Women & Gender Studies and Multicultural Education

Women & Gender Studies and Multicultural Education: Building the Agenda for 2000 and Beyond To educate as the practice of freedom is a way of teaching that anyone can learn. That learning process comes easiest to those of us who teach who also believe that there is an aspect of our vocation that is sacred; who believe that our work is not merely to share information but to share in the intellectual and spiritual growth of our students. To teach in a manner that respects and cares for the souls of our students is essential if we are to provide the necessary conditions where learning can most deeply and intimately begin -bell hooks Multicultural education has always been contested terrain, and some believe its continued power as an agent of social change is dependent on the tensions it identifies and works to resolve among various groups of people on the margins within the United States. This article will look at some of the tensions between women & gender studies and multicultural education such as: understanding gender as a category of analysis, theoretical constructions of feminism, and building an educational agenda for social justice. Multicultural Education Theories The field of multicultural education has developed a significant consensus about its scope and function. The models referred to most include those developed by Banks(1995), Sleeter & Grant (1988), and Bennett (1995). Banks identified five dimensions of multicultural education: content integration, the knowledge construction process, prejudice reduction, equity pedagogy and empowering school culture and social structure. Sleeter & Grant identified five approaches to multicultural education: teaching the exceptionally and culturally different, human relations, single-group studies, multicultural education, and social reconstructionist education. Bennett’s model, while encompassing many of the same dimensions as the other two, is a bit more restrictive.

Women & Gender Studies and Multicultural Education

Mulvihill

2

She believes that multicultural education needs to be focused on race, ethnic groups and culture and to resist being “overextended” by focusing on gender issues. Although each of these theories have anchored the field of multicultural education they have not always adequately attended to the debates surrounding the terms “gender” and “sex” or the multiple feminist theories that focus on the more critical aspects of a social change agenda. The agenda for 2000 and beyond must be more attentive to these issues. Gender as a Category of Analysis Scott (1986) identified gender as a term used by feminist scholars as a “way of referring to the social organization of the relationship between the sexes.” (p. 1053). The term “gender” was used to distinguish the social dimensions of the concept from the term “sex” and the biological determinism that was often attached to it. A socially constructed notion of gender refocused attention on the complexity and politics of identity construction. For some scholars there was also another political reason to use the term “gender.” By using it as synonymous with “women” some scholars hoped to avoid the politics of feminism. “Gender includes but does not name women and so seems to pose no critical threat” (Scott, 1986, p. 1056). This strategy was used in the 1980s when feminist scholarship was fighting for legitimacy within the academy and some vestiges of the strategy are still in effect today. In more recent scholarship accepting gender as a social construction has opened up new understandings of gender identity as part of the larger field of identity politics. It has opened up avenues of inquiry about the experiences of students, teachers, and administrators who construct their identity differently than the dominant heterosexual


Mulvihill

culture. The experiences we signify with terms, such as gay, lesbian, transgender, and other unnamed identities, only become visible as the result of an enlarged discourse. Gender, as a category of analysis, will continue to assist those engaged in multicultural education as they strive to build educational communities that respond to the needs of all its members. Whereas many multicultural education theories express an interest in race, class and gender issues the reality is that they do not receive equal treatment, nor is enough attention paid to the interrelated nature of the oppressive trilogy. The struggles among feminists as they construct theory exemplify the difficulties scholars have with reconciling multiple and varied experiences of oppression. Feminist and critical education theories take this dilemma as one of the focal points of their efforts. Feminist and Critical Education Theories Feminist thought and theories have evolved over time and are constantly being renegotiated. Often the renegotiation centers around the difficulties theorists have with reconciling multiple and varied experiences women have with oppression. In her groundbreaking book, Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center, hooks(1984) critiqued feminist theory as emerging from privileged women who live at the center, whose perspectives on reality rarely include knowledge and awareness of the lives of women and men who live on the margin. As a consequence, feminist theory lacks wholeness, lacks the broad analysis that could encompass a larger number of experiences. (p. ix).

