Journal of Beliefs & Values

Studies in Religion & Education

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/cjbv20

Roots and routes: towards a pedagogy of

worldliness

Al Karim Datoo & Alexis Stones

To cite this article: Al Karim Datoo & Alexis Stones (08 Apr 2024): Roots and routes: towards a
pedagogy of worldliness, Journal of Beliefs & Values, DOI: 10.1080/13617672.2024.2332824

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13617672.2024.2332824

Published online: 08 Apr 2024.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 3

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cjbv20
JOURNAL OF BELIEFS & VALUES
https://doi.org/10.1080/13617672.2024.2332824

Roots and routes: towards a pedagogy of worldliness

a b
Al Karim Datoo and Alexis Stones
a
Department of Education, Sukkur IBA University, Sukkur, Pakistan; bDepartment of Curriculum, Pedagogy
and Assessment, IOE, UCL’s Faculty of Education and Society, London, UK

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This article proposes the notion of ‘worldliness’ as a necessary com­ Received 30 November 2023
panion to the Religion and Worldviews curriculum. We posit that an Accepted 15 March 2024
understanding of ‘worldliness’, grounded in empirical research, in KEYWORDS
which the individual negotiates commitments to one’s home (filial) Diaspora; inter-generational;
and host (affilial) communities, is pedagogically relevant and heur­ worldliness; pedagogy
istically beneficial to the lens of the worldview paradigm proposed
for Religious Education (RE). We draw on the analysis and synthesis of
an earlier ethnographic study, in which ‘worldliness’ was found to be
a socio- and religio-cultural practice whereby diasporic youth navi­
gate complex identities and affiliations. We argue that 1) a pedago­
gical approach to a worldviews curriculum calls for an understanding
of ‘worldliness’ as a framework for making sense of agency in the
construction of one’s own worldview; 2) ‘worldliness’ is a site for RE
pedagogical exploration to counter the power imbalance of the
dominant affiliative over the filial, and 3) this needs to be made
explicit in RE pedagogy.

Introduction: worldliness and worldview

This article proposes the notion of ‘worldliness’ (Said 1983) as a necessary companion to
the Religion and Worldviews curriculum proposed by the Religious Education Council
for England and Wales (2018). We posit that an understanding of ‘worldliness’, grounded
in empirical research, in which the individual negotiates commitments to one’s home
(filial) and host (affilial) communities, is pedagogically relevant and heuristically bene­
ficial to the lens of the worldview paradigm proposed for Religious Education (RE).
The notion of ‘worldliness’ is theorised retrospectively from the qualitative data gener­
ated through an empirical and ethnographic study carried out in the context of Ismaili
Muslim youth diaspora in Canada. Ismaili Muslims live in over 25 different countries,
mainly in Central and South Asia, Africa, the Middle East, Europe, North America and
Australia. The majority of recent Ismaili migrants to Canada are from the Indian sub­
continent and more recently from Afghanistan. There are also recent migrants from Syria,
Iran, East Africa and other areas of settlement by Ismailis. The purpose of the study was to
explore the youth’s experiences of growing up as Canadian-Ismailis, with a specific focus on
examining their values and identity formation in multicultural Canada. We draw on the

CONTACT Al Karim Datoo a.datoo@iba-suk.du.pk; a.datoo@iba-suk.edu.pk Department of Education, Sukkur IBA

University, Nisar Ahmed Siddique Road, Sukkur, Sindh, Pakistan
This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.
© 2024 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 A. K. DATOO AND A. STONES

