Linking Gender and Race in Peace Education

"That all our knowledge begins with experience there can be no doubt." --Immanuel Kant


I became what I am today in process, a constellation of indivisible experiences past, now, and hereafter. Illuminating moments, I remember them precisely as they enveloped me—when I was six playing in Hispanic ghettoes, when I was nine dwelling in cars under the umbrella of homelessness, when I was twelve apperceiving racial nescience in the vocalization of a retired police officer: “I’d rather shoot a nigger than a squirrel.” That was a long time ago, but the experience, barring conflation with theory, recapitulating, composes my personal existential epistemology. Looking back now, I appreciate my experience, and the environment I grew up in, as substantial learning.

Maria Mies (1983) writes about personal experience, feminist research, and complementary means to an end:

The contradictory existential and ideological condition of women scholars must become the starting point for a new methodological approach. The postulate of truth itself makes it necessary that those areas of female existence which so far were repressed and socially ‘invisible’ be brought into the full daylight of scientific analysis. In order to make this possible, feminist women must deliberately and courageously integrate their repressed, unconscious female subjectivity, i.e., their own experience of oppression and discrimination in the research process… (p. 121).

This sentiment resonates loudly with the author, who grew up homeless in Kentucky, personally encountered racism and vicarious gender discrimination while living and teaching in Japan, and witnessed the oppression of indigenous peoples in travels and studies throughout Latin America and Asia. These experiences have led to the conclusion that the firsthand accounts of educators with oppression must be taught in the classroom in order to reveal inconsistencies in our humane rhetoric. Consequently, I chose via these former experiences to study Kentucky and Japanese classrooms to gauge the effects of homogeneous communities on fostering students’ attitudes toward women and Other. As an International Peace Educator, I posit epistemic education, the process of sharing and creating knowledge together is integral to a philosophy and pedagogy of education for international understanding and cooperation. Peace Education is a dynamic process of teaching and learning in which the subjective is valued and contextual conditions paramount to conflict diagnoses and peacebuilding. To avoid empiricism is indeed to deny the worth of experience, to anesthetize education, to comply with domination. Mies (ibid) continues, au fait:

This extra quality consists mainly in the fact that women and other oppressed groups, out of their subjective experience, are better sensitized toward psychological mechanisms of dominance. As objects of oppression they are forced out of self-preservation to know the motives of their oppressors (p. 121).

From patriarchy to racism, Richard Allen (2001, p. 537) similarly claims, “Black men, who well know the lash of White male violence, have a special responsibility to stand with black women and children against all forms of violence…we do not elevate ourselves by belittling, dominating or attacking other members of our family.” Analogously, hooks (2001, p. 530) declares, “men are not exploited or oppressed by sexism, but there are ways in which they suffer as a result of it…the pain men experience can serve as a catalyst calling attention to the need for change.”

Our interpretation of race and gender is based on our personal experiences. Sleeter (1996) writes that by the time we become adults, each of us holds beliefs about society and human nature based on our lived experiences and the ideologies we’ve been taught to interpret those experiences. Teachers, in consequence, bring into the classroom an experiential framework and organize the classroom agenda around the morals and normative values that emanate from this basis. Each classroom and teacher is to a degree an autonomous actor within the larger structure of education. The teacher’s experiences therefore heavily influence students’ education. By making the value of experience explicit, the teacher subverts hegemonic claims of neutral, apolitical, areligious education, by legitimizing the lives, knowledge base, conditions, and social positions of students in their world, not in relation to the Center. Education for social change, living education seeks to illuminate knowledge from within rather than impose truth from without, and appreciates contexts as influential in the educative process.

This paper postulates that gender discrimination and racism pervade monocultural societies that lack exposure to diverse peoples, and likewise are interconnected forms of oppression. The beliefs of such societies, dictated by ruling classes, regurgitated over time, in schools, without challenge from other groups, amplifies dispositions of superiority and entitlement among those whom define the status quo. The expressions of gender bias and racism in Kentucky and Japanese schools are perpetuated by dominant populations who deny the presence of discrimination. The majority of Whites/Japanese lack critical awareness to recognize prejudice, having undeveloped empathy and care, having scarcely as the dominant group experienced oppression themselves. To the contrary, privileged groups enjoy the benefits of asymmetric relations, and comply with status quo structures; hence, teachers may act as social preservers or social activists.

