35

SoYoung KangEducational Foundations, Summer-Fall 2006

SoYoung Kang is an assistant professor in cultural studies in education at Ohio University, Athens, Ohio.

Introduction Thereisaveryintimaterelationshipbetweenhowcaringtheteacherisandtheknowledgethatstudentsgain.Actually,itisnotlimitedtostudent-teacherrelationshipsonlybutalsostudent-studentrelationships.Knowledgeissomethingpeopleacquireastheybuildrelationshipsandhaveinteractionswithothersandtheworldaroundthem.Dependingonhowcaringtheteacherisandtheotherstudentsare,thestudentscanimprovetheirchancesofbecomingknowers.Whenpeopletalkaboutsomeonebeingaknower,theytendtofocusmainlyonthepureknowledgetheygain,insteadoflookingattheprocessofgainingknowledge.Caretheoryplaysanessentialroleintheprocessofgainingknowledgeandteachersorothercaregiversshouldpayattentiontothisprocessinsteadofonlywhattheygetasaresult,whichisknowledge.Inotherwords,insteadofteachersfocusingontheresult-centerededucationsuchasassistingstudentstogetgoodgrades,theyshouldpaymoreattentiontolearntheeffec-tivewayofcaringthatcanpositivelyinfluencestudentsandeventuallyassiststudentstoreceivebetterresults.

Identity-CenteredMulticultural Care Theory:White, Black, and Korean Caring

By SoYoung Kang

36

Identity-Centered Multicultural Care Theory

Itismydesiretoencouragepeopletorealizetheimportanceofcaretheory,butwhatshouldbemorefocusedisvaluingdifferenceswhiletheone-caringandthecared-forengageincaringrelationships.Itwillbeproblematiciftheactofcar-ingistakenupfromtheteacher’sperspectivesinsteadofconsideringthestudents’perspectivessincethereisnotauniversalcaring.EspeciallyintheU.S.whereitisknownasthecountryofsaladbowlduetobeingdiverse,itismoreimportantforteacherstobecomecolorconsciousintheirclassroomsandacknowledgethedifferencesofdefiningorconceptualizingcaringbetweenWhite,Black,andotherethnicorracialgroupssuchasKoreaninordertobecomemoreeffectivecaringteacher.Manyteachersusedtothinkitwaswrongtonoticetheraceoftheirstudentssincetheythoughteveryoneisthesame(Johnson,2002).Inthispaper,theanalysisandthecomparisonsofWhite,Black,andKoreancaringacrossdifferentboundar-iesareprovided.Itismoreofanalyzingandcomparingbylookingatthewholepicturewhichmeansthatitismoreofanoverallanalysisinsum.WhenpeopleareaskedaboutmulticulturalismormulticulturaleducationintheU.S.,oftentimestheanswerisrelatedtoincludingandfocusingmoreonBlackculturealongwithWhiteculturesuchashavingBlackHistoryMonthatschool(Lewis,2001).AsmyselfbeingaKorean,thelimitationsofmorepopularunderstandingsofcaringareveryevidenttomeandIdecidetoincludeKoreanperspectiveofcaringalongwithWhite,andBlackcaringsinceitbringsanothermeaningtocaring. Throughout this paper, philosophical analyses such as ordinary languageanalysis,phenomenology,existential,andpragmaticareusedtoanalyzethework.WhenIanalyze,Ivaluelogicalanalysis/ordinarylanguageanalysisbyfocusingoncaringandhowotherpeopleusetheterminanefforttoclarifythisconcept.Accordingtopragmatism,philosophyshouldworryaboutrealproblemswhichwehave,anditstrivestorelatetheorytopractice.Fromtheviewofpragmatism,wecanrealizethatphilosophyisnotneutral,soone’sownnarrativesareinsuf-ficient.Thus,itisnecessarytoaddotherpeople’svoicesinordertohaveavalidargument.AlsoIagreethataccordingtopragmatists(Dewey,1966;James,1979;Peirce,1958;Seigfried,1996;Thayer-Bacon,1998),wecanneverfigureoutananswerbyourselvessincewearealllimitedbeings.ThisisoneofthereasonswhyIbringvariousphilosophers’thoughtsoncaretheorytoexploreandhelpmewiththeanalysis.Phenomenologically,ItuneintomypersonalexperiencestohelpmeexplainKoreancaretheory.SinceKoreancaretheoryhassomewhatdistinctiveap-proachcomparedtoWhiteandBlackcaring,duetotheinfluenceofConfucianismembeddedinthesociety,morein-depthattentionisplacedonKoreancaretheoryinthediscussion.Then,Iconcludethispaperwithmyconcreteexplanationofcaretheoryandofferanotherperspective.

Analysis of White, Black, and Korean Care Theory TherehavebeenmanyvaluablepointswhichhavebeenpresentedbyWhite,Black,andKoreanscholars,andallofthemhavemadeagreatcontributiontothe