3


Mulvihill

4

hooks identified the beginning of the contemporary feminist movement as holding only the voice of a select group of college-educated, middle and upper class, married white women. hooks, and others such as Hill-Collins (1990) and Guy-Sheftall (1995), developed black feminist thought. Each of these women recognized from the outset of their theory building that black feminist thought held diverse, and at times, conflicting meanings. They wanted to make clear that “factors like class, race, religion, sexual preference, etc. . . [do help] determine the extent to which sexism will be an oppressive force in the lives of individual women.” (hooks, 1984, 5). hooks concluded that “race and class oppression [need to] be recognized as feminist issues with as much relevance as sexism” (p. 5) The key for hooks is understanding oppression as “the absence of choices.” (hooks, 1984, p. 5). The broadening and deepening of the feminist agenda, primarily through the efforts of black feminists, propelled a further evolution in multicultural education theory. Multicultural education theories began to incorporate new understandings of the relationship between feminist theory and critical education theory. This discourse was shaped by scholars such as Freire (1970), hooks (1984), Giroux (1994), and McLaren (1997). Freire (1970) believed that education was inextricably linked to freedom and that social change was dependent on the degree to which educators and students engaged in praxis (a combination of reflection and action designed to improve the social order). Hooks (1994) extended this notion to a more radically progressive form of education that she termed “engaged pedagogy.”(p. 15) She understands engaged pedagogy as more radical than feminist or critical pedagogy because it emphasizes “well-being,”(p. 16)


Mulvihill

5

a notion that combines a focus on the self-actualization potential of teachers and their power as healers. She believes that a pedagogy that places an emphasis on healing, love and spirituality will assist in the necessary redefinition of multicultural education and that students need to be understood as active constructors of knowledge. This notion of how to build educational communities reveals the power of empathy-building and provides the rationale for including critical uses of educational auto/biography. Many feminists have been contributing to the literature that demonstrates the power of narrative for educational purposes: [Narratives] form a framework within which our discoveries about human thought and possibility evolve . . . .They contribute to our capacity to deliberate about educational issues and problems . . . .The social context in which a narrative is related, the narrator’s reason for telling it, the narrator’s narrative competence, and the nature of the audience, are all important elements in developing an understanding of narrative. (McEwan and Egan, 1995, p. 25). This developing body of literature has benefited from the work of Grumet (1988), Noddings (1984), the Personal Narratives Group (1989) and many others concerned with a vigorous redefinition of the context(s) of education. hooks (1994) linked the work of multicultural educators directly to the experience of the remapping pedagogy. Critical and feminist pedagogies insist that educators respond to a new set of realities revealed through narrative construction, lived experiences of students and teachers, and the political acumen that comes from sustained study of the powers that influence the


Mulvihill

relationship between schools and society. hooks (1994) summarized this point of view with: Multiculturalism compels educators to recognize the narrow boundaries that have shaped the way knowledge is shared in the classroom. It forces us to all recognize our complicity in accepting and perpetuating biases of any kind. Students are eager to break through barriers to knowing. They are willing to surrender to the wonder of relearning and learning ways of knowing that go against the grain. When we, as educators, allow our pedagogy to be radically changed by our recognition of a multicultural world, we can give students the education they deserve. (p. 44). Giroux and McLaren (1994) advocated for a combination of theory and practice where multicultural education affirms and demonstrates “pedagogical practices engaged in creating a new language, rupturing disciplinary boundaries, decentering authority, and rewriting the institutional and discursive borderlands in which politics becomes a condition for reasserting the relationship between agency, power, and struggle.”(p.44). McLaren (1997), while searching for a revolutionary multiculturalism, claimed that multicultural education refused to deal with the impacts of imperialism, colonialism and unchecked capitalism. In addition McLaren believed that: Diversity that somehow constitutes itself as a harmonious ensemble of benign cultural spheres is a conservative and liberal model of multiculturalism that, in my mind, deserves to be jettisoned because, when we try to make culture an undisturbed space of harmony and agreement where social relations exist within cultural forms of uninterrupted accords