analysis and synthesis of this study, in which ‘worldliness’ is found to be a socio- and
religio-cultural practice whereby diasporic youth, who have immigrated to the new society
of their settlement, navigate complex identities and affiliations. The details of the metho­
dology will be discussed later.
Our proposal does not reject the importance and role of the worldview paradigm for RE.
We recognise the role of the worldview paradigm in addressing commitment to an inclusive
education through a curriculum that reflects the religious and non-religious landscape, and
the interactions between personal and institutional commitments (Chater 2020; O’Grady
2023; REC 2018). In this sense, the worldview approach offers a unifying discourse for
plurality. Our intention here is to contribute to emerging pedagogical approaches to the
worldview paradigm through acknowledgement of the liminal and nuanced experiences of
students in the plural RE classroom and, in so doing, make recommendations for pedagogical
responses. We begin with an introduction to ‘worldliness’ followed by a description of the
original qualitative study and subsequent discussion of the pedagogical implications that we
consider relevant to the Religion and Worldviews National Entitlement (REC 2018).
We draw on Edward Said’s theorised concept of ‘worldliness’ discussed in his work
The World, The Text, and The Critic (Said 1983). The original usage of this concept refers
to filiative and affiliative relations of shaping an intellectual’s or critic’s practice and
production of ‘text’. According to Said, worldliness involves critical negotiation between
‘filliative’ and ‘affiliative’ structures and process, as affilial soon becomes ‘filial’ for
a diasporic intellectual which in turn influences their intellectual practice. This is under­
stood to take place in the context of globalisation in general, and specifically in the
context of diasporic intellectual critique situated within the new host society of settle­
ment (this is also reflected in Said’s own biographic realities of being ‘in exile’).
Worldliness is thus applied to the diasporic individual who is away from an original
home and negotiating their adjustment in a new and host society of settlement.
Individual diasporic agency is therefore understood as the negotiation of filiative bonds
with family, home, tradition, and local culture and, at the same time, socialising, encultur­
ating into new multicultural social relations and networks as a part of socialising into a new
society. This plays out in a multicultural classroom (and society, for that matter) with the
children’s acts of meaning being constructed through a nested context (Maguire 1994). The
descriptor of nested contexts refers to more than one evaluative context at a given time
influencing the constructive, generative, social and cultural possibilities of children’s acts of
meaning (Maguire 1997, 53). Worldliness, it could be implied, is thus a diasporic youth
context of existence (existential), and includes acts of negotiating and navigating the
socially, culturally, politically ‘nested context’ of filial and affilial influences and commit­
ments. Readers should note that Said alerts us that with passage of time, the affiliative
structure and both political and cultural leanings become filliative (they are experienced as
if a new home and habitus) from where old filiations are evaluated. This research bears out
Said’s observations and brings in further nuance to illuminate the space and practice of
worldliness. In the context of the empirical research presented here, generation 1 (who
most recently immigrated to Canada) serves as a filliative anchor for generation 1.5 (who
entered the new society of Canada in their teenage years), and generation 2 whose members
were born Canadian. Generation 1 became a symbol and vehicle for cultural continuity and
as a transmitter of culture and values to younger generations.
 JOURNAL OF BELIEFS & VALUES 3

We stand with Shaw’s conclusion from empirical research with students, parents/carers
and teachers (Dinham and Shaw 2017) that highlights the need for ‘broader representation of
religions and worldviews that reflects the growing diversity between and within traditions,
encompassing both formal and informal expressions, religion and worldview as identity as
well as tradition, and the fluidity of the religion and belief landscape’ (Shaw 2020, 154). We
build on this observation through operationalising the sociology of migration/diaspora, an
approach that underpins this paper and problematise worldview as a unified concept. We
ask 1) how ‘worldliness’ manifests through different emerging themes; 2) how ‘worldliness’
can be understood as a means by which worldviews are constructed and experienced; 3) how
a curriculum constructed around ‘worldview’ might respond to differences and diverse
practices of ‘worldliness’ which are social realities of the multicultural RE classroom?

Two contexts
We approach this paper from two different contexts: as an RE educator and an ethnographic
researcher. We hope that each context might present recommendations for the other. In our
collaboration, we found this ethnographic study presented insights to inform pedagogical
development for a worldviews curriculum and, in turn, this has implications for the pedago­
gical pertinence of this ethnographic study. While we have already argued that worldview is
potentially too abstract compared to the lived experience, and a detailed ethnography may be
too inaccessible for the school RE curriculum, we contend that an accessible understanding
and articulation of ‘worldliness’ has the potential to reconcile the empirical study (ethnogra­
phy) with the theoretical framework (worldview). Our two contexts are: an ethnographer
conducting empirical work with an intergenerational South and Central Asian diasporic
community in Canada, and a university-based teacher educator for RE teachers in England
working in partnership with schools. This collaboration seeks to bring an empirically based
justification for a pedagogy that foregrounds the understanding of ‘worldliness’ as necessary
for teacher development to promote an inclusive alignment of students’ experiences within
a worldviews curriculum.

Worldview, worldviews curriculum and migration

There are simultaneously enthusiastic and sceptical responses to the proposal of
a worldviews curriculum in England. RE in England might be seen to be ‘catching up’
with its Nordic and northern European counterparts, for whom ‘worldview’ or wel­
tanschauung has been an established part of educational discourses and school subjects
for considerably longer (see, for example, Van der Kooij, de Ruyter, and Miedema 2013).
The new proposal for a Religion and Worldviews curriculum promises a national
entitlement for all students, rather than its tenuous place on many school timetables
due to inconsistencies across schools, and a more academically rigorous subject that
relies on disciplinary epistemologies and related pedagogies (see Chater 2020; Cooling
2020; REC 2018). Despite such promise, the worldviews approach for the English (RE)
curriculum is ‘under theorised’ according to Kuegh, and although meta-analyses (see
O’Grady 2023) emerge, both volumes highlight commonly ignored details regarding
secular Protestant origins and a lack of clarity around criteria for the selection of non-
religious content. Pedagogical materials and theoretical rationale, developed by Revell
4 A. K. DATOO AND A. STONES