37

SoYoung Kang

fieldofcaretheory.Ascaretheorycanbesituational,andvariesdependingonthepeople,itwassomewhatdistinctivetoseehowWhite,BlackandKoreanscholarshavedefinedcaringalthoughthereweresomesimilaritiesandoverlaps.Itisclearthatthesedifferencesoncaringarederivedfromhavingdistinctivecultures,differenttraditionsandwaysofthinking.Culturedoesnotnecessarilymeanthepeoplefromdifferentcountriesbutitincludesothercategorieslikerace,gender,class,religion,age,andsoforth.Inthisresearch,caringfromthreecultures—White,Black,andKorean—isexplored. Inpresentingcaring,severaloftheWhitefeministssuchasGilligan(1995),Noddings(1995),Jaggar(1995),Houston(1998),andApplebaum(1998)oftenrelatecaringwithethicsandcontrastcaringwith theethicsof justicealthoughthere are severalwho relate caringwith epistemology such asRuddick (1989)andThayer-Bacon(2003).Theirexplicationofcaringmainlytellsusthatithasculturallybeenassociatedasafemininequality,andthatitisrelational.ManyofthemsuchasNoddings(1984)andRuddick(1989)discusscaringinrelationwithmothering.Basically,theydiscusscaringintermsofmenandwomen,andagreethatcaringwhichhasmoreofwomen’squalityshouldbevalued.However,theyemphasizecaringshouldtobepracticedbybothgenders.Althoughtherearesomedifferencesbetweenthefirstgeneration(Gilligan,1982;Noddings,1995;Ruddick,1989)andthesecondgeneration(Applebaum,1998;Houston,1998;Jaggar,1995;Thayer-Bacon,2003)Whitefeminists indescribingcare theory, theystillsharesomesimilarpoints. Noddings(1984)definescaringintermsofbeingreceptiveandfeelingwiththeother.Shealsodescribescaringasalwaysbeingrelational,betweentheone-car-ingandthecared-for.AccordingtoRuddick(1995),fromtheperspectiveofcare,“relationshipsrequireattentivenesstoothersandresponsetotheirneeds”(p.204).Inexplainingcaring,Thayer-Bacon(1993)focusesontheattitudeoftheone-caringandmentionsthat“anattitudeofacceptanceandtrust,inclusionandopenness,isimportantinallcaringrelationships”(p.325).Thayer-Bacon(2000)alsoclaimsthat“careinvolvesanappreciationoftheotherandrespectoftheother;itisnotsome-thingthatisimposedontheother”(p.23).Overall,manyWhitefeministsvaluetheactofattending,empathy,beingreceptive,appreciationoftheother,andrespectingtheotherincaringrelationships.Theirdiscussiononcaringfocusesintensivelyontheactofcaringsuchashowtobecaring,andhowtoformacaringrelationshipbutlessemphasisisputontheuniquenessandthedifferencesofeachindividual.Forexample,theactofattendingorrespectingcanbetakenfromdifferentanglesbydifferentpeople,andconsequentlyitwillhavedifferentmeanings.Thus,withoutunderstandingthecontextofthepeople,itwillbedifficulttounderstandwhatcaringmeanstoeachindividualandactasacaringperson. Blackfeminists’viewoncaretheoryissomewhatdifferentfromWhitefemi-nists.IfWhitefeminists’focusismainlyconcernedwithgender,BlackfeministssuchasCollins’(1989,1993,1995,2000),hooks(1994,2000,2001,2003),andThompson’s(1998,2003,2004)focusismoreonraceandclassissues.Duetothe

38

Identity-Centered Multicultural Care Theory

factthatmanyBlacksexperienceracism,oppression,andpoverty,theirperspec-tivesandapproacheshavebeenpresenteddifferentlyfromWhitefeminists.Collins(1993)andhooks(2001)mentionabouthowsurvivalisoneofthekeyissuesforthem;survivinginthecommunity,society,andinthecountrywheretheylive,andcaringcannottakeplacewithoutconsideringthisaspect.Blackfeminists’focusonsurvivaldoesnotlimittoindividualsurvival,butalsogroupsurvival,andtheirwaysofcaringalsodevelopedalongwiththis.Inordertounderstandtheirview,itisimportanttoincludereligionandpoliticalissuessincebothplayaninfluentialroleintheBlackcommunity.ItislikehowtraditionsuchasConfucianism(Park,2002;Choi,2002),andlanguageareimportantfactorsforunderstandingthewaysKoreansdefinecaring.Foralongperiodoftime,theChristianchurchhasplayedasupportingroleforBlacks,andtheBlackchurchhasdeeprootsintheAfricanpastandphilosophy(Collins,1993).ItseemstomethatAfricanAmericans valueandputgreatemphasisonhelpingoneanotherespeciallywhenitcomestocaring.Forexample,inmothering,theyalsogetsupportfromothermothersinthecommunity,anditislikesupportingoneanother(Collins,1995;Thompson,2004). Overall,BlackfeministssuchasCollins(1993,1995),hooks(1994,2001),andThompson(1998,2003,2004)valueuniqueness,personalexpressiveness,emotions,empathy,dialogue,andculturalspecificityincaringrelationships.ItistheoppositefromhowKoreansviewcaring.ForKoreans,oftentimes,itisratherconsideredascaringandbeingconsideratetoothersifonekeepspersonalexpressivenessandemotionsawayfromothers.Koreansaremorereservedandconservativeinpresent-ingtheirfeelingsopenlytoothers.However,AfricanAmericansalsohavesomesimilaritieswithKoreansforfocusingonthecollectivismandvaluingthegroupalthoughitisnotdoneexactlythesameway.WhileAfricanAmericansvaluethegroup,theyvalueindividualsasmuchasthegroup.Ontheotherhand,Koreanstendtovaluethegroup,andnotmuchofindividuals.MostKoreanstendtothinkfromotherpeople’sperspective,andsometimestheytendtofocustoomuchonhowotherswillthinkandfeelaboutthemwhichthenbecomeaproblemforthem.Sometimestheyarerestrictedfromdoingthingswhichtheyreallydesiretodo.Inthiscase,wecansaythatKoreansaregoodatrespectingothers,especiallytheoneswhoareintimate,buttheyarenotgoodatrespectingthemselves. Park(2002)expresseshowKoreancareissometimesproblematicduetoproviding‘excessivecaring’totheoneswhoareintimate.Theexampleheprovidesforexces-sivecaringis“theexcessivefamilyindividualism,regionalism,schoolrelations,andconnectionism”(p.162).ItmeansthatKoreansvaluetheconnectionstheyhavewithothers,andconsiderthoseconnectionsasintimate,andcareforothersexcessively.Ontheotherhand,otherswhoarenotconnectedwillbeignoredoftentimes,andthepeoplewillnotevenbothertocareforthoseothers.‘Thefamilyindividualism’canbeinterpretedas‘familyoriented’butthereasonwhyParkusesitas‘familyindividualism’isduetoexcessivelyfocusingandvaluingonlythefamilymemberswhichcanbeinterpretedasindividualisticorselfishfromtheperspectiveofnon-familymembers.Itcanbeconsideredasanotherformofdiscrimination.