6


Mulvihill

7

we subscribe to a form of social amnesia in which we forget that all knowledge is forged in histories that are played out in the field of social antagonisms (p. 12). Elevating conflict to an intentional site of study provides educators with more informed ways of understanding and interpreting the forms of conflict that arise within individual students, and among students, as they encounter the difficulties of experiencing education as a practice of freedom. The notion that education ought to be a practice of freedom necessitates a political point of view about the role of schools in society. Education, in general, and multicultural education, in particular, are nothing if not involved in a movement for social justice. Social Justice Most feminist and critical education theorists work from the social reconstructionist dimensions of the multicultural education models, developed for example by Banks (1995) and Sleeter & Grant (1988). Among the theorists who continue to serve as the architects of the relationship between education and social justice there is a recognition of the connection between multicultural education and the human rights movement. It is a necessary connection in order for a liberatory praxis to exist. For example, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR, 1948), Article 26, claims that: Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all


Mulvihill

8

on the basis of merit. Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace. Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.” (p. 3). Social scientists, especially feminists, have aided these conversations through their emphasis on interdisciplinary knowledge construction. Advocates of feminist pedagogies such as hooks (1994) with her notions of "engaged pedagogy" and education as a "practice of freedom," and Weiler(1988) with her emphasis on ideas about the forms and functions of "resistance" within public school settings all are predicated on the basic belief in the right to education for all, and give special attention to securing and enhancing that right for women and the girl - children of the world. Many women human rights activists have been teachers. For example, Gertrude Mongella, the Assistant Secretary - General of the UN and the Director of the UN Fourth World Conference on Women, was a teacher and an inspector of secondary and teacher - training colleges. There have been criticisms that the construction of human rights, and its accompanying rhetoric, are further manifestations of colonialism. First Lady Hillary Clinton (1998) responded to these criticisms with the following: There are others who say that human rights are a Western invention, and that they come from a Judeo - Christian base, and that they do not have universal application. But we know differently. We can go back and trace


Mulvihill

9

the roots of the beliefs that are set for in the [Universal] Declaration [of Human Rights]. They were not invented fifty years ago. They are not the work of a single culture, whether it is Confucius who articulated such rights in ancient China, or Sophocles who wrote about 2500 years ago about such rights when he had Antigone declare that there were ethical laws higher than the laws of kings. But whether it is the Golden Rule, which appears in every possible religion in one form or another, we know that at root we understand, whether we admit it or not, that we as human beings are bound to each other in a mutual web of respect that we should nurture for our own sake, as well as for others.” (p. 4). Multicultural education has an obligation to build its theory with the knowledge of the larger world and women and gender studies perspectives can assist with the necessary revisions. Tensions exist when feminism is looked at from an international perspective as well. Some feminists have called our attention to the tension between valuing cultural diversity and prioritizing women’s rights. For example, the debates about Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) describe the significance of this tension. One question that comes into focus is, can any vision of human rights be reconciled with any notion of mutilation? This becomes a matter of dispute between faith communities and political entities throughout world. These different interpretations of human rights and women’s rights have direct implications for the positions multicultural education theorists in the United States develop. Social justice can not exist without attending to issues of equity. Banks (1994) described equity as a basic component of pedagogy (equity pedagogy) and a critical