Teachers who spend their formative years in the towns in which they teach, and go to university in the same hegemonic regions, may not truly empathize with the marginalized and therefore do not educate across such lines. The continuance of insidious discrimination, abetted by ignorance, consequently goes on. This paper concludes that all societies, nevertheless—homogeneous or pluralistic—have representations of a myriad of gender and race identities. It is how teachers recognize and approach this diversity in the classroom that affects students’ cognitive understanding and sensitivity toward the Other. Recent social research in the US underscores this argument, suggesting that individuals can learn to overcome their tendencies for biased responses through practice and self-reflection (Czopp and Monteith, 2003).

Peace Educators promote interpersonal and global cooperation. If young boys and girls can't learn to work together in Japanese and Kentucky schools—when the greatest presence of diversity in their lives is the opposite sex—how shall men and women work cooperatively in society later in life? And how will people react when confronted with greater diversity? The unchallenged presence of gender inequalities and racial prejudice in schools acts as a catalyst for growing other forms of intolerance and discrimination. Kentucky and Japan were the selected research centers because of their supposed homogeneous composition, though there actually are varied levels of what is considered homogenous. What may perpetuate the problems is the lack of recognition of heterogeneity rather than an actual voidance of diversity.

Intriguingly, throughout the literature review process, insufficient research was found addressing homogeneous schools and discrimination, which is not to conclude that such research is entirely absent but that it isn’t abundant and readily available. The voidance of literature on homogeneous schooling highlights the urgency for the study completed within this essay, findings that corroborate a correlation between schooling in homogeneous contexts and the perpetuation of racism and sexism. Where the literature seemingly lacks scope on issues of homogeneous schooling, it has considerable numbers concerning diversity and multiculturalism, addressing issues such as racial consciousness, power, White privilege, racial apartheid, and gender (Sleeter, 1996). However, the research considers diversity within a heterogeneous setting; few, if any, consider the effects of homogeneous schooling on fostering certain perspectives and life values. These perspectives, such as racial and gender ignorance, bigotry, ‘color-blind’ policies, and imprudent acceptance of White power and privilege, in return are destructive toward establishing and maintaining a culture of peace. Peace Education conversely is a force for challenging discriminatory and violent socialization, and in exploring contemporary social issues and creative possibilities together, conscientizes and liberates minds to greater understanding, respect, and international cooperation.

Addressing bias in schools is a form of intervention in the society. It is this premise that surmises education is a tool for social transformation. Education as intervention radically defends human interests above those of particular groups. It recognizes that we are subject to a host of conditioning factors, including genetics, culture, economics, language, environment, and our interaction with these elements is the basis of our understanding (Freire, 1998). Peace Education expressly, as living education, shall lead to more just and peaceful societies when such education is conducted in a manner conducive to peace. It is critical, raging, hopeful, and recognizes the possibility of education to reinforce dominant ideologies as well as unmask them. In parallel response, educators in Kentucky and Japan declared that not recognizing diversity perpetuates sexist and racist attitudes in the classroom, in effort undermining multiculturalism through uncritical acceptance of hegemonic values. They asserted:

• Yes, I think [homogeneity] does perpetuate racist attitudes because students in this school are not exposed to a diverse population. I think one of the reasons students exhibit these racist tendencies is because they are not exposed to other cultures or populations.
• Yes, absolutely, these attitudes all exist in symbiosis. I know there is a counter-argument about placing excessive emphasis on diversity, not least in Japan because it always seems an imported and artificial construct. But we have to start somewhere; if there is no recognition or discussion of the issues, no consciousness can be raised. Perhaps in Japan the equation needs to be skewed towards dealing with sexism and racism on the road towards respecting diversity.
• Yes, I strongly feel that discrimination is taught. People are not born with negative thoughts about others. Those thoughts are brought about through the teaching and experiences of adults. Unfortunately, younger students are more apt to believe what they see and hear and not look beyond those elements. I feel if schools and parents would talk openly and positively about other genders and races that we would not encounter sexist or racist attitudes.
• I believe that under what circumstances he/she is brought up plays a big role.
• Yes, Diversity should be an issue—we should address and celebrate differences. Diversity is not something to be shunned. If people do not accept diversity or do not acknowledge it, then racism is allowed to take root in the society.

Similarly, Garcia (2001), in discussing diversity within the US, says:

This population identifier, "culturally diverse", is a relatively new educationally related term. Of course it has little appreciation for the diversity among such identified U.S. populations. That is, it is quite evident that such identified populations (African Americans, Mexicans, Mexican-Americans, Puerto Ricans, Cubans, Chicanos, Latinos, Southeast Asians, Pacific Islanders, Filipino, Chinese, etc.) are quite heterogeneous linguistically and culturally both within and between such identified categories (p. 2).

In a study on homogeneous schools discourse on the presence of diversity in communities that are largely considered uniform is critical, because in reality the notion of monoculturalism is exaggerated. For example, the 2007 US Census Bureau defined Whites as persons “having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa.” It includes people “such as Irish, German, Italian, Lebanese, Near Easterner, Arab, or Polish,” and even “Latinos.” This subgroup of peoples is astoundingly diverse, and such a grouping cloaks multiformity.
Diene (2006) writes statistically of the composition of Japan:

Japan has a population of 127.7 million, out of which 98.45% are Japanese nationals. The Japanese population includes one indigenous population, the Ainu, estimated at between 30,000 and 50,000 people: they live predominantly in the island of Hokkaido. Amongst the foreigners who do not represent more than 1.55 percent of the population, Koreans are the largest minority (607, 419 in 2004), followed by the Chinese, Brazilians and Filipinos (p. 5).

The heterogeneity may look small compared to other more explicit multiethnic societies, but the number is, in fact, larger than this. There are increasing numbers of non-registered non-Japanese citizens in general, and some cities are more diverse than the national average. Hamamatsu-city, for example, has a registered foreign population of 4%, which mostly consists of Brazilian-Japanese employed in automobile factories (HICE, 2006). The conflict in Japanese society, as in other perceived homogeneous nations, lies in this very fact that the cultural and ethnic diversity is not recognized. Some Korean-Japanese in Japan have been so deeply assimilated that it is virtually impossible to identify them. It could be postulated that what made them choose to be naturalized or change their names to Japanese monikers is the force of discrimination against Koreans they suffer. The notion of homogeneity minimizes the existence of other Asian minorities.

In congruence with the deconstruction of the notion of homogeneity and race, such must also be done with gender. Social constructs rigidly define male and female, boy and girl, and masculine and feminine; yet, the reality is that these hegemonic groupings are not nearly as consonant as psycho-cultural lexicon suggest. Take, for instance, the construct of men and masculinity. Middleton asserts, as quoted in Hearn and Collinson (1994, p. 108), “There is no uniformity about men. The heterogeneity must be recognized, across age, class, race, religion, and world view.” The differences within and among men are as great as the differences between men and women. Likewise, the differences within and among races are as different as between them.

Awareness of gender in our lives may raise our consciousness toward other forms of diversity and consequent injustices. Sleeter (1996) concludes gender is a mediator for racial consciousness and other forms of discrimination. As is apparent, yet rarely articulated, gender pervades our daily lives. Each living person interacts with the opposite sex, as well as various other gendered identities, throughout our lives, day in and day out. In fact, many of our identities are formed in relation to biological appearance, social constructs, and the nexus of the two. In contrast, other identities such as race, ethnicity, class, etc., do not necessarily confront each of us in the course of our lives. There are some who live their lives entirely without being exposed to these Others (though this number is dwindling today), and having never had dialogue with a member of these differing groups, lives in ignorance of extraordinary diversity. Thus cognizance of gender, gender sensitivity, and gender mainstreaming, as it influences us daily, is a prerequisite to negotiating peaceful coexistence with other individuals and communities.