and Christopher (2021) for teaching Islam as a worldview, challenge essentialist repre­
sentations of religion and argue that a liberal education about worldviews moves beyond
the concept as merely a framework for lesson planning and replaces it with the proposal
of worldviews as ‘a dialogical space’ (Revell and Christopher 2021, 305). We intend to
persuade readers that a pedagogy of worldliness is crucial for this dialogic space.
As stated, the scope of this article does not allow a comparison of RE and diasporic
movement in England and Canada of people; nonetheless, both national contexts are affected
by the tensions of emerging frameworks for RE and face the opportunities of teaching (about,
into and from) diasporic communities. This article combines empirical and ethnographic
work with RE pedagogical thinking and is intended to respond to the challenge identified by
Skeie (2002) here:

. . . . if schools are going to mean something for the future of children and young people
apart from introducing them to a modern institution as such, they have to include the plural
context in their own self-understanding and practice. Only by making plurality part of both
the content and the process of learning is it fully appreciated. (Skeie 2002, 58)

Empirical study: methodology, findings and analysis, migrations and

generations, three meta themes
Methodology
Qualitative case-studies in the context of the Ismaili Muslims community were con­
ducted in four regions of Canada: Quebec, Ontario, Alberta, and British Columbia. The
study used the lens of intergenerationality for selecting research participants. A lens of
intergenerationality enriched research sampling to access, compare and contrast cross-
sectional experiences and meaning-making to study the phenomenon of migration and
acculturation around which diasporic experiences are constructed.
The research sample was purposeful and partially representative of three generations:
generation 1 (‘first generation’ immigrants, generation 1.5 (immigrants and refugees), and
generation 2 (born in Canada) to gather inter-generational point of views and intersecting
views on experience of migration, diasporic cultural identity markers, and filiative refer­
ences of the youth (generation 1.5 and 2).
A total of 45 focus group discussions across three generations were conducted in four
provinces of Canada: Quebec, Ontario, Alberta, and British Colombia during September and
October 2014. The data was generated in 10 languages to cater for the linguistically and
culturally diverse Muslim community youth with origins in Tanzania, Uganda, Kenya, India,
Pakistan, Tajikistan, Iran and Afghanistan who were part of the research. To generate multi­
lingual data, we collaborated with translators and interpreters who were well-versed in the
local languages of the respondents. The data was translated back into English and then
complemented by analytical summaries made in English. For the purpose of this paper,
selected data is extracted and analysed to depict the phenomenon of worldliness experienced
in the lived worlds of the youth which shapes an important part of their lives as diasporic
filiations in multicultural Canada.
Key questions/points for the focus group discussions are presented in Table 1.
 JOURNAL OF BELIEFS & VALUES 5

Table 1. Key points for focus group discussion.

Key Points for Focus Group Discussion

Focus Group Participants Focused questions/discussion points

Generation 1 (parents, elders) Memories of home, reflections on migratory experience, adapting to new
society (Canada), upbringing children in Canada, meeting diversity,
aspirations and apprehensions about their next generation growing up
in Canada, inter-faith marriages and religious identity
Generation 1.5 (immigrated to Canada at Cultural shock, encountering new social norms, social expectations and
a young age) peers, friendships and relationships, educational experiences, self and
the multiplicity, practicing faith in multi-cultural society, value-shifts and
consciousness, negotiating self (individual and communal identities)
Generation 2 (Born Canadian having Being Canadian-Ismaili (hyphenated identities), negotiating values (family/
immigrant family background) elderly expectations) and social interactions, faith and reason, education
and values, interpreting religio-cultural traditions, inter-faith marriages,
beyond diasporic identity (towards cosmopolitanism)

