Paper Presented at the EERA Postgrad Preconference at Rethymnon, Greece 20-21 September 2004

Paper presented at the EERA Postgrad Preconference at Rethymnon, Greece 20-21 September 2004. Trine Stauning Willert, PhD-student, Institute for Cross-cultural and Regional Studies, University of Copenhagen. E-mail: [email protected]

Circumvention Strategies -An Analytical Approach to Interviews with Pupils Talking about Greece and Europe

Abstract: The purpose of this paper is to present a working process with qualitative data. The data presented here are group interviews with lower secondary school pupils in Greece. The data form part of a much larger material comprising not only more group interviews from Greece, but also group interviews with pupils from Denmark and written material and class discussions from both of these countries. The paper presents an analytical approach applied to a sample of six interviews collected in Greece during spring 2002. The analytical approach deals with the pupils’ discursive strategies to cope with an image of Europe as divided along an evaluative scale with inferior and superior countries. The scope of the project is not only to show the expression of a certain view of Europe, but also to examine how this view is dealt with in the pupils’ discourse. Such an analytical goal can only be achieved through a qualitative approach. Keywords: qualitative method, Greece, Europe, lower secondary school, pupils’ perceptions

Introduction “There are huge differences between us and the other Europeans” (Georgia, E3, 6)1 and “each country has its own things” (Christos, L2, 2) are typical answers when asking lower secondary school pupils in Greece about their perceptions of Europe. Such statements however often seem to carry an underlying meaning, namely that there are huge economic differences among the European countries and that if a country does not have advantages in economy it has something else (to be proud of). The pupils use a politically correct discourse about difference and diversity, but below the expressive surface they are painfully aware of the fact that differences mentioned point to inequalities given that the importance or value of a country is most often estimated in economic terms. A few examples illustrate that the pupils regard economy as the most determining difference:

“I believe that our disadvantaged position in relation to the other Europeans is due to our economy, that’s where it all starts” Elly, E1, 20

“… the basic aspect which makes us different is economy…”Anna, E1, 20

“And the economic interest dominates, that is, Greece is also a relatively poor country and (Greece) did not enter (the EU) just to be united, with love and … (Greece) entered for more material reasons, money, interest…” Eleni, L3, 6

In this paper I will give some examples from the qualitative analysis of my interview data collected in Greece during spring 2002. In order to understand the background of this material I will first give a short outline of the PhD-project I am carrying out. Then I will explain the analytical approach that I have applied to the data presented. Finally, I will illustrate the analysis through some examples.

1 All names are of course altered for anonymity. The capital letter refers to the school, and the numbers refer to the interview and page of the quote in transcripts.

1 Paper presented at the EERA Postgrad Preconference at Rethymnon, Greece 20-21 September 2004. Trine Stauning Willert, PhD-student, Institute for Cross-cultural and Regional Studies, University of Copenhagen. E-mail: [email protected]

It is important to note, that the work presented here is a work in progress. Neither the methodological approach nor the analysis as such is thoroughly worked out at present. I have taken this opportunity to describe a working process with qualitative data hoping to hear your comments and questions about it.

Outline of the PhD-project The project has a comparative design. Using various qualitative data collection methods, it attempts to compare the ways in which 15-year-old pupils in Greece and Denmark talk about Europe and nationhood. The comparison between these two countries is relevant because of their different geographic position and because of their different school systems. The comparison can say something about pupils’ identification strategies from different positions and it can suggest points to be aware of when teaching about Europe in a national context. The theoretical and methodological approach is inspired by the notion of banal nationalism introduced by Micael Billig (1995). Following Billig (ibid.) and Jenkins (1996) I regard identities and particularly national identities as non-essential constructions in constant process of negotiation and as being constructed and expressed through “ways of talking about (nationhood)”. Methodologically, I have collected data reflecting the pupils’ ways of talking about Europe in three different social situations, namely 1: free written answers, 2: open discussion in class, and 3: semi-structured interviews in small groups The purpose of the described triangulation has been to examine 1: in which contexts it becomes relevant for the pupils to talk about Europe and 2: what it implies to talk about Europe in the different contexts. The data collection took place in eight school classes belonging to different schools placed in the capital area of each country. In this paper I only deal with a smaller sample of the interview material from Greece. This sample consists of six interviews from two schools. One school is an under- privileged public school 40 km from Athens. The pupils are from lower middle or working class families and a number of pupils come from other countries, mainly Albania. The other is a private school in a northern suburb of Athens. This school focuses on foreign language learning and exchange of pupils with North-western European countries. The pupils are from economically well-off families.