39

SoYoung Kang

Indiscussingcaring,Koreansfocusmoreongenderthanonrace.AlthoughKoreansbringgenderintodefiningcaretheory,itisdifferentfromhowWhitefemi-nists(Gilligan,1982;Noddings,1984)raisetheissue.Insteadofdefiningcaringasafemininequality,Koreansdivideitintomasculineandfemininecaring.Bothformsofcaringarevaluedintermsoftheirdistinctiverolesalthoughifweweighwhichcaringismoreimportant,masculinecaringgetsmorecredit.Itshowsthatthemen’scaringismorevaluedthanthewomen’scaringinthecommunity,exceptforthechildcarewhichisviewedasawoman’sjob.Mostly,WhiteandBlackfeminists(Collins,1995;Noddings,1984;Ruddick,1989;Thompson,2004)oftenrelatecaringwithmothering,butalthoughKoreanssometimesdofocuscaringwithmothering,caringisratherrelatedwithotherqualities.Theconcept‘caring’ismoreusedforfamilycaringthancaringforindividualsorchildren.Choi(2002)explainsthat“ethicalperspectiveofcaringispursuingamoralmodelthatemphasizesmutualrelianceinsteadofindividualisticautonomy,andcaringforfamilyandvaluingtherelationshipofbetweenparentsandchildren”(p.322). Duetotoomuchemphasisonloveandresponsibilitiesincaring,manyones-caringtendtosacrificethemselvestomeetthosecriteriaincaringrelationshipswithothers.Forexample,parentsandteachersseeloveandcareastheresponsibilitiesoftheone-caring.Won(2003)mentionsthatteacher’sdevotionandsacrificeareconsideredasbeingcaring,andKoreansseethemasgoodqualitiesofacaringteacher.ThroughoutWon’swork,heemphasizestheimportanceofloveandcarein education by claiming that these are something that cannot be excluded ineducation.Heclaimsthat“theschoolcanbeoperatedwithoutloveandcare,buteducationcannot.Educationisultimatelychangingpeople’smind/mentality.Themindcannotbesolvedlogically”(p.131).Koreansoftenrelatelovewithcaringindiscussingtheteacher-studentsrelationship.Accordingtohisdescription,teacher’ssacrificeandendurancecanleadtostudents’success.Beingconsiderateofothersisimportantincaringrelationships;however,ifthefocusgoesbeyondthatandstartstointrudeuponone’spersonallife,itwillbeproblematic.Weshouldlearnhowtorespectandcareforourselvesfirst,inordertorespectandcareforotherseffectively.ThisisakeyproblemforKoreancollectivismsincenotmuchfocusgoestoeachindividual,buttheemphasisismoreonthegroupandotherswhoarerelatedtotheminsomeways. Drawingfrompersonalexperiencesandlookingatpeople’srelationships,itisrecognizablethatinKorea,whenthetopiccomestocaring,thefocusismainlyonthe‘caringrole’ascaringbeingdividedintomasculineandfemininecaring.Here,thefocusontheroleisnotlimitedtomenandwomen’srole,butitalsoisthecasefortherolesofparents(takingcareofchildren’shealth,education,morality,etc),teachers(takingcareofstudentsbysendingthemtoagooduniversity,sothattheycangetgoodjobsandsucceedinthesocietyandbecomehappy),youngerpeople(respectingolderpeople),andsoforth. InunderstandingKoreancaring,peopleneedtorealizethat‘age’and‘power/authority’playimportantrolesincaringrelationships.Sincecaringisconsidered

40

Identity-Centered Multicultural Care Theory

asonlypowerfulpeople’sprivilegeinKorea,andonlypowerfulpeoplecancarefortheweakerpeople,careisdescribedoftenfromthatperspective.Itisliketheweakerpeopleshouldnotdaretocareforthepowerfulpeopleandtheweakerpeoplearenotqualifiedtocareornotqualifiedtobeintheroleofcaring.However,thisissueofprivilegedoesnotnecessarilyequatewiththeideathatoppressedpeoplecannotcarefortheoppressorbecausetheweakerpeoplearenotalwaysoppressed.Forex-ample,comparedtoolderpeople,youngeronesareconsideredasweakerinstatusinKorea,butitdoesnotalwaysmeanthattheyareoppressed.Theword‘oppression’isrelatedtobeingtreatedunjustlyandthereisafeelingofdissatisfactionfromthesideoftheoppressed.SincetheyoungerKoreans,whoareinthelowerlevelofthehierarchyduetotheirage,donotthinktheyaretreatedunjustlybytheolderpeople,butconsidertheirrelationshipasaformofrespect,theydonotrelatetheirsituationwithoppression.DuetoKoreantraditionandtheinfluenceofConfucianism(Choi,2002;Park,2002),peopletakethisrelationshiprathermorenaturallyandactuallylookhighlyoftherelationshipwhererespectforeldersisvalued. WehavetorealizethatmostKoreansvaluerespectingeldersandpositivelyagreethateldersareinthehigherrank.ThisalsoexplainshowKoreanrelationshipsarebuiltinhierarchy(Choi,2002)whichisrelatedtoissuesconcerningpower,butthispowerissueissomewhatdifferentfromAmericanculturesinceKoreanpowerisintensivelyrelatedtoage.Asageplaysanimportantroleinhumanrelationships,anditisrelatedtorespect,youngerpeopleareexpectedtorespectolderpeople.Here,theintensionisnottosaythatAmericansdonotrespectolderpeople,butthewaytherelationshipworksisdifferent.InAmerica,peoplecanstillbecomefriendsandtreateachotherequallyalthoughthereisadifferenceinage.Forexample,asonorastudentcantaponfather’sorteacher’sshouldersinAmericaanditcanbeconsideredasafriendlygesture.However,inKorea,ifyoungerpeopletaponolderpeople’sshoulders,itwillbeconsideredasaformofdisrespect.Koreansalsotendtofocusmoreontheagethanthenameofthepersonwhichindicates‘whoyouare.’ Usuallywhentheissueisrelatedtopowerimbalance,itisconsideredasproblematicasitisagainstsocialjusticesinceitcanbedescribedasaformofdiscriminationandinequality.Maybeiftheissueisongenderinequality,Koreanwomenwillreactmoresensitivelyandseeitasanunjustpowerbalancewhichisproblematic.Withmorewomenworkingandgainingknowledge,thereisachanceofmenandwomengain-ingequalabilityinthesociety.Withthisopportunity,ifthewomendonotgetequaltreatment,theywillconsideritasunjust.However,inKoreawhenpowerimbalanceoccursbetweenpeopleduetoagedifference,theyconsideritassomethingnaturalorgood,andactuallyencouragepeopletoacceptthatfact.ItisrelatedtorespectforelderswhichisrootedinConfucianismandKoreanstakeitpositively.Inadditiontothis,duetothelanguagestructure,thehierarchyformedduetotheagecannotbecompletelyremoved.Koreansbelievethatoneofthewaystobringharmonyinthecommunityisbyrespectingolderpeople,andthisiswhyhierarchicalrelationshipscanbeviewedasanethicalladder(Gutek,2005). Aswecansee,inunderstandingKoreancaretheory,exploringtheirtradition

