Yonah Hisbon Matemba, Bruce A. Collet (eds.), The Bloomsbury Handbook of Religious Education in the Global South, London et al. (Bloomsbury Academic) 2022, 491 pp., ISBN 978-1-3501-0582-9, £117 (e-book: £35.99)

The handbook starts with an observation that is not only accurate, but also food for thought: “How societies in the Global South (GS) engage with Religious Education (RE) [...] is an issue that so far has received, if at all, cursory attention in the burgeoning RE discourse” (1). The remedy is to be provided by “map[ping] out RE in the regional area of the GS,” namely “sub-saharan Africa, North Africa-Middle East, Asia Pacific and Latin America and the Caribbean” (2), and by “bring[ing] to the fore GS perspectives in RE” (3). These concerns of the volume are explained at the beginning in a brief introduction entitled “Religious Education in the Global South” (1–5), which stems from the pen of the two editors, Yonah Hisbon Matemba, Senior Lecturer of Social Sciences Education at the University of the West of Scotland, Ayr, Scotland, UK, and Bruce A. Collet, Professor in Cross-Cultural and International Education at Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio, U. S. In short, the editors are to be thanked for beginning to fill the gaps described and for tackling the difficult task of attracting authors and contributions.

In just under 500 pages, the book tries to take both concerns into account – but by and large fails. All that is offered are case studies, whose respective selection does not make much sense and whose yield for the understanding of “Religious Education in the Global South” is difficult to name. By no means does an analytically sharpened picture of the GS emerge at the end – a picture that should encompass the “GS in historical, geographical, political, social and cultural terms, including the indelible influence of religion in all four broadly defined regions” (2).

The volume, containing 23 texts, is divided into seven sections: They concern “State, Status and Provision of Religious Education” (Part I, 7–64 – three contributions regarding Kenya, Zambia, and Turkey), “Religious Education and Changes in Contemporary Society” (Part II, 65–131 – three contributions regarding Indonesia, Turkey, and Zambia), “Towards Decolonizing Religious Education” (Part III, 133–173 – two contributions regarding India and Kenya), “Young People and Religious Education” (Part IV, 175–269 – four contributions regarding Indonesia, Colombia, South Africa, and Botswana), “Perspectives on Teachers of Religious and Values Education” (Part V, 271–310 – two contributions regarding Malawi and Chile), “Religious and Moral Education in Higher Education” (Part VI, 311–369 – three contributions regarding Ghana, Malawi, and Malaysia), and “Challenges and Opportunities for Religious Education” (Part VII, 371–470 – six contributions regarding Israel [!], South Africa, Zimbabwe, Hong Kong, Kenya, and a summarizing paper on “Challenges and Opportunities for Conducting Comparative Research on Religious Education in the Global South,” written by one of the editors). Four pages with “notes” and a seventeen-page index containing names of countries, people and institutions as well as concepts and technical terms conclude the volume.

Of the 26 authors, only two describe themselves as religious educators; the majority are working as educationalists, some as sociologists or experts in religious studies. About half of the authors – among them ten women – teach at universities in Europe or in the U. S.A or Canada, respectively. The extent to which they are biographically or otherwise connected with the countries of the Global South about which they write is sometimes stated, but sometimes is not. In contrast, each of the authors who work in the Global South writes about his or her home country or work context. The concluding article reflects on these methodological imbalances (on the basis of two “hypothetical research projects,” 462), but essentially contents itself with raising questions: Subjectivity and objectivity should always be worked out anew in comparative work under the guiding question “How can I arrive at the best understanding?” (469).

Without question, one gains knowledge about the respective chosen objects by reading these country reports – and it is indisputable that this is a gain insofar as most of the contexts thematized here do not play a role in the religious education discourse of “the North.” I would like to mention some of my fruits of reading, which of course remain entirely subjective: An article on Kenya takes a look at the role of non-state actors, e. g. the “Aga Khan Education Services”, and examines their yield with the help of Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum’s “Capabilities Approach” (Malini Sivasubramaniam, 9–30). Another text leads right into the heart of the controversial religious and cultural politics of contemporary India: in addition to a more general description of the situation, the results of a qualitative study of nine church-run schools are described – focusing on the question of “how Christian values are played out in Christian foundation schools”: “If anything it is the Hindutva ethos of developments in curriculum and policy that seeks to colonize the past, present and future of Indian education” (Sally Elton Chalcraft/David J. Chalcraft, 135–163, 145 und 159). An article on Botswana describes religious education there as officially “multi-faith RE”, which in fact nevertheless shows a “pro-Christian emphasis”. An empirical study on student attitudes conducted by the authors leads them to the conclusion that “such an approach ignores secular/non-religious perspectives and other experiences of the lifeworld of the young people” (Yona Hisbon Matemba/Tebogo Ethel Seretse, 251 and 261). And another article draws attention to the fact that “public schools in Hong Kong are exceptional when it comes to RE in terms of scale, plurality and vibrancy” – however, this wealth is at risk. The author demonstrates this through a variety of historical, empirical and religious pedagogical references. (Thomas K. C. Tse/Vion W. K. Ng, 425–445, 425).

This may suffice as an indication of the book’s many facets. However, in my opinion, the potential of these case studies remains unrealized: On the one hand, in the vast majority of cases they are country reports that do not explicitly clarify, be it methodically or in substance, the perspective or the epistemological interest of the authors. Second, the contributions hardly ever refer to each other – this is true even for those that deal with one and the same country, such as the three texts on Kenya or the two texts each on South Africa, Turkey, and Zambia. Thirdly, in what is indeed a strange effect for a book that wants to eliminate a ‘blind spot,’ the volume concentrates – without acknowledging it (!) – on countries or contexts that are English-speaking in the broadest sense: Spanish- or Portuguese-speaking Latin America does not come into view (apart from one contribution on Chile), the French-speaking part of sub-Saharan Africa and the Arabic-speaking Middle East feature just as little (editors’ comment: “Admittedly, there remain insights to be gained from areas not covered or only partially covered, for example, the Caribbean, Middle East and Far East,” 3). Fourthly – and this is perhaps the most regrettable aspect – none of the country reports reflects on what it means that the respective countries belong to the “Global South.” This concept, emphasized in the book title as well as in the introduction, remains an empty shell whose analytical, critical, and perhaps constructive potential remains unclear. And last but not least: Explicit confrontations with and inquiries into religious education concepts of “the North” do not arise – although concepts that are applied in the “North” and “South” of the world should not only be taken into account mutually, but are often factually related: Colonialism and missions have historically ensured transfers from the North to the South, migration has contributed and continues to contribute to cultural transfer in the opposite direction; political alliances and inter-state cooperation produce manifold cross-cultural effects, etc. In view of this, a static or simply contrasting use of the terms “South” and “North” is probably inappropriate.

Nevertheless, based on the reading of these contributions, the hope remains that “th[is] volume will inspire readers to embark upon new and novel comparative and international studies of RE in the GS” (469). If this were to happen, it would be no small merit.