Analytical approach The analytical approach I have applied to my data sample builds partly upon the analysis of the Greek data from the Youth and History Survey (Borries and Angvik 1997) where Frangoudaki & Dragona (1997a) suggest that “Greek students evaluate peoples according to the stereotype of superiority of the western and northern European industrialized zone. (…) It is a belief that inferiorizes all other than European cultures, but also the countries considered belonging to the ‘south’ of Europe.” From another research project dealing with ethnocentrism of the Greek school system edited by the same authors it is concluded that “Greek teachers as well as school books accept the Eurocentric stereotype of “superiority” of the Western European world as evidently true.” The conclusion regarding the Greek national self is, that it is portrayed and reproduced through the Greek school system as a fragile identity in need of protection against foreign influence, be it in relation to history, to contemporary immigration or to the integration of Greece into the European Union.

Insofar as the pupils accept this image of Europe, they also accept that Greece belongs to the inferior part of the European value scale. As my data show, recognizing this ‘fact’ is a source of distress for the pupils. A girl from one of my group interviews expresses her frustration this way:

“Yes, maybe we are different; it’s just that as Greeks we don’t like to feel disadvantaged” Anna, E1, 13

Considerations such as these made me choose an analytical approach which focuses on the pupils’ descriptions of other European countries in relation to Greece and, further, their discursive strategies in explaining differences between the countries. Their explanations are understood as strategies for coping with what they consider an uncomfortable fact. It is shown that their explanations work as a switch mechanism in the dialogue: Whenever the relationship between Greece and other European countries is described in value laden terms, with the implication that some countries are better (economically, politically or technologically) and some worse (some are perceived as more, others as less European), the pupils will typically try to make up for this image of inequality by one or more of the following discourse components. For now I have named them circumvention strategies and there are seven of them. I suggest that the pupils attempt to make up for the image of inequality: 1: by referring to other qualities than economic development (history, culture, mentality: each country has its own things, Greece has a great history, Greek people are hospitable, ideologically advanced etc.), or 2: by underlining that present inequalities will eventually, i.e. with the help of historical process, be levelled out (Greece will change, all the countries will come closer through European integration), or 3: by speaking of Europe as an ideal world, as an already united, inclusive whole in the European Union where all countries and peoples, including Greece, are equal, or 4: by making splits in the population of Greece between the ‘good European Greeks’ and the ‘bad non-European Greeks’, or 5: by being defiant, rejecting to become like ‘them’, even though ‘they’ may want ‘us’ to. Further, there are two strategies that I will not illustrate with examples: 6: by referring to countries or peoples who are considered to be lower on the evaluative scale than Greece (Albania is inferior to Greece, Turkey is not European, Muslims are backwards) 7: by applying neutral criteria for comparison like geography (all countries on the European continent are European and should be accepted as Europeans), or

Analysis First some examples to illustrate that the pupils perceive the relationship between Greece and the ‘proper’ European countries they compare Greece to, as an unequal, and sometimes unfair relationship: A girl who was born Albania, but says that she feels Greek rather than Albanian, has this to say about other Europeans’ view of Greeks:

Ioanna: “For Greece the definition has emerged that it is dirty, that they (the Greeks) are gypsies, my uncle has been to France and they call the Greeks ‘gypsy’, dirty, they (the French) cannot make the Greek person

similar to themselves, the Greek person is inferior, I believe, for the people abroad” L3, 10

“(…), if I go to France, Germany (…) if I go to a European country they won’t call me Greek, they will call me muck Greek, why? Is it a curse to be a Greek, to be an Albanian? It is not a curse, but they have it like a curse, they will remind us all the time and they will do it in a downgrading manner, I am not ashamed to say so” L3, 13-14

This girl is the only one who expresses her frustration about the disadvantaged position of Greece so clearly, but it is a frustration that is latent in all the pupils’ discourse. Cf. this statement of a non-immigrant from another interview:

Anna: “(…) I feel that as a country of the EU they do not value us as much as they would value another European country and that is perhaps what leaves me cold somehow (…)” E1, 12

Her particular position as immigrant from a country considered even more deprived makes her particularly focused on the unfairness of racial/ethnocentric or economic discrimination. But another non-immigrant girl participating in the same interview expresses the same kind of frustration:

Eleni: “Generally there is discrimination among the countries (…) unrelated the economic development of each country, which is something we take very much into consideration; that is, a Greek will discriminate someone who comes from Albania because he will think right away that Albania is an inferior country due to economic development and all that. That is the bad thing, that we cannot each of us personally feel that we are Europeans, that we are equal to our fellow citizen ” L3, 3

