A Pedagogy of Social Justice Education: Social Identity Theory, Intersectionality, and Empowerment

• Published date: 01 June 2013
• Author: Aaron J. Hahn Tapper
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/crq.21072
• Date: 01 June 2013

A Pedagogy of Social Justice Education:

Social Identity Theory, Intersectionality,

and Empowerment

Aaron J. Hahn Tapper

 is article explores a theoretical and practical understanding of social

justice education through an examination of a US-based intergroup edu-

cational organization running con ict transformation programs since

2005. Based on in-depth interviews conducted with and surveys com-

pleted by administrators, educators, and student participants of the orga-

nization’s programs, this article analyzes a case example of social justice

education that integrates Freirean thought, social identity theory, inter-

sectionality, and experiential education, including empowerment and

responsibility education. O ering di erent programs aimed at distinct

constituencies yet all based in the same pedagogy, the organization’s pri-

mary goal is to empower participants to engage in social justice activism.

C R Q, vol. 30, no. 4, Summer 2013 411

© Wiley Periodicals, Inc. and the Association for Con ict Resolution

Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) • DOI: 10.1002/crq.21072

I acknowledge a number of individuals without whom I could not have written this article.

I thank  eodore Tapper, three anonymous readers from CRQ, and Beth Cousens, all of

whom o ered important feedback on earlier drafts of this article. I am grateful to countless

professionals I have worked with in the  eld of con ict resolution and transfor mation,

including Huda Abu Arqoub, Aysha Hidayaullah, and Oren Kroll-Zeldin, all of whom have

taught me a tremendous amount about constructive and unconstructive methods in our  eld.

I am also grateful to a group of individuals with whom I met only a few times yet without

whom I may not have been able to translate this pedagogy to the page, including Kenneth

Windsor, Greg Baumann, Maggie Hannon, Sheila Shea, and Courtney Regan. I o er deep

appreciation to Ahmad Hijazi, the former director of the School for Peace of Wahat al-Salam/

Neve Shalom, with whom I had the privilege of working over the past few years, an indi-

vidual who trained some of the best practitioners in our  eld over three decades, and whose

life was taken far too early. Last, but certainly not least, I am appreciative of the thousands

of students I have worked with in intergroup educational programs over the years. Students

are always the best teachers.

412 HAHN TAPPER

C R Q • DOI: 10.1002/crq

Over the past few decades, practitioners and theoreticians in the  elds

of con ict resolution, con ict transformation, education, and

service-learning have begun using the term social justice education in

increased numbers (Enns and Sinacore 2005; Zajda, Majhanovich, and

Rust 2006; Adams, Bell, and Gri n 2007; Furlong and Cartmel 2009;

Adams et al. 2