' questions, e.g. 'How did this happen exactly...?', 'Can you remember another situation that was similar/very different?'.

We have found that complete thematic openness promotes awareness and sharing of experiences which touch on current socio-political topics, whether these involve prejudice, homophobia/sexism, bullying/ hate speech or regional far-right subcultures. 

At the same time, the social and communication skills of students and their emotional intelligence are supported, as is their democratic potential, since they are developing their passion for talking to each other, sharing experiences and connecting socially.

Now, it won't have escaped your attention that we're talking about complex socio-emotional skills here – of being both democratic and 'political in divisive times'. One can hardly be effective in just a few weekly hours. In the context of programmes supporting democracy and preventing extremism – amidst populism, polarisation, flourishing youth cultures, social media and conspiracy – how can we help young people participate in democratic societies in an engaged, sometimes oppositional and yet constructive way?

Challenges to democratic development in education

To give an initial and somewhat brusque answer: Schooling under the premises of the so-called Prevent Duty will not be helpful! In my view, obliging teachers to report alleged signs of radicalisation among their students will damage the pedagogical relationship and make things worse, not better! Conflating the societal functions of security/policing on the one hand and education and youth work/counselling on the other, constitutes a breach of the division of powers which is so essential for democracies. 

So, if you adhere to the European mainstream of so-called 'inter-agency cooperation with security agencies', I call upon you to reflect on the fundamentals of democratic society, and on my example above of what young people seem to think and say nowadays – and how they can come around developing a democratic personality even in challenging social sectors when given the safe space and trust to do so.

Therefore, it is key to resist policing young people, but instead to engage in an open process of personal dialogue with them. Democracy, put simply, means people successfully speaking and listening to each other. First and foremost, we are people conversing on a personal level, sharing subjective experiences and doing so in dynamic group situations with a variety of different individuals.

It is from this basic foundation of communication in a pre-political space that democracy springs. Any debate of specific political issues must be safely anchored in this space for it to be sustainable. 

Hence, psychologically speaking, a society of democratic and political individuals grows out of interpersonal relations between them, based on mutual exchange and narrative sharing, as well as from the intra-personal relation of each individual with their own past experiences, which also builds on (prior) conversations. This all requires the skill of talking to one another under conditions of trust and confidentiality.

Commonplace civic education as we know it may only be of limited help in this – especially given the aforementioned challenges of populism, polarisation, and extremism. A key problem may lie in terminology – for example, 'extremism' may be one of the most unhelpful terms in recent intellectual history. 

It raises serious challenges in scientific/ theoretical, political, social/societal respects, as well as risks for all operational purposes of fieldwork in education and counselling. It's better to use more precise concepts, such as 'Group-focused enmity/hatred' or 'Ideologies of unequal value of people' (Zick et al., 2011).

In sum, becoming capable of being political in divisive times is not about counter-extremism or prevention, nor even about civic education as is. Instead, it comes down to building an advanced skill-set for personal communication. As simple as it may sound, learning to talk to each other is quite demanding. 

A myriad of communication and social skills is required as well as emotional intelligence, e.g. introspection, empathy, active listening, the ability to build trust and rapport. Also, this means interacting in various groups, expressing and safeguarding oneself simultaneously, navigating both social and mental conflict. Hence, talking to each other is quite an art – a much-needed art. Education in and for democracy needs to put a primary focus on it.

Dr. Harald Weilnböck (Ph.D; Asso.Prof.) is a trained group psychotherapist, works as deradicalisation practitioner since 2007, helped building the Radicalisation Awareness Network and has a background in social research and biography studies while mostly pursuing intervention research.

Key sources

For more by Harald Weilnböck on the case and method, see Narrative Group Work, in: Stumptner, K. (Ed.) (in press). Group Analysis and Psychodynamic Group Therapy with Children and Adolescents. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Zick, A., Küpper, B. & Hövermann, A. (2011). Prejudice and Group-focused Enmity. In: Intolerance, Prejudice and Discrimination. A European Report (Friedrich Ebert Foundation), p.27-42. 
See tinyurl.com/4kwrfm9n