In many places, both in Sweden but also in the rest of Europe, undemocratic tendencies are observed in the public debate. These values can be both anti-semitic and islamophobic. Seen from a micro perspective, this problem is possible to identify even in school environments.

Students at upper secondary vocational programs in Sweden have shown stronger tendencies to anti-Semitic and Islamophobic values than students in other upper secondary education programs. They also perceive some civics as less relevant. This may lead to, if they seem to be less interested in these topics, that they risk to get a more fact-oriented teaching, rather than a reflective and analytical teaching (Schools Inspectorate 2012:3). Furthermore, some teachers consider it is difficult to discuss these topics and respond to the youth. This means that the students who have prejudiced values are not given the same opportunities to discuss, analyze and reflect, which has proved to be of great importance for greater understanding and tolerance (Living History Forum [Forum för levande historia], 2010). The school curriculum also states that "xenophobia and intolerance must be countered with knowledge, open discussion and active measures" (Ministry of Education 2011, p 5 [my translation]).

This paper examines the importance of the dialogue for exchange of knowledge in the classroom and how this can lead to greater understanding and tolerance. The classroom as a forum for knowledge exchange, where students learn from each other sharing contextual experiences, have been studied out of different perspectives (Dahlin, 2004; Osbeck, 2009; Ipgrave, 2005; Jackson, 1997; Larsson & Gustavsson, 2004). Particularly interesting I find the democracy perspective, from a focus on both the student and how he or she conquers autonomy but also on what is being studied. In educational research, the school as well as the content of teaching have been given too little space (Sundgren, 1996; cf. also the National Agency Report 2008:32R). Sundgren emphasizes the teaching’s role as a mediator of values and link this to the idea that a functioning democracy can be shaped with the help of pedagogy.[1] This is done if values and conflicts are highlighted and openly discussed (Sundgren, 1996).

To define the structures of power that occurs in the classroom, I use some of the theories by Basil Bernstein. Primary I apply the concepts of classification and framing in my analysis, but to some extent the pedagogical discourse also is applied (Bernstein 1983; 2000; 2003).

[1]Sundgren refers primarily to the American educational researcher John Dewey, but he refers also to the Swedish education and democracy researcher Thomas Englund. Mentioned in this context is the German philosopher Jürgen Habermas as contemporary main representative of the so-called critical theory, which was founded by Horkheimer and Adorno. The representatives of the critical theory claim that social science too uncritically relates to the present and argue that it should establish regularities and correlations. Sundgren further refer Habermas to Emile Durkheim and George Herbert Mead, among others.

Asplund, S-B. (2010). Reading as the creation of identity. Community creating and attempts at secession in vehicles boys' literature calls [my translation]. (Doctoral dissertation, Karlstad University Studies, 2010: 4). Karlstad: Karlstad University. Beach, D. (1999). About democracy, reproduction and regeneration in today's secondary upper school [my translation]. Pedagogical research in Sweden [Pedagogisk forskning i Sverige] 4 (4), 349-365. Bernstein, B. & Lundgren, U.P. (1983). Power, control and pedagogy. Studies of the cultural reproduction [my translation]. Stockholm: Liber. Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: Theory, research, critique. (Rev. Ed.). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Bernstein, B. (2003). Class, Codes and Control, Volume 4: The Structuring of Pedagogic Discourse (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. Dahlin, B. (2004). About curiosity for life. Children and life issues in a multicultural society [my translation]. Lund: Studentlitteratur. Fangen, K. (2005). Participant observation [Deltagande observation]. Malmö: Liber. Living History Forum [Forum för levande historia]. (2010). The many faces of intolerance – a study of high school youth attitudes, academic year 2009/2010 [my translation]. Report Series 1: in 2010. Stockholm: Living History Forum [Forum för levande historia]. Hammersley, M. & Atkinson, P. (2007). Ethnography: Principles in Practice. Milton Park: Routledge. The National Agency Report 2008:32R: Formation and Pedagogy – an academy for learning? [my translation]. Stockholm: National Agency. Jackson, R. (1997). Religious Education. An interpretive approach. London: Hodder & Stoughton. Jeffrey, R. A. & Troman, G. (2004). Time for ethnography. British Educational Research Journal, 30 (4), 535-549. Larsson, R. & Gustavsson, C. (ed.) (2004). Towards A European Perspective on Religious Education. Uppsala: Bibliotheca Theologica practicae. Curriculum, degree objectives and upper secondary school subjects for secondary school 2011 [my translation]. Stockholm: National Agency for Education. (Contains SKOLFS 2011:144, SKOLFS 2010:14, SKOLFS 2010:261) Osbeck, C. (2009). Teachers in religious education [Religionskunskapslärare]. In Schüllerqvist, B. & Osbeck, C. (ed.), Didactic insights and strategies. Studies in the didactics of social sciences 1 [my translation]. Karlstad: Karlstad University Press. Sundgren, G. (1996). Knowledge and democracy. About the students' right to their own learning process [my translation]. Lund: Studentlitteratur. Walford, G. (ed.) (2008). How to do educational ethnography. London: Tufnell Press. Ipgrave, J. (2005). A Dialogical Approach to RE Teaching. www.shapworkingparty.org.uk/journals. (Collected articles 2005/2006) Silverman, D. (1985). Qualitative Methodology and Sociology. Aldershot: Gower. Schools Inspectorate (2012). More than you might think. Religious studies in secondary schools [my translation]. Schools Inspectorate's report 2012:3. Stockholm: Swedish Schools Inspectorate.