Three noted Peace Educators, Betty Reardon, Elise Boulding, and Birgit Brock-Utne, work within the women’s movements and complement their Peace Education practice with gender analysis and mainstreaming. These educators link a feminist perspective to the field of Peace Education, and they charge that the continued oppression of women remains a serious obstacle to realizing global peace. In the landmark UN Resolution 1325 (2000), the Security Council reaffirmed “the important role of women in the prevention and resolution of conflicts,” and urged “Member States to ensure increased representation of women at all decision-making levels in national, regional, and international institutions and mechanisms for the prevention, management, and resolution of conflict.” Peace Educators ask: “how can women help men achieve peace when they are so oppressed themselves, when they have little education and the education they get is not of the holistic kind enabling them really to understand peace issues and teaching them to cooperate?” (Brock-Utne, 2000, p. 10). On the micro-macro connection, “war reinforces gender stereotypes and encourages violence against women…A culture of peace requires an authentic partnership between men and women” (Reardon, 2001, pp. 20-21). Gender fairness is essential for successful peace processes and to abate other transgressions of human dignity.

Furthermore, critical pedagogue bell hooks (1990) writes:

If we are to live in a less violent and more just society, then we must engage in anti-sexist and anti-racist work. We desperately need to explore and understand the connections between racism and sexism. And we need to teach everyone about those connections so that they can be critically aware and socially active (p. 63).

Additionally, Czopp and Monteith (2003) state:

Research on stereotyping and prejudice often focuses either on prejudice toward women or Blacks but rarely address sexism and racism simultaneously so that they can be compared and contrasted…. Most gender stereotypes tend to be more prescriptive in nature than most racial stereotypes. That is, people tend to believe that women should conform to common stereotypes about women to a greater extent than people believe Blacks should behave in correspondingly stereotypic ways. Thus, social norms may be such that taboos against racially prejudiced behaviors are much stronger than similarly egregious behaviors against women (p. 533).

Thus, in addition to teaching behaviors consistent with peace and constructing mechanisms to resolve conflict peacefully in our schools and communities, each of us must be actively engaged in work to subvert gender stereotypes and racial discrimination. To this end, educators committed to building just societies must be critically aware of race and gender identities, open to frank dialogue on these identities, and knowledgeable of the power structures that frame such discourse. Educators in Japan and Kentucky expressed their recognition of gender discrimination and racism as ‘a culture of discrimination,’ and as systemic power relations between racism and patriarchy.

• In an environment where there is racism, so follows gender discrimination—a ‘culture’ of discrimination. (Kentucky)
• There are links with regards to lack or available opportunities. For example, a young black woman will have less opportunity in the business arena than a young black male (depending on the arena). (Kentucky)
• Judging people about their sex usually means that the person will make similar judgments about their race as well. (Japan)
• Filipino women who apply for EFL jobs in Japan have a double hurdle to jump, their racial background and the fact that most (well-paying, high status) EFL jobs in Japan are held by White men. (Japan)
• In U.S. history men wanted power over women, just as whites wanted power and control over African Americans. I believe that the two issues are separate in many ways but that the greed for power within humans is a fundamental connection. (Kentucky)
• Some old connections between “keep the woman down” and white “supremacy” exist, mostly related to (mis)interpretation of Bible. It’s stereotypical, but real; however, it’s dying fast thanks for satellite TV and spread of mainstream culture. (Kentucky)
• They [patriarchy and racism] are all forms of maintaining the cycle of fear and control by the power majority. Where there is one, you will inevitably find the other. (Japan)
• Foreign women [faculty] are treated much more rudely than foreign men at my school. (Japan)
• It is my opinion that those who are taught racial discrimination will also have a sexual discrimination tendency, because of the behavior they witness in the environment where they learn racial discrimination. (Kentucky)

The realization that gender pervades our lives and acts as a mediator against other forms of oppression helps students grapple with injustices by bringing sundry amoralities to face. In a classroom, participants may be elicited, with consideration and care, to share personal experiences with sexism and racism. This activity will abet students in linking manifestations of discrimination.