41

SoYoung Kang

suchasConfucianismisimportant.IamnotarguingthatConfucianismisgreatandweshouldalltakeitsperspective,butrathersayingthatKoreancarecannotbefullyunderstoodwithoutunderstandingthetraditionofConfucianismanditsinfluenceonsocietyandpeople.Koreansmainlyfocusoncollectivismandvalueofthegroup,especiallyfamily,insteadofindividuals.Thus,individualsacrificeisnecessaryinordertocareforthegroupespeciallyifitisforthefamilymembers(Choi,2002).AlthoughAfricanAmericansemphasizecollectivism,itisdoneinadifferentwaysincetheyrespectandvalueeachindividualalongwiththegroupwhileKoreanstendtofocusmoreonthegroupbysacrificingindividuality. Tosumup,whenKoreansusetheterm‘caring’,itisoftenfrom(1)themencaringforthewomen,and(2)thestronger(powerful)personcaringfortheweaker(lesspowerful)personsuchastheparentscaringforthechildren,theteacherscar-ingforthestudents,andyoungerpeoplecaringfortheolderpeople,andthebosscaringfortheworkers.Itislike‘independentparty’versus‘dependentparty’,andindependentpartycaresforthedependentparty.KoreancaringseemstofocusmoreonleadingandprovidingcaringratherthanontheactofattendingandreceivingwhichWhite feminists (Noddings, 1984; Ruddick, 1995;Thayer-Bacon, 1997)discussindepth.InKoreancaring,theresponsibilityisonthepersonwhoisintheroleofcaring,andthecared-forismoreintheroleofpassivelyacceptingthecarewhichhasbeenprovidedtohimorheraswellasrespectingtheone-caring.Thecared-forshouldbesomewhatobedienttotheone-caring.Thisisthewayforthecared-fortocareforone-caring,byacceptinghisorhercaring.

Method-Centered, Difference-Centered, and Role-Centered Care Theory AfterexaminingWhitefeminists,Blackfeminists,andKoreanscholars’caretheory,Ihaverealizedthattheirapproachestocaringvaries.Overall,Whitefeminists’focusoncaringismoreon‘how’:‘howtocare’and‘howtobecomeacaringperson’,whichisa‘method-centeredcaring’.AlthoughthesecondgenerationWhitefeministstrytobringinthevalueofdifferenceswhichhasbeenignoredbymanyofthefirstgenerationWhitefeminists,theystillpaygreatattentiontotheattitudesoftheone-caringincaringrelationships.Theydiscussintensivelyonthemethodofbeinganeffectivecaringperson.Forexample,inexplainingcaring,Whitefeminists(Noddings,1984;Ruddick,1995;Thayer-Bacon,1997)emphasizehowtheone-caringshouldbeattentive,empathetic,receptive,andrespecting.Ofcourseitisimportanttoknowhowtobecaring,andrealizewhatfallsundercaringattitudes,butthefocusshouldbeputonunderstandingtheperson,thecared-forfirst.Withoutunderstandingthesubject,itwillbemoredifficulttobecomeacaringperson,butifonehasanideaofthecared-for’sidentity,itwillbemucheasierandmoreeffectivefortheone-caringtobeintheroleofcaring.Here,IamnotcompletelydeclaringthatWhitefeministsignorethecared-for,butwhatIamclaimingisthefactthattheyemphasizemoreonthemethodandstudyintensivelyon‘how’tobecaringandtheyfocuslessonactuallytryingtoexploreandunderstanddifferencesofthecared-for.

42

Identity-Centered Multicultural Care Theory

Blackfeminists’caringfocuseson‘who’:‘howtocareforauniqueperson’,anditismoreof‘difference-centeredcaring’,althoughtheirdifference-centeredcaringisoftenlimitedtoBlacks.Theirfocusisonincludingthemarginalizedortheoppressedpeopleincaringrelationshipswhichisasocialjusticeissue.Theyvaluehoweachindividualisdistinctiveandtheyclaimthatthesedifferencesshouldnotbeignoredbutseriouslyexaminedintheapplicationofcaring.AccordingtoBlackfeminists,colorblindness(Thompson,1998)willdistracttheone-caringfrombe-comingacaringperson,soitisimportantforpeopletobecolorvivid,meaningthattheyshouldbealertinrecognizingracialdifferences.Inordertounderstandeachindividualbetter,BlackfeministssuchasCollins(1993,2000),hooks(2001),andThompson(1998,2004)alsorecommendpeopleshouldnotoverlookreligiousorpoliticalbackgroundsofthecared-for,sinceunderstandingthesebackgroundswillwellexplainwhereeachindividualiscomingfromandhowheorsheisinfluencedbythosefactors.Inemphasizingtheimportanceofeachindividual’suniqueness,Collins(1993)andhooks(2001)alsoarguethatnotonlyracebutalsoclasscanmakepeopledistinctive.SinceupperclassBlackswillnotnecessarilysharethesamevaluesystemsaslowerclassBlacks,itisimportanttorecognizetheseclassdifferencesaswell.Bypresentingtheirvalueofcollectivismandcommunity-basedcaring,whichisdistinctivefromWhiteAmericans,theyemphasizetheuniquenessanddifferencesofpeopleinexplainingcaretheory. On the other hand, Korean caring emphasizes ‘what’: ‘what is the role orresponsibilityofone-caringandcared-for,howtocarefor thegroup,andeachpersoninthatgroup’,anditdisplaysa‘role-centeredcaring’.AllrelationshipsinKoreaarebuiltonthehierarchicalladder.Inthishierarchicalladder,everybodyhastheirownresponsibilitiesandroles.Theyareawareofwhattheyneedtodowithotherpeople.Therearesetrulesforinteractingwithothersandmaintainingrelationships.AccordingtoGutek(2005),“theconceptofhierarchicalrelationshipscanbeviewedasanethicalladder;eachpersonhasaconnectionwiththepersonontherungaboveorbelow”(p.19).Ontheotherhand,fromaculturalstudiesperspective,thishierarchicalladdercanbeviewedasanissueofinequalityandthedominanceofoppressors.Sincethepeoplewhoareinthehigherpositionontheladderwillbeconsideredashavingmorepower,thepeopleinthelowerposi-tionwillbeconsideredashavinglesspower,andtherelationshipisbasednotonequalground,butratheronapowerimbalance.Whatmakesthepowerimbalancelessproblematicisthateventuallyeveryonemovesuptheladderastheyage.ThishierarchicalladderissomethingwhichcannotbecompletelyremovedfromKoreancultureduetothetraditionofConfucianismandtheformationofthelanguage.AsGutek(2005)mentions,“theideaofanethicalhierarchyisconsiderednecessarytocreatingandmaintainingsocialharmony:everyonestandingonthesocialladderwillknowherorhisplace,duties,andresponsibilitiesandtheproperwayofper-formingtheseduties”(p.19).Thisisjustadifferentwayofrespectingpeople. AccordingtoWhiteorBlackfeminists,thedefinitionofrespectbeginswithtreatingpeople‘equally’,butaccordingtoKoreanperspective,respectistreating