Mulvihill

10

component of multicultural education. One area where equity is in the process of being renegotiated is around compliance issues with Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. The current debates center around the criteria used to evaluate “substantial proportionality.” Imbedded within these debates is the relative worth attached to notions of parity, equity and equality. Multicultural theorists must continue to act as witnesses and guides related to Title IX compliance issues because these debates will no doubt have far reaching consequences for the way equity will be defined for education. Another area that needs significant attention is the relationship between gender, poverty, and education. In 1995 the National Center for Children in Poverty reported that approximately 20.6% of children in the U.S. lived in poverty.(p.44). Chamberlin (1999) claimed that: Poverty is perpetuated by stereotypes which misrepresent reality, by historic dependence of our society on the employed poor built into inherited institutional structures, by the failure of those in power to recognize the true dimensions of poverty’s long term blight, by the many ways in which the poverty sector benefits the non-poor, and by the need of those in power to maintain the political, religious, economic, and cultural character of our society (p. 70). Chamberlin calls on educators to “make vivid” these conditions. Feminist and critical theories need to continue to address the economic disparities in ways that can better inform teaching practices and educational policy. Multicultural education theory that does not directly address these realities will be negligent in the effort to respond to the needs, in particular, of women and children.


Mulvihill

11

Teaching Practices and Social Justice Feminist pedagogy is a means to bring multicultural education into practice. Because feminist pedagogy deals consistently and directly with all of the central issues inherent in multicultural education it remains a site of discovery and application for educators as they continue the work of building the agenda for 2000 and beyond. Any preparation program for educators must include understandings of the tensions inherent within the theories of multicultural education and this must include significant attention to women and gender studies, feminist and critical education theories, and teaching practices that lead to social justice. “To educate as the practice of freedom” needs to be our focal point as we build theory, construct “engaged pedagogy,” and reach for the next level of social justice. The future viability of multicultural education depends on it.


Mulvihill

12

References

Banks, J.A. (1995). Multicultural education: Historical development, dimensions, and practice. In J.A. Banks & C.A.M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp. 3-24). New York: Macmillan.

Banks, J.A. (1994). Multiethnic education: Theory and practice. MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Bennett, C. (1995). Comprehensive multicultural education: Theory and practice (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Chamberlin, J. G. (1999). Upon whom we depend: The American poverty system. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.

Clinton, H. R. (1998). Remarks by First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton. Eleanor Roosevelt Lectures, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, December 4, 1998, http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/First_Lady/html/generalspeeches/1998/

Collins, P. H. (1990). Black feminist thought: knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. Boston: Unwin Hyman.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. (Myra Bergman Ramos, Trans.) New York: Herder & Herder.


Mulvihill

13

Giroux, & McLaren (Eds.) (1994). Between borders: Pedagogy and the politics of cultural studies. New York: Routledge.

Grumet, M. (1988). Bitter Milk: Women and teaching. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.

Guy-Sheftall, B. (Ed.). (1995). Word of Fire: An anthology of African-American Feminist Thought. New York: The New Press.

hooks, (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. NewYork: Routledge.

hooks, (1984). Feminist theory: From margin to center. Boston: South End Press.

McEwan, H. & Egan, K. (Eds.). (1995). Narrative in teaching, learning and research. New York: Teachers College Press.

McLaren, P. (1997). Decentering whiteness: In search of a revolutionary multiculturalism. Multicultural Education, 5,(1), pp. 4-11.

National Center for Children in Poverty. (1999). Child Poverty Facts. http://cpmcnet.columbia.edu/dept/nccp


Mulvihill

14

Noddings, N. (1984). Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moral education. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Personal Narratives Group (Eds.). (1989). Interpreting Women’s Lives: Feminist Theory and Personal Narratives. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Scott, J. W. (1986). Gender: A useful category of historical analysis. The American Historical Review, 91,(5), pp. 1053-1075.

Sleeter, C.E. & Grant, C.A. (1988) Making choices for multicultural education: Five approaches to race, class and gender. New York: Merrill.

United Nations document. (1948). Universal declaration of human rights. http://gopher.law.cornell.edu:70/00/foreign/fletcher/UNGARES217A.txt.

Weiler, K. (1988). Women teaching for change: gender, class & power. New York: Bergin & Garvey Publishers.