Findings and analysis

The findings are thematised and organised in a manner that illuminates the socio-cultural
practices of ‘worldliness’ in the social lived worlds of the diasporic youth research participants
who were negotiating and navigating aspects of their identities and cultural meaning making
through, and in response to, their enculturation and acculturation experiences in the new host
society of their settlement, multicultural Canada in our case.
On the basis of our qualitative interviewing and focus group discussion across three
generations: 1, 1.5, and 2, we have learnt that youth socialisation of values and elements
of identity-signification were the result of a practice of worldliness involved in the
dynamic of relationality. This relationality was mainly (but not limited to) two key
domains: Filiative (inter-generational interactions) and Affiliative (socialisation into
social groups and networks in the new/host society).
We learnt that the youth were negotiating filiative and affiliative relational dynamics
inter-generationally. The worldliness dynamics depended on generational locations
within the new society. Generation 1, 1.5 and 2 each had different positionality from
where they engaged the familiar filiations and less familiar and at times strange affilia­
tions and differences in terms of: social norms, roles, values, ideologies (secular versus
religious and modernity versus tradition).
In the Table 2, we present the themes associated with the concept and experience of
worldliness. We have grouped them into ‘meta themes’ and ‘sub-themes’ to show how the
themes, we believe, sufficiently illuminate the social practice of worldliness, and the accultura­
tion stresses and openings that surfaced. The themes emerged through an analysis of the focus
group discussion data and they characterise processes and elements of worldliness.

Migration, acculturation, assimilation and values

The lived worlds of the participating Canadian youths are characterised by multiple axes of
relational dynamics, which have a bearing upon the processes of their cultural identity-
formation. This relationality became prominent when the participants were asked to explain
what it meant to be Canadian-Muslims. The variations that emerged within the range of
responses appear closely connected with participants’ history of migration to Canada, and the
age at which this migration occurred. As such, migration can be seen as a strong force shaping
6 A. K. DATOO AND A. STONES

Table 2. Meta-themes and sub-themes.

Explanation of how sub theme connects
Meta-theme Sub theme (s) to meta-theme
Migrations, acculturations, and Generations: a) Migration, Diasporas are a response to migration and
Filliative and Affiliative relationality acculturation, acculturation within the ‘new’ society.
assimilation, and The acculturation process induces filial
values. and affilial interactions. These
b) intergenerational interactions are happening inter-
filliative dynamics. generationally.
Roots and Routes: Interactions and ruptures c) affiliation, The metaphor of ‘Roots’ denotes filliative
acculturation and sources. The metaphor of ‘Routes’
value clash symbolises multicultural affiliations.
d) diasporic filiations, The practices of ‘rooting’ and ‘routing’
and cosmopolitan creates both disjuncture/ruptures
inspiration (example value clash) and at times
facilitates cultural creativity
(transformative) experiences to
transcend particularities and become
cosmopolitan.
Liminal transactions: Between and betwixt e) Negotiating the Liminal space and processes are essential
‘movement’ intergenerational liminal: A case of parts of worldliness. Liminal
‘communication’, tradition and modernity, inter-faith marriage- ‘transactions’ often accompany anxiety
value exchange, and value clash and ambivalence. The sub-theme case
illustrates how a couple negotiates the
liminal through combining symbolism
from two cultural traditions: a ‘border
crossing’ and agentic act.

youth values and identities in the Canadian context. Upon migration, the generation 1 and
generation 1.5 participants (respectively: first generation immigrants and those who arrived in
Canada by their early teenage years) tend to hold closer and stronger to their indigenous
religio-cultural traditions as they provide a psychological anchor in the new environment.
Generation 1.5 participants, some of whom self-identified as part of a ‘sandwich’
generation, face socio-ethical dilemmas and tensions regarding fulfilling the expectations
of their families, acting in alignment with their backgrounds, and still adapting to the new
ways of being in their adoptive society.
As one Afghan female reported:
We are the ‘sandwich’ generation. We are in between. Our elders expect us to behave like we did
in Kabul. But now in Montreal we have to change to survive in this society. (Riffat, Montreal,
September 2014)

It is among this generation that we see significant experiences of acculturation, a process in

which psychological shifts and cultural learning take place as a result of exposure to a new
culture. It is also in these contexts, where values are re-appropriated or resisted by the youth,
mainly through processes of selection, negotiation and hybridisation. These appropriations
were deemed as necessary by the youth to help them ‘fit in’ within the new society and the
ways of its socialisation.

Intergenerational filliative dynamics

The youth of generation 1.5 (as seen particularly in cases in both Montreal and Calgary)
emphasised the need to adapt to their new surroundings and demonstrated several ways in
which they went about doing so. In some cases, for example, they might reinterpret and justify
 JOURNAL OF BELIEFS & VALUES 7