43

SoYoung Kang

people‘accordingly,’basedontheirstatus,especiallywithconsiderationtoage.Overall,bothformsofrespectshouldbevaluedequallysinceitisrelatedtocul-turaldifference.Thereisnotauniversalwayforrespectingpeople,justlikethereisnotauniversalwayofcaring.However,role-centeredcaringiscontrarytowhatHouston(1998)saysabouthowgoodcaringissituational.Sincetoomuchatten-tionispaidtotherolesinKoreancaringrelationships,sometimeslessattentionispaidtotheperspectiveofthecared-forinthecaringrelationships.InagreementwithNoddings(1984,1992),Isuggestthatcaringcanbeidentifiedascaringonlywhenthecared-forreceivesit,butifeachindividualisnotbeingfocusedontheirdifferences,howcanwesaythatwearecaringforthatperson?Theone-caringshouldworkmoreonlookingatindividualsastheyarewithconsiderationsoftheirdifferentsituations. BylookingatWhite,Black,andKoreancaretheory,wecandistinguishhowpeoplefromdifferentbackgroundapproachthesametopicdifferently.Thewaytheydescribe,interpret,andapplycaringaredistinctivedependingontheirculturesanddifferentsituations.Whatwe,astheone-caring,shoulddoisconsidercaretheorymorefrommulticulturalperspectivesbyacceptingpluralism,asthereisnotauniversalformofcaring.

Multicultural Care Theory Humanbeingsaresociallyconstructedandconstantlyinfluenceoneanotherinconstructingknowledge.Sinceweliveintheworldwithpeople,notbyourselves,weneedtolearnhowtolivetogetherinamorepleasantenvironmentwhereeveryonecanbevaluedandrespected.Inordertobuildpositiveandhealthyrelationshipswithpeople,itisessentialforustolearnhowtocareforeachothereffectively.Whenthetopiccomestocaretheory,manypeopletendtobelievethereisauniversalcaring.Thisiswhenpeopleseecaringinthemajoritysettingandtakethatmajorityviewtobethenorm.Itisproblematicifpeopletrytoapplywhatisconsideredasthenormtoeveryoneelseincludingoneswhodonotbelongtothatsetting.Theone-caringshouldbemoreopentothevoiceofmarginalizedpeoplewhoareneglected.Itisimportantthatwelearnhowtocareforpeopledifferently,notinthesameway.Sinceeverybodyisunique,treatingpeoplethesamewaywillactuallyendupdiscriminatingagainstpeople.Insteadofthinkingthattheworldisameltingpot,weneedtoseeitasasaladbowl,whereweseeeachingredientorindividualmoredistinctivelyratherthanjustmixingthemtogetherandseeingthemasone.Thatiswhatweneedtodoforcaretheoryaswell.However,ifweonlyfocusondifferentiating,peoplewouldnothaveanythingincommon.Inotherwords,wealsoneedtoseewhatwehaveincommonalongwithwhatwehaveindifference. Overall,IvaluehowBlackfeministsworkonavoidingtheproblemofcol-orblindness(Thompson,1998,2003)incaretheory,butitseemstomethattheirperspectivefocusesmainlyonpeoplewhoareoppressedandmarginalized.Ialsowanttoclaimthatwhatismoreimportantisnotonlyincludingoppressedpeople