As argued in the introduction, experiences with poverty and class oppression in my youth, later encounters with racism in Japan, and vicarious experiences of gender oppression developed my awareness of oppression and empathy toward discriminated groups. The aim of this essay has explored relationships between sexism, racism, and the impact of learning in monocultural schools. In conclusion, a postulate throughout has been that schooling in homogeneous classrooms perpetuates notions of entitlement, sexist perspectives, uncritical race awareness, and indiscriminate acceptance of the status quo. The discrimination is sustained in part because of hyperbolic notions of homogeneity and multiculturalism, both of which are facades, illusions cloaking the actual life differences present. The recognition of this diversity paradoxically antecedes the deconstruction of the homogeneity that buttresses discrimination. Educators in Kentucky and Japan have expressed their belief that homogeneous contexts do have an impact on the development and nurturance of discriminatory attitudes and behaviors, and that sexism and racism are linked forms of discrimination. However, a cautionary finality: the research and its conclusion does not suggest that by merely living and growing up in homogeneous communities an individual will be destined to possess racist and/or sexist behaviors. It does indicate however that homogeneity, or moreover the lack of recognition of diversity that exists, may correlate with the subsistence of racist and sexist biases. Homogeneity is not a fatalistic force—it does not necessarily cause racist and sexist beliefs and actions—but may assist in the breeding and endurance of prejudice.

REFERENCES
Boulding, Elise (1988). Building a Global Civic Culture: Education for an Interdependent World. Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press.
Brock-Utne, Birgit. An analysis of peace and development studies as well as peace education from a feminist perspective. Paper presented at a joint session between the Peace Education Commission and the Women and Peace Commission at the 18th General IPRA Conference in Tampere, Finland, August 5-9, 2000.
Czopp, Alexander M., and Monteith, Margo J (2003). Confronting Prejudice (Literally): Reactions to Confrontations of Racial and Gender Bias. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky.
Diene, Doudou (2006). Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and All Forms of Discrimination: Report of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, and related forms of intolerance. United Nations: Economic and Social Council.
Freire, Paulo (1998). Pedagogy of Freedom: Ethics, Democracy, and Civic Courage. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield.
Garcia, Eugene E (2001). Rethinking school reform in the context of cultural and linguistic diversity: creating a responsive learning community. California: University of California Berkeley.
Hearn, Jeff and Collinson, David L (1994). “Theorizing Unities and Differences Between Men and Between Masculinities. in H. Brod and Michael Kaufman (eds.), Theorizing Masculinities. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
HICE (2006). “A move toward an interdependent relationship with foreign residents.” Online at http://www.city.hamamatsu.shizuoka.jp/hamaEng/kouhou/htm_0603/special.html. Accessed 5 June 2007.
hooks, bell (2001). “Men: Comrades in Struggle.” in Michael S. Kimmel and Michael A. Messner (eds.), Men’s Lives. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
hooks, bell (1990). Yearning: Race, Gender, and Cultural Politics. Cambridge, MA: South End Press.
Mies, Maria (1983). “Towards a methodology for feminist research.” in G. Bowles and R. Duelli Klein (eds.), Theories of Women’s Studies. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Morris-Suzuki, Tessa (1998). Re-Inventing Japan: Time, Space, Nation. New York: M.E. Sharpe.
Reardon, Betty (2001). Education for a culture of peace in a gender perspective. Paris: UNESCO Publishing.
Sleeter, Christine (1996). Multicultural Education as Social Activism. Albany, NY: State University of New York.
United Nations (2000). Security Council Resolution 1325. Downloaded from
www.un.org. Public Domain.
U.S. Census Bureau (2007). Online at http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/21000.html.