their decisions and actions on the basis of a selective interpretation of their local religio-
cultural tradition. They also placed emphasis on the notion of essence versus form in relation
to religious practice, focusing on the importance of ‘remembrance’ and on searching for the
underlying messages symbolised by religious rituals. Other important priorities shared by
participants of this generation include being authentic or true to oneself, maintaining a sense
of autonomy and freedom and possessing the right to make independent life decisions
(regarding, for example, careers, relationships).
Some of these stances and values seemed to put young people at odds with the elders in
their lives and were seen as deviations from, or resistance towards their inherited values from
local cultural tradition in which authority may be valued over autonomy, and a sense of
collective duty over individual preference.
As for generation 2 participants, they largely appear to find themselves at home in their
Canadian context and demonstrate substantial integration within the broader Canadian society.
Through integration they have developed values that many participants described as being both
inherently ‘Canadian’ as well as ‘South or Central Asian Muslim’. These include: an appreciation
of diversity and a cosmopolitan ethic, an ethic of public service and a desire to give back to
society, and an appreciation for social cohesion and harmony (inspired by both their Canadian
experience of multiculturalism as well as guidance from the Imam). Also of importance for this
group is a respect for individuality and personal authenticity, which appears to be implicitly
linked to their broad social and educational experiences in Canadian society.
A significant number among the generation 2 participants also reported that some degree
of effort was required to ‘fit in’ to the South or Central Asian community. This effort seems to
consist mainly in conforming to perceived markers of belonging within the community,
which the youth projected upon the collectivity of the community – not so much their peers,
but parents, other adults, and institutional leaders. These markers were perceived as an effort
by the community to define ‘who is South or Central Asian Muslim’ and were perceived by
some youth as reductionist criteria which caused them to feel ‘judged’, and towards which they
expressed their strong discontent. A number of participants indicated that this was a major
cause of youth ‘disengagement’ from communal religious practice and community activities.
Additional priorities that emerged among all generation groups were relationships with
friends and family; health; career; and education.

Inter-generational ‘struggles’ and value transactions

Many of our participants reported struggles growing up with generation 1 (parents and
grandparents) who are unable to move past a ‘judgmental’ and at times ‘narrow’ mentality
towards social difference. Growing up in multicultural Canada means that youth interact with
a plethora of different peoples from different ethnic and racial backgrounds. The educational
and social contexts in which youth find themselves demand acceptance and openness towards
diversity, however, many youths interviewed talked about the level of close-mindedness that
their parents and grandparents had while they were growing up which contradicted the
requirements of being in a diverse social context. This participant illustrated the tension as
follows:
they [parents] conveyed that close minded aspect, don’t drink, don’t smoke, don’t go out, study,
don’t have a life. Doesn’t matter if you’re in a first world country now, I found that growing up it
8 A. K. DATOO AND A. STONES

was hard for me to break out of that and see people who didn’t have the same values as me behave
differently than I did even though I was born here. At the same time; I felt like my mom still has
those values, I don’t necessarily share those values, but having that foundation has definitely
allowed me to be wise in my decisions in how much I deviate from my parents’ values. (Sheeza,
Vancouver, September, 2014).

For many of the generation 2 youth interviewed the feeling that they were unable to
‘break out’ of their parents’ mentality and that they felt that their parents had not evolved
in Canada was a common sentiment. Participants highlighted old vestiges of racism and
prejudgement that they feel are close-minded and conflict with the ways in which these
youths want to live their lives.
For the parents that were engaged with this study, ensuring that their children only
form romantic relationships or befriend other Muslims is an important part of parenting
and socialising their children, leaving other avenues closed. The youth participants feel
that the level of multiculturalism and pluralism present in their upbringing in Canada are
lacking in their parents’ value practice. These youth see the inherent contradictions and
hypocrisy that their parents espouse, and they reject it, as this participant clearly outlines:

We’re in a very different society than she was brought up in, even something like multiculturalism
in Canada. Like my mom has problems if I’m hanging out with people who aren’t [Muslim], like
if I’m hanging out with African-American friends my mom will lose her [mind]. If I said ‘hey
mom I’m hanging out with Sharukh’, she’d be perfectly okay with that, but if I was hanging out
with Devon or someone who sounds like they’re not [Muslim], she would have problems with
that, like Sharukh could be a nice guy . . . but she would have problems even though race would
have nothing to do with that. It’s definitely being close-minded because she’s not adapting to the
way society functions here. (Sophia, Toronto, September, 2014).

Those aforementioned vestiges of colonial racism seep into the mentalities of generation
1 Canadians whose experience with other races was controlled by the colonial powers
such that complicity in that racist oppression was often the result (Bassil 2005).