44

Identity-Centered Multicultural Care Theory

incaring,butincludingallminoritiesingeneralbyvaluingtheiruniquenesssincebeingaminoritydoesnotnecessarilymeanthattheyareoppressed.Lookingateachindividual’sidentitywillassisttheone-caringtounderstandthecared-for,anditcanleadpeopletoachievemoreeffectivecaringrelationships.Here,theintensionisnottryingtoputalltheburdensofcaringontheshouldersoftheone-caring,andexcludingthecared-for’sroleascaring.Sincecaringshouldnotbeunidirectionalbutshouldcomemutually,thecared-forcanalsobeintheroleofcaring.However,Iwillusetheterm‘theone-caring’inexplainingcaring,notonlyfortheactual‘one-caring’butalsofor‘thecared-for,’sinceoncethecared-forplaystheroleofcaring,heorshealsobecomes‘theone-caring.’ According to Milbrey McLaughlin (1993) “young people construct theiridentitieswithintheseembedded,diverse,andcomplexenvironments,areflectionofsuchelementsaslocalpoliticaleconomy,peerrelations,familycircumstances,civicsupport,churches,schools,andneighborhood-basedorganizations”(p.35).Hisstatementwellexplainshowpeople’sidentitiesareinfluencedbythevariouscommunitiestheybelongto,anditwillbeimportantfortheone-caringtoseethesecommunitiesasakeysourcetogainknowledgeaboutthecared-for.Inotherwords,hisstatementdemonstrateshowtheindividualisstronglyrelatedtothegroupandalsoinfluencedbyone’scommunityinformulatingone’scharacteristics.Inadditiontothis,thecommunitieswhichtheindividualbelongstocanaffectandimpactthedevelopmentoftheirqualitiesandidentityasawhole. AccordingtoMichaelClifford(2001),“theindividual,then,isnotabasicunit.Itisafabrication—aproductofspecific,historicallycontingent,discursiveandnondiscursivepracticesthatdefineroles,relations,positions,statuses,freedoms,capacities,natures,evensexuality”(p.99).Asamatteroffact,peoplecannotlivebythemselvesbuttheyaresociallyconstructed,andthisiswhywecannotsaythatweunderstandthepersonwithoutlookingatthecontext.Lookingatinstitutionalsupport,groupaffiliation,andtheroleoftheindividualinrelationtosocietyasawholewilldefinitelyhelpingainingknowledgeoftheperson’sidentity. Indiscussionofidentity,MichelFoucault(1980)saysthat“theindividualisnotapregivenentitywhichisseizedonbytheexerciseofpower.Theindividual,withhisidentityandcharacteristics,istheproductofarelationofpowerexercisedoverbodies,multiplicities,movements,desires,forces”(p.73).Sincepeopleareconstantlyinfluencedbytheircontext,itisimportanttounderstandthecontextofthepeopleinordertounderstandtheiridentities.Lookingatthecared-for’sposi-tioninthecommunitywillalsohelpinunderstandingtheformationofhisorheridentity.Examiningtheidentityofthecared-forisnotonlyrecommended,butitwillbemoreofa‘must’,especiallywhenitcomestocaring. Withoutunderstandingthesubjectofthecaringwhichisthecared-for,theactofcaringcannotexist.Onlyafterunderstandingindividualswithreferenceoftheiridentities,willtheone-caringbeenabledtousethemethodofcaringsuchasbeingempathetic,receptive,attending,andrespectingincaringrelationships.Thewaypeopleattend,orpeopleexpectotherstoattendtothemcanvaryaswell.Itislike

45

SoYoung Kang

howtheissueofrespectcanmeandifferentthingsindifferentcultures.Withoutacknowledgingthedifferencesininterpretingattitudesandlookingatworldviews,theactofattendingorrespectingwillbemeaningless. Inobservingidentity,wealsoneedtofocusbothon‘thegivenidentity’and‘the formed identity.’Thegiven identity canbe somethingonewasbornwith,whichpeoplehavenochoiceof.Itcanbecalledinvoluntaryidentity.Forexample,age,gender,placeofbirth,biologicalparents,colorof skinareall factors thatformone’sidentityinvoluntarily.Ontheotherhand,formedidentityisonethathasbeendevelopedafterbirth,byoneselfaswellbypeoplearoundthatperson.Formedidentityistheidentitythatis‘becoming,’anditismoreofavoluntaryidentityalthoughsometimesthereisaninvoluntaryqualitytothisaswellsincewelearnthroughacculturation.Here,Iamclaimingthatpeoplecanformtheirownidentitybyinteractingandrelatingwithothers.Thatiswhyitisimportanttolookatcultureinunderstandingpeople,andincaringrelationships.However,wehavetoavoidgeneralizingculture.Itshouldbeonlyusedasatooltounderstandandnarrowdowningainingknowledgeofindividuals,sincewithintheculture,therearemanyothersubculturesaswell. Asculturalstudiestriestotakewhathasbeentraditionallyneglectedmoreseriously, theone-caringalsoneeds to take theperspectivesofpreviouslymar-ginalizedgroupsinthesocietymoreseriouslyandcautiouslywhileengaginginarelationshipwiththeone-caredfor.Itisimportanttorecognizethattheone-caredfordoesnotalwayscomefromthesameculturalbackgroundwiththeone-caringandviceversa,andheorshemighthavedifferentinterests.Ifacknowledgingthesedifferencesisexcludedinperformingcaring,andiftheone-caringonlyinteractsandrelateswiththecared-forfromhisorherownpointofview,itcanbeconsideredasmanipulatingormisusingpower,anddominatingwithoutusingforce,fromtheperspectiveofthecared-for.Theactofdiscriminationdoesnotonlymeantreat-ingpeopledifferently,butitalsomeansignoringornotrecognizingdifferences.Theone-caringshouldbesensitivetotheuniquenessofthecared-for,andavoidgeneralizingoruniversalizing. Alongwiththis,weneedtofocusonbecomingbetter‘worldtravelers’(Lu-gones,1987).Imeanworldtravelinginasensetotravelingtootherpeople’sinnermindtounderstandeachindividualfromtheirownworldview.Wecannotbecomethatpersonandwecannotcompletelyunderstandothers,butweshouldstilltrytotraveltothatindividual’smindandexperiencewhatheorsheisgoingthroughsinceitwilldefinitelyhelptheone-caringtoenlargehisorherviewsonunderstandingthecared-for.Everybodyislivinginhisorherownsmallworld,andeachworldisdistinctive,likehoweachcountryisunique.Althoughallthecountriesarelocatedinthesameearth,theyareverydistinctiveintheircustoms,traditions,language,food,mentality,andinmanyotherways.IfwetrytospeakEnglishtonon-Englishspeakers,willtheyeverunderstandwhatwearetryingtosay?Thisiswhatneedstobefocusedonincaringrelationships.Theneedistofindacommonlanguage,andIdonotmeanliterallanguagehere.Theone-caringcannotconstantlyspeakto