The following quotations clearly illustrate the pupils’ perception of the relationship between the notions of Greece and Europe. According to these statements the two notions are almost irreconcilable:

Elena:” Yes, to me it does not seem to be Europe here, (…), while France, Germany …” L3, 10 Ioanna: “It is not Europe (…) they do not belong to Europe L3, 10 Ioanna: “When I think about a Greek and a European it is exactly the opposite, …, I cannot say that a Greek can become European” L3, 10 Eleni: “We are different from the others as human beings” L3, 10

Public school: The quotes above were taken from both schools randomly. Below, I will give exemplify the circumvention strategies that seem to be especially favoured by the pupils from the public school:

The following dialogue between three boys shows a typical example of the abovementioned switch-mechanism with reference to strategy 1: Stelios: “Europe will be of a lot of help to Greece, which is not such a good state, it is not such a good country” L2, 1

Stelios: “It is not as developed as Germany and France”

Christos: “Germany is quite developed in the industrial sector as well as France in many areas compared to Greece” Klevis: “and in technology, they are rich countries” Stelios: Greece might have a great history and Christos: the others don’t, each country has its own things, good and … L2, 2

Also the non-immigrant girl, quoted above for views on discrimination, applies strategy 1 by focusing on other qualities than economic ones:

Eleni: …Greece might be considered a poor country, but at the same time it is considered a very good country in the sense that its inhabitants e… are ideologically advanced, I also like very much the history it has, I like that it is a spiritually very rich country, e.. it has a great past, … as an example France might not be considered such an important country, whether or not its technology breaks all records,.., in comparison with Greece, just because Greece has this beautiful past and great personalities have passed through (this country)

She also applies strategy 3 by invoking the ideal society in Europe

Eleni: “for all of us to really become one Europe as we all dream of it, every person has to think for himself whether he/she feels right in this position and to claim his rights like every European” L3, 3

But the following quote shows that she actually does not believe in strategy 3, because society does not provide the means allowing her to become an active (European) citizen:

Eleni: ”I am just a passive citizen who accepts what is offered and I am not given the possibility to take action, because there are no means for taking action (…) it is also bad that there is age discrimination, I am 14 (…) but I if allowed, I could speak to the prime minister and tell him what I believe, I could represent my school” L3, 4

Strategy 3 is also applied by the third girl participating in this interview. She too has come from Albania and she has an image of Europe like a paradise:

Elena: “I do not think that there will be poverty like we have here, starvation, I think that everything will be nice (…) that it is paradise, I have not thought that in another country it is like here where I see poor people suffering, homeless, (…) Europe seems to me like a paradise, so much that I want to go see it for myself” L3, 8

The pupils’ image of Europe is full of ambivalence. The girls are upset about discrimination from the other countries and applying strategy 3 they dream of a united Europe or world:

Ioanna: “therefore if they were all one Europe I believe that things would be better, also for equality” L3, 3

Elena: ”I believe that with the word European, that every person will feel European, then racism will disappear somehow, not always, but the racism

that exists towards the others from inferior countries, we will have the same money (…)” L3, 4

The girls also demonstrate a belief in change and future progress, by strategy 2, but somehow the circumvention does not seem to work in that it does not help them produce a more positive image of Greece in Europe:

Ioanna: “… that about the inferior will start to disappear, he (the Greek person) will become European little by little” Eleni: “I have very much associated technology with all that” (…) “Everything will happen with computer” Q: “So the Greeks will become cold as D describes…?” Eleni: “Isolated” Ioanna: “We will take ideas from the other countries, (…) we will think like them, act like them”

As the example below shows, strategy 2 builds a bridge to strategy 5, but instead of taking strength in becoming defiant, they rather display a submissive attitude, accepting an image of Europe that they dislike:

Q: How do you see that? (What do you think about that?) Eleni: Badly Elena: Yes, I also see it badly, (..) ideas will go from Europe, I guess, they will proceed (…) we say we should forget the past, but from one point of view it is not good, we should remember something from our past, what we are, where we arrived, that is what I don’t like Q: Is that Europe? Where Europe arrived at? Elena. Yes Eleni: That is Europe, yes, yes Ioanna: (…) we might be Europeans, we children, but we do not feel it, our children might feel it more and their children even more and that’s how that thing will be lost

Strategy 2 is applied more typically in an interview with three boys. In the following example, strategy 2 is combined with strategy 3. A more prosperous future is invoked for Greece, combined with an ideal society in Europe:

Christos: The new generation will have the Euro and it will somehow be more tied to the countries of Europe (…) Stelios: I believe that we won’t at all be racist, it will be much better, not only with the Euro (…) Christos: (…) Greece, I think, will grow in the economic sector and we will have a lot of transfers abroad, travelling (…) Stelios: I believe that in some years, there wont be Greeks, Italians, we will all be called Europeans, we wont differ I believe. L2, 3