Affiliations, acculturation, and value ‘clash’

The affiliative process (an important dimension of worldliness) was reported as fraught
with tensions and value clashes at times. One participant brought up an example of value
clash in terms of socialising in the ‘new’ host society. This was experienced as a tension
between his family and religious values, and his participation in social practice that he
feels is necessary for socialisation in friendship. He remarked ‘if one value in my religion
and family is to not drink, but networking means going out for a drink, when you
network outside the community. So there’s a clash’(Zohaib, Calgary, October, 2014).
Several participants commented on the loss of friendship or a significant challenge that
comes at the cost of this value clash and the final choice therein. In this same focus group
another participant commented on how his first experience with alcohol was from a university
friend:

All my life I was told it’s so wrong, you’re going to become an alcoholic, so I was like oh shoot, and
I took it so seriously and I was freaking out, and just over time, that’s not always the case, but it
opened up and I became more open minded. University was a big one for me, I took a philosophy
course and the prof would question anything . . . anything is possible until you see it for
 JOURNAL OF BELIEFS & VALUES 9

yourself . . . keeping an open mind. It made me more open minded towards anything, and if
I didn’t I wouldn’t be as strong in my faith today. (Shadab, Calgary, October, 2014).

Here we also see an example of how, for some, agency and autonomy are part of the affiliative
process. The participant’s reflection on his ‘home’ values and rules started with questioning
attitudes to alcohol through an autonomous engagement with these values and rules
(prompted by a university professor of philosophy). This led to the perception of development
of a stronger faith and illustrates how some participants were aware of the role of agency and
autonomy of the affiliative process.
In a similar vein to this, participants commented on the pressures facing youth in Canada
today, ‘religion is important, but at my age it’s hard to balance, when you’re younger you go to
prayers with your parents everyday and you don’t have a choice but when you reach that 14–
15 age you have more freedom and more responsibility, you have jobs, you have school, you
have extra-curriculars’ (Zayyan, Toronto, September, 2014).
An awareness of these very particular affiliative and filliative challenges, and how they
play out across age groups suggests that some participants’ worldliness was a conscious
and ongoing process that deserves the researcher educator’s attention.

Negotiating the liminal: case of an inter-faith marriage

In the rest of this empirical study (not included in its entirety for this article) for seniors,
namely, grandparents of generation 1 immigrants, one of the biggest issues to surface was that
of interfaith and interracial/interethnic relationships, where not only faith but tradition,
language and custom were different. Their concerns, however, ranged from taking great
issue with these relationships (considering them a cultural loss to the community), to a view
that their children should be free to make their own choices.
To illustrate this, one Muslim male spouse who was married to a Sikhi female from Indian/
Punjab discussed how they (the couple) convinced their families with different cultural
backgrounds and expectations. He explained how they creatively merged symbolism from
their respective cultural backgrounds: ‘To make our parents happy we had created a “fusion”
wedding. We designed our wedding ceremonies and celebrations in such a way that it
included rituals from both the Sikh tradition [the bride’s home culture] and the Muslim
tradition of the groom. For example, we made one bracelet for my husband, a Kara [a round
silver bracelet that is commonly worn by Sikh males] with an intricately embossed green
thread [which represented a traditional symbol from the Muslim spouse’s local tradition] on
the silver Kara. Our parents from both sides were quite happy to see this’ [Raja, Calgary,
October, 2014].
This fusion was a response to merge contexts: the negotiations between the two traditions
and the selection of the symbolism of the Kara and green thread were liminal negotiations by
both spouses. These liminal negotiations are of particular interest when one considers that
generations 1.5 and 2 are demonstrating the range of their worldliness by developing liminal
negotiations with parental and grandparental concerns and aspirations in mind. This is
reflected in the act of marriage and an innovative visual and ritual dimension of fusion
enacted through religious symbolism.
10 A. K. DATOO AND A. STONES