46

Identity-Centered Multicultural Care Theory

thecared-forinhisorherownlanguageandinterpretitascaring,ifthecared-fordoesnotevenunderstandathing.Theyshouldtrytoworkonfindingacommonlanguageorcommonground,anditneedstobedoneattheinitialstageofbuildingacaringrelationship. Lastlyit isalsoimportanttopayattentiontoculturalrelativismwhichisaphilosophicalconcern.PhilosophersasvariedasHarveySiegel(1997)andCharlesSandersPeirce(1958)cancriticizemeandexpressconcernsaboutculturalrelativ-ismintermsofmymulticulturalcaretheory.Multiculturalcaringcanbeviewedasproblematicduetohavingthefalseassumptionthatpeoplecannottalktoeachotheracrossculturesbecausepeopleonlyunderstandpeoplewithintheirculture.This is a philosophical problem of incommensurability. Another concern thatphilosophersmighthaveisthefactaboutthereisnowaytojudgeothers.Ifcaringisculturallycontextualized,howcanwedefinewhatisgoodcaringandwhatisharmful?Forexample,whatisrightinoneculturesuchascaningbeingviewedasaformofcaring,mightbeviewedassomethingwronginanotherculturesinceitcanbeviewedasaformofphysicalabuseinstead. Thesequestionscanberaisedbyphilosophersconcerningmymulticulturalapproachtocaring. Inexplainingabsolutism,Siegel(1987)saysthatabsolutismallowsustobefalliblebutstilldoesnotembracepluralismandclaimsthatweneedaconceptofabsoluteinordertobeabletoarguewhatisrightandwrong.Wemakemistakesbutstillweneedtohavetheanswer.Ifwegetridofabsolutetruth,wecannotjudge.AccordingtoSiegel,relativismisincoherent,self-defeating,arbitrary,orimpotent.Overall,Siegelputsabsolutismandrelativismasideandembraceswhathecallsanon-vulgarabsolutism,andexplainsthatitoffers“thepossibilityofobjective,non-question-beggingevaluationofputativeknowledge-claims,intermsofcriteriawhicharetakenasabsolutebutwhichnonethelessadmitofcriticismandimprove-ment”(p.162). AccordingtoqualifiedrelativistssuchasThayer-Bacon(2003),“theconstructionofknowledgeissocial,interactive,flexible,andon-going”(p.113),andwehavetorecognizeourlimitationsandthinkthatwecouldbewrong.Thayer-Baconarguesthat“(e)pistemologicalfallibilismentails(e)pistemologicalpluralism”(p.49).Inadditiontothis,shearguesthat“democraticcommunitiesalways-in-the-makingarewhatprotectusfromfearsofvulgarrelativism,asweopenlyargueanddiscussanddebateourconcernswithinourowncommunitiesaswellasamongothercom-munities,evencommunitieswecanonlyimagine”(p.49).Overall,Thayer-Baconplacesemphasison“thesocialnegotiatingprocessthatinquirymustgothrough,tohelpussettleourdoubtsandsatisfactorilyendourinquiry”(p.72).Here,inagreementwithqualifiedrelativism,Iwanttoarguethatitispossibleforcaringtobeembeddedwithinaculturalcontextbutatthesametime,wecanmakegeneralclaimsaboutwhatcountsas‘caring,’acrossculturalboundaries.Thus,peoplecanunderstandcaringinanothercultureandwiththehelpfromtheoutsidersandviceversa,wecanhelpeachothertoenlargeourthinkingandplaytheroleoftheone-caringmoreeffectively.

47

SoYoung Kang

Conclusion Overall,inthispaper,Iwanttoclaimthatthekeypointincaretheoryiscaring‘accordingly’dependingonthepersonandthesituation.Providingequalopportuni-tiestopeopleisimportantinsociety,butitdoesnotmeanthateveryoneshouldbetreatedthesameway.Treatingpeopleunjustlyiswrong,buttreatingpeoplediffer-entlyisratherfairandjust.Thisisthewaytheone-caringshouldfocusoncaringforthecared-for.Forexample,attending,respecting,beingreceptiveaccordinglytoeachindividualandtheirneeds,andvaluingtheiruniqueness,iswhattheone-caringshouldfocusupon.Takingeachindividual’sidentityintoconsiderationandtryingtounderstandtheindividualfromthatperspectivewillleadtheone-caringtoacceptthecared-forashowheorsheis‘being,’sinceidentityindicates‘whoapersonis,orthequalitiesoftheperson.’ Wehavetorememberthatthereisnotauniversalcaring,buttrytoseecaringas‘multiculturalcaring’and‘multiculturalcaretheory,’likehowtherearesomefieldssuchasmulticulturalcounseling,multiculturaleducation,andothermulticulturaldisciplinesordiscourses.Weneedtolearnhowtovaluediversepeoples’differencesinunderstandingthemandbuildingandmaintainingcaringrelationships.Themostimportantthinginthecaringrelationshipisunderstandingthecared-for,andhisorheridentity.Withoutunderstandingthepersonandtheculture,theone-caringcannotplaytheroleofcaringeffectively.Forexample,caningwhichisaformofphysicalpunishmentisillegalintheU.S.whereasinsomecountriesinAfricaandAsia,itisstilllegalandconsideredasaformofcareandagoodwaytodisciplinestudentsandchildren.Untiltherecentpast,teacherscaningstudentsfordisciplinewaslegalandcommoninKoreaaswell.Actuallyparentsalsowantedteacherstodisciplinetheirchildren,andparentsdidnotmindiftheirchildrenneededtobecaned.Usually,teachersusedasticktohitstudents’palms.Theparentstrustedtheteachersandgavethemtheresponsibilityofdiscipliningtheirchildrenwhiletheyareatschool.Itwasaformofrespect.Studentsalsodidnotmindgettingcanedbytheirteacherseventhoughithurts.Itwasnaturalforteacherswhoareonthehigherlevelinthehierarchytodisciplinestudentsandnobodyreallyquestionedaboutit.Itwasviewedasonewayofexpressingteachers’caretostudents.Thisiswhypeoplecallit‘lovecane’.Thus,withoutembracingmulticulturalcaringbyunderstandingandacceptingthecared-for’sidentityandtheculture,theone-caringwillonlylimitoneselftogeneralcaringwhichwillleadtounsuccessfulcaringrelationship. Thisresearchwellexplainstheimportanceofgoingbeyondthecolor-blindapproachinordertocareeffectivelybutatthesametimeitalsosuggestshowpeopleshouldbecautiousofnotdwellingonlyinthecolorconsciousstage.Inotherwords,asJohnson’s(2002)intervieweeDianeexplains,thedefinitionofpersonalcultureshouldinclude“anindividual’sclassbackgroundandsexualorientationaswellasracialandethnicaffiliation”(p.161).Multiculturalcaringoridentity-centeredmulticulturalcaretheorydoesnotnecessarilyfocusonconsideringonlytheracial