In another interview at the public school, three girls also speak about the disadvantaged position of people in Greece , but instead of accusing other countries of discrimination they accuse some people in Greece for downgrading their own position. The example below illustrates their application of strategy 4:

Maria: “And more simple people even have a different anticipation when they say the word European, they think that a European is educated; he

might be more sophisticated/delicate, that he lives in a beautiful place… the more simple people have this anticipation, they say European and they think that it is something superior, more important maybe” L1, 8

Zacharo: Yes, they regard it as something very superior to us, they believe that it is not possible to compare for instance the Europeans now with the Greeks L1, 9

The way these girls cope with this perceived inequality is to insist on the right to be equal and to demand from every person in Greece to be open and active:

Maria: But we are all Europeans and we have to get used to it Dimitra: Yes, we too we are European, what do they think/how do they see it? Zacharo: In my personal view European is a person, particularly now in the beginning, who has spirit freed from taboos and from prejudices, free from what Sofia said that a European is an educated (person), to be educated has nothing to do with being a European … Maria: We are all Europeans Zacharo: Hear!(…) Now I believe that a European is a person who will make concessions, he will accept some things, (…) he will try to incorporate some of his own (things) and he will be a person who is open to this change, of course not passive, sluggish, lazy, a person who is more into things, more social, who will regard all of Europe as one society

Private school:

The interviews from the private school display the same strategies as the interviews from the public school, but due to lack of time I will here only give examples that illustrate the more significant use of strategy 5 in the private school interviews. Except for the more frequent use of strategy 5 it is also significant in these interviews that the pupils express more concern with the question whether Greece is European and whether Greece should become similar to the European ideal.

In the following dialogue, the pupils’ ambivalent attitude towards the term European is made very clear. Things supposed to be European are at the same time desirable and unwanted. Below we see both strategy 2 and 3, but in the middle a strategy 5 is displayed:

Anna: yes, maybe we are not essentially European, because the theoretical is different from the essential Elly: Well I believe that now, with all that has happened in relation to Greece for instance with Europe, I believe that.. the differences that we have will decrease and we will reach a balance in some way, because when I think that it is at least supposed with the EU that every country helps another country in difficulties and that each country is somehow dependent on the other Q: Does that mean that Greece will become more European? Elly: Yes, yes Anna: I believe that in the course of time and with a little effort from us, we will be able to be placed within the whole Fotini: Because we Greeks we are also reactionary Elly: Reactionary, we try not to do what they tell us to, or what the majority does, maybe to single ourselves out Q: But it is something desirable in your opinion to obtain more of something European?

Fotini: Yes, why not Anna: Yes Fotini: It will be something new and maybe it will also be something good Anna: It might help both Greece and Europe Elly: It is something that will change the image of Greece, I hope for the better though, I mean there shouldn’t be so much chaos on the roads, traffic jams and all that, while for instance abroad with the metro that all the developed countries have, there is not such a bad situation like here, they also do not have so much unemployment

The interview also reveals an expressed distrust towards the non-Greek European countries. One girl has heard that in other European countries people refer to Greece as being equivalent to Europe’s core identity, meaning that the essence of Europe is actually Greek, but the other two interviewees disagree with her view, because they distrust non-Greek Europeans:

Anna: mm, it is true what Elly says, but I just disagree in that they might (truly) say it, but .. there is a difference between words and acts Fotini: They might not mean it, they say it, but they don’t act on it” E1, 12

In yet another interview the pupils speak as if they are divided between on the one hand wanting some changes to happen in Greece; on the other hand not wanting to change themselves; and certainly not wanting Greece and the Greeks to grow into resembling the North Western European countries and their peoples. This I see as a typical way of displaying strategy 5:

Georgia: “We will never resemble another people, i.e. the Germans, it wont happen, no way” E3, 8

Georgia: “I wouldn’t like to change, I wouldn’t like to change at all, not at all to change the flaws that I have as a Greek, the good things that I have as a Greek, I wouldn’t” E3, 13

The last-quoted girl is convicted that she will not change, but another girl has more contradictory statements about the desirability of changing and about who is responsible for the success or failure of changing:

Angeliki: “It is good if the other accepts us for what we are, not for what he himself would like the most, or for what his state would like us to be” E3, 13

Angeliki: “we try to be similar to the Europeans, to the other Europeans, in the way that they live, but our own ways does not allow us, we have become used to live our way and we cannot change from one day to the other, …., we want to be similar to them, but we cannot, we do not do it the right way” E3, 19

In the first statement she blames ‘the others’ for not accepting Greece without changes and in the second statement she explains that even though the people in Greece may want to change, they will not be able to do so. Somehow, they do not do it in the right way.