Discussion
The research explored and illuminated worldliness at play in the globalised lived worlds of the
South and Central Asian Muslim youth diaspora living in Canada. Youth were found to be
engaged in both filiative and affiliative practices (Said 1983) through negotiating and navigat­
ing their role and place both at ‘home’ and within religio-cultural community on the one hand
while, on the other hand, being in relationship with multicultural secular society and aware of
the corresponding tensions and opportunities.
The filiative references become a source of anchoring ‘roots’ around which processes of
diasporic identities formation are woven. In the case of our research participants, the key
filliative references were: family, memories of the home of origin (often continued through
stories, rituals, food, festivities and social media) (Beyer and Ramji 2013). At the same time,
youth were actively participating in and forming multicultural networks through socialisation
and participation in higher/education, economic activities, inter-faith marriages, volunteering
in civil society institutions, and human development work internationally.
According to Appadurai (1996), experiences of globalisation and migration consist of
global cultural flows and disjunctures. At times, these created tensions in cultural continuity
causing ruptures and social change and, as shown in our research, ruptures experienced by the
youth in the realm of a ‘clash’ of values. These and associated dis/junctures often cause anxiety
and ambivalence (Bauman 2004) as the diasporic youth socialise in a ‘new’ society.
In the context of our research, these tensions became prominent in value-related
discussions between generation 1.5, 2 and generation 1. The generation 1 who were
dominated by reference assuring cultural continuity had inherited value-systems rooted
in their home/cultural traditions of the local heritage which they wanted to uphold and
pass on to their children and grandchildren (of generation 1.5 and 2) whose worlds were
substantially complex with nexuses of inter-relatedness: inter-cultural, inter-faith, inter-
generational, and inter-epistemic negotiations. Generation 1 saw themselves as the
‘sunset’ generation. Their desire was to see their grandchildren on the ‘right path’ (in
line with their local religio-cultural tradition). Globalisation has weakened these local
moorings (Appadurai 1996). In contrast, the generation 1.5 saw themselves as the
‘sandwiched’ generation or ‘middle-man’ generation who were torn between the two
worlds: the ‘filial’ and the ‘affilial’, the local and the global (Datoo 2010).
Youths’ experiences of worldliness and their social agency in this regard became highly
influenced by their respective generational locality (age) as well as their history and status
of immigration to the new society. From our research vantage point, generation 1 had
spent sufficient time in the society of their settlement and for them to consider Canada as
a home (with ‘greater’ social security and benefits) compared to their earlier home
countries. Yet at times, they felt nostalgic about memories of the old (origin). On the
whole, generation 1 members seemed to have ‘settled’ more or less in the ‘home’ away from
home. As shown through our research, it is generation 1 which became the important
conveyer of local religio-cultural ‘transmitters’ and a custodian of diasporic identity.
Generation 1.5 is at a critical juncture, ‘between and betwix’t, experiencing acculturation
stress by encountering ‘new’ in terms of social norms, lifestyle, language, expected behaviours
and so forth in trying to be part of the new society. The acculturation experience created
a tension between the old and the new, and the new social norms and values underpinned
socialisation into multicultural, multilingual, and multi-faith interactions. Generation 1.5
 JOURNAL OF BELIEFS & VALUES 11

responded to this acculturation process and the encountered difference through engaging in
cultural hybridity. Cultural hybridity, according to Bhabha (1994), refers to acts of ‘mixing’.
This mixing of expressions, linguistic styles (often developing an accent), social behaviours,
adapting to social expectations and so forth.
Generation 2 recognised Canada as their home. Hence, their habitus-source and environ­
ment for disposition had multiculturality as inherent social-psychological content. It is as if
a ‘second nature’ (Bourdieu and Passeron 1977) of generation 2 which afforded dispositions
that facilitated inter-cultural understanding and empathy made it easier or more natural for
them (generation 2) to have multiple belongings, which was less the case with generations 1
and 1.5. Furthermore, the research also highlighted that generation 2’s filial dispositions have
enabled them to have multiple belongings (and feel equally at home with the difference).
Indeed, they seem to have diluted their diasporic identity and have amplified their cosmopo­
litan leanings (Adichie 2003).

Conclusion and recommendations

The substance of worldliness is characterised as: inter-generational, inter-cultural, inter-
faith, and inter-epistemic intersections. These intersections were key influencers in
shaping the youths’ simultaneous diasporic and multicultural associations, identifica­
tions, value transformations, and differences. A metaphor for worldliness could be of
a ‘pendulum’ oscillating in a liminal zone: pulled by centripetal force of filiations on the
one hand, and the centrifugal force attraction of affiliative processes and networks on the
other.
The interactions mentioned above and the transactions they generated were, at times, full
of tensions and contestations causing experiences of ambivalence and anxiety. The research
has shown that the development of worldliness involved complex transactions, and the
incorporation of in-flux positions through the ‘between and betwixt’ process of identification
and difference.
Worldliness was an active dimension of the youths’ cultural practice, and hence forms
a part of curriculum, as curriculum is a selection from culture (see Lawton 1975; Stenhouse
1967). The phenomenon of worldliness, we suggest, becomes an important curricular and
pedagogical concept for RE in the multicultural and plural public sphere. We summarise the
dynamics of worldliness and the corresponding qualities that a pedagogy of worldliness
presents for educators as follows:
The Table 3 illuminates thematic areas of the worldliness experience of diasporic youths,
and we propose it serves as a pedagogically generative reference. We invite RE educators to
consider these themes and their dynamics as lived examples of the intersectional dimensions
of the worldview framework, in which the personal and institutional worldviews interact.
Furthermore, educators have a duty of care to acknowledge this complexity and tension, so as
not to increase the anxiety that our research has revealed in some cases. We are reminded of
Skeie’s (2002) warning that ‘a young person living in the context of modern plurality may
seem to be a life full of choices. For some this is understood as a positive challenge, while for
others it is an overwhelming burden’ (Skeie 2002, 58).
12 A. K. DATOO AND A. STONES

Table 3. Quality of a pedagogy of worldliness and dynamics of worldliness.