48

Identity-Centered Multicultural Care Theory

differencesbutotherdifferencessuchasclass,gender,religion,age,exceptionalityandsoforthshouldbecarefullyexaminedaswell.Teachersneedtoteachstudentstovalueotherpeople’sdifferencesandhelpthemtorealizethatthesedifferencesdonotcarrynegativemeanings.Additionally,ifneeded,teachersshouldnothesitatetogettrainedfirstandfeelconfidentbeforetheyteachtheimportanceofmulticulturalcaringorothermulticulturalissuestotheirstudents. Ontopofthat,caringisnotsomethingthatwestoponcewefeelthatit ispositivelyprogressing,butitissomethingthatweneedtocontinuouslyexpressandworkonwhileweareengagedincaringrelationshipswithothers.Atthesametime,wehavetorememberthatmulticulturalcaringormulticulturalcaretheorydoesnotmeanthatgeneralclaimsaboutwhatcountsasgoodcaringcannotbemade,orthatpeoplefromanotherculturecannotunderstandeachother’scaringviewsandpractices.Peoplecanunderstandcaringinanothercultureandwiththehelpfromtheoutsidersandviceversa,wecanhelpeachothertoenlargeourthinkingandplaytheroleoftheone-caringmoreeffectively.

ReferencesApplebaum,B.(1998).Iscaringinherentlygood?Philosophy of Education, 415-422.Choi,Y.S.(2002).Moral philosophy and moral education.Korea:InganSarang.Clifford, M. (2001). Political genealogy after Foucault: Savage identities. New York:

Routledge.Collins, P. H. (1993).Toward anAfrocentric feminist epistemology, InA. Jaggar & P.

Rothenberg(eds.),Feminist frameworks,pp.93-103.NewYork:McGraw-Hill.Collins,P.H.(1995).Blackwomenandmotherhood.InV.Held(ed.),Justice and care,pp.

117-135.Denver,CO:WestviewPress.Collins,P.H.(2000).Black feminist thought.NewYork:Routledge.Dewey,J.(1966).Democracy and education.NewYork:FreePress.(Originalworkpublished

1916).Foucault,M.(1980).Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972-1977.

Ed.ColinGordon.Trans.ColinGordon,etal.NewYork:PantheonBooks.Gilligan,C.(1982).In a different voice. Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.Gilligan,C.(1995).Moralorientationandmoraldevelopment.InV.Held(ed.),Justice and

care,pp.31-46.Denver,CO:WestviewPress.Gutek,G.(2005).Historical and philosophical foundations of education:Abiographical

introduction.UpperSaddleRiver,NJ:PearsonEducation.hooks,b.(1994).Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom.NewYork:

Routledge.hooks,b.(2001).Salvation: Black people and love.NewYork:PerennialHarperCollins.Houston,B.(1998).Abstractionscan’tbegoodbuttheycanbedangerous.Philosophy of

Education, 423-425.Jaggar,A.M.(1995).Caringasafeministpracticeofmoralreason.InV.Held(ed.),Justice

and care,pp.179-202.Denver,CO:WestviewPress.James,W.(1979).Pragmatism.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.(Originalwork

published1907).Johnson,L. (2002). “Myeyeshavebeenopened”White teachers and racial awareness.

49

SoYoung Kang

Journal of Teacher Education, 53(2),153-167.Lewis,A.E.(2001).Thereisno“race”intheschoolyard:Color-blindideologyinan(almost)

allWhiteschool.American Educational Research Journal, 38(4),781-811.Lugones, M. (1987, Summer). Playfulness, “world” traveling, and loving perception.

Hypatia, 2,3-19.Noddings,N.(1984).Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moral education.Berkley,

CA:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.Noddings, N. (1992). The challenge to care in schools. NewYork: Teachers College,

ColumbiaUniversity.Noddings,N.(1995).Caring.InV.Held(ed.),Justice and care, pp.7-30.Denver,CO:

WestviewPress.Park,B.C.(2002).Care ethics and moral education.Korea:UlRyuk.Peirce,C.S.(1958).Values in a universe of chance: Selected writings of Charles Sanders

Perice (1839-1914)(P.Wiener,Ed).GardenCity,NJ:Doubleday.Ruddick,S.(1989).Maternal thinking.Boston:BeaconPress.Ruddick,S.(1995).Injusticeinfamilies:Assaultanddomination.InV.Held(ed.),Justice

and care,pp.203-223.Denver,CO:WestviewPress.Seigfried,C.H.(1996).Pragmatism and feminism: Reweaving the social fabric.Chicago,

IL:TheUniversityofChicagoPress.Thayer-Bacon,B.(1997).Thepowerofcaring.Philosophical Studies in Education, 1-32.Thayer-Bacon,B.withBacon,C.(1998).Philosophy applied to education: Nurturing a

democratic community in the classroom.UpperSaddleRiver,NJ:Prentice-Hall.Thayer-Bacon,B.(2003).Relational “(e)pistemologies.”NewYork:PeterLang.Thompson,A.(Winter,1998).Notthecolorpurple:Blackfeministlessonsforeducational

caring,Harvard Educational Review, 68(4), 522-554.Thompson,A. (Spring, 2003). Caring in context: Four-feminist theories on gender and

education,Curriculum Inquiry, 33(1),9-65.Thompson,A.(2004).Caringandcolortalk:ChildhoodinnocenceinWhiteandBlack.In

V.SiddleWalker&J.R.Snarey(eds.),Race-ing moral formation: African American perspectives on care and justice,pp.23-37.NewYork:TeachersCollege,ColumbiaUniversity.

Tronto,J.(1989).Womenandcaring:Whatcanfeministslearnaboutmoralityfromcaring.InA.Jaggar&S.Bordo(eds.),Gender/body/knowledge: Feminist reconstructions of being and knowing,pp.172-187.NewBrunswick,NJ:RutgersUniversityPress.

Won,D.Y.(2003).Seine High School.Korea:KimYoungSa.