While none of the pupils at the public school had personal experiences with travelling, some of the pupils at the private school have been abroad or they mention that they correspond with young people from other countries through the Internet. A striking thing to note in their statements about these experiences is that in their meeting or correspondence with people from other countries in Europe they do not feel any difference, but they still believe there is a difference:

Anna: “One and a half year ago I went to Italy, so for 5 days as I was confronted with the Italians I didn’t see any difference , but if I was confronted with them in my daily life for a long period of time, then I believe that I would feel some difference” E1, 20-21

Elly: “(…) when I see the general picture from the other countries then I feel inferior, when I talk to the girl I do not feel inferior” E2, 16

Elly: “When we talk for instance through the Internet (…) to the others from the other European countries we do not feel any difference, we talk in English which is our common language (…) we talk like a Greek with a Greek” Fotini: “The difference shows, I believe, only when you live somewhere” A: “If you discuss with the other, the foreigner, about their culture, about their present (…) society, there I believe we would see it and we would feel the difference” E1, 21

These girls realise, however, that their experiences with cross-national communication are parts of a pattern undergoing historical changes:

Elly: “when we grow up (…) we will continue to chat like now, because if we think about our parents for instance, they don’t do it, but they didn’t do it in our age either, therefore it is a different experience and I believe that we will continue to do it because we like it and if we like something we will continue to do it (…) Elly: Perhaps that’s why when we say Europe and we mean something united, that we can communicate Anna: for us it is united Fotini: Perhaps we just do not feel it Q: Despite that you said in the beginning that you do not feel a member of the EU Anna: Yes, I do not feel I am a member as a Greek, as a child with the other children, that’s what I said to you before that we are all children and we have the same interests, that makes us Fotini: we do not stop thinking that it is something united regardless that we do not feel it

Concluding remarks Comparison of data from the two schools shows that the pupils from the public school tend to have a more submissive attitude towards the image of an unequal relationship between Greece and the rest of Europe. They primarily apply circumvention strategy 1 and 2, in an effort to keep up pride in Greece due to its past, its soft qualities and its hoped for future achievements. Contrariwise, they tend to evaluate present Greece as ‘not so good’. Also in a number of instances they apply strategy 3 and 4, thereby showing faith in a European or mankind-based utopia-to-come. This sub-strategy also complies accusing bad elements within Greece for hindering the true recognition of their country and its inhabitants. The pupils from the public school certainly also

9 Paper presented at the EERA Postgrad Preconference at Rethymnon, Greece 20-21 September 2004. Trine Stauning Willert, PhD-student, Institute for Cross-cultural and Regional Studies, University of Copenhagen. E-mail: [email protected] apply strategy 1 (all the pupils do so), but more salient with these pupils is the use of strategy 5, which expresses their frustration over the perceived inequality between Greece and ‘the others’ while at the same time trying to circumvent their hurt feelings through defiance. Being economically privileged, the pupils in the private school have a stronger position in society than the pupils in the public school; furthermore they are more often, through travelling, exchanges and their school, confronted with the obvious differences between Greece and non-Greek European countries. These circumstances help explaining that the pupils in the private school have stronger reactions than the pupils in the public school. A generalised pattern underlying all examples is that Greece is continually being compared to ‘the other countries’, but these ‘other countries’ are not actually existing countries in Europe, rather they represent a certain stereotype, namely the stereotype of the superior, industrially developed North Western Europe. The pupils’ discourse is contradictory in that on the one hand they seem to regard this stereotype as foundation for an ideal ‘family of nations’ of which Greece should also be a part. On the other hand they want to regard Greece as unique and unchangeable. Their ways of talking about Europe definitely display a defensive attitude in line with the conclusions reached by Frangoudaki and Dragona regarding the school system, but there is also evidence that many pupils are aware that they are part of a European or global integration process.

REFERENCES: BILLIG, M. (1995), Banal Nationalism, London: Sage FRANGOUDAKI, A. & T. DRAGONA (1997a), Greece Between Tradition and Modernity, in search of an Equal Place in the European Taxonomy of Peoples. In Bodo von Borries and Magne Angvik: Youth and History, tome A, Hamburg : The Körber Stiftung. FRANGOUDAKI, A. & T. DRAGONA (Eds) (1997b), What is our Fatherland? Ethnocentrism in Education (in Greek), Athens: Alexandreia JENKINS, R. (1996), Social Identity, London: Routledge