Quality of a pedagogy of
worldliness Dynamics of worldliness
Interactive Local/tradition (filliation) and multiplicity (affiliation)
Intergenerational Transaction of values, negotiation of religious identity markers, role of mother-tongue
language
Liminal Hyphenated identities eg Canadian-Ismailis, ‘between and betwix’t’, home and host
values, movement and change
Intercultural Interfaith relationships and marriages, multi-cultural composition of families

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes on contributors
Al Karim Datoo is a sociologist of education and an educational ethnographer. He is currently
working as an Assistant Professor, Education at Sukkur-IBA University, Pakistan; where he is
teaching B.Ed. & Ph D in education programmes, and supervising M. Phil in education research
projects.
Alexis Stones is Subject Lead for the Post Graduate Certificate in Education in Religious Education
at IOE, UCL’s Faculty of Education and Society.

ORCID
Al Karim Datoo http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6910-9544
Alexis Stones http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7842-6173

Ethical statement
The ethical guidelines are followed to guide data collection and representation.

References
Adichie, C. N. 2003. The Thing Around Your Neck. Ney York: Anchor Books.
Appadurai, A. 1996. Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
Bassil, N. 2005. “The Legacy of Colonial Racism in Africa.” Australian Quarterly 77 (5): 27–32, 40.
Bauman, Z. 2004. Identity: Conversations with Benedetto Vecchi. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Beyer, P., and R. Ramji. 2013. Growing Up Canadian: Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists. Canada:
McGill-Queen Press.
Bhabha, H. K.1994. The Location of Culture. Routledge.
Bourdieu, P., and J.-C. Passeron. 1977. Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture. Translated
by Richard Nice. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Chater, M. 2020. Reforming RE: Power and Knowledge in a Worldviews Curriculum. London: John
Catt Publishing.
Cooling, T. 2020. “Worldview in Religious Education: Autobiographical Reflections on the
Commission on Religious Education in England Final Report.” British Journal of Religious
Education 42 (4): 403–414. https://doi.org/10.1080/01416200.2020.1764497.
 JOURNAL OF BELIEFS & VALUES 13

Datoo, A.-K. 2010. “Media and Youth Identity in Pakistan: Global-Local Dynamics and
Disjuncture.” Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences 2 (3): 192–215.
Dinham, A., and M. Shaw. 2017. “Religious Literacy Through Religious Education: The Future of
Teaching and Learning About Religion and Belief.” Religions 8 (7): 119–132. https://doi.org/10.
3390/rel8070119.
Hall, J., and Commission on religious education. 2018. Commission on Religious Education Final
Report – Religion and Worldviews: The Way Forward. London: Religious Education Council.
Lawton, D. 1975. Class, Culture and the Curriculum. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Maguire, M. 1994. “Cultural Stances of Two Quebec Bilingual Children Informing Storytelling.”
Comparative Education Review 38 (1): 144–155. https://doi.org/10.1086/447227.
Maguire, M. 1997. “Shared and Negotiated Territories: The Socio-Cultural Embeddedness of
children’s Acts of Meaning.” In Children and Their Curriculum: The Perspectives of Primary
and Elementary School Children, edited by A. Pollard, D. Thiessen, and A. Filler, 51–80. London:
Falmer Press.
O’Grady, K. 2023. Conceptualising Religion and Worldviews for the School: Opportunities,
Challenges, and Complexities of a Transition from Religious Education in England and Beyond.
New York: Routledge.
Revell, L., and K. Christopher. 2021. “Worldviews and Diversity: Freedom of Expression and
Teaching About the Mosque.” Journal of Religious Education 69 (3): 297–310. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s40839-021-00151-9.
Said, E. 1983. The World, the Text, and the Critic. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Shaw, M. 2020. “Towards a Religiously Literate Curriculum – Religion and Worldview Literacy As
an Educational Model.” Journal of Beliefs & Values 41 (2): 150–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13617672.2019.1664876.
Skeie, G. 2002. “The Concept of Plurality and Its Meaning for Religious Education.” British Journal
of Religious Education 25 (1): 47–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/0141620020250105.
Stenhouse, L. 1967. Culture and Education. London: Nelson.
Van der Kooij, J., D. de Ruyter, and S. Miedema. 2013. “Worldview”: The Meaning of the Concept
and the Impact on Religious Education.” Religious Education 108 (2): 210–228. https://doi.org/
10.1080/00344087.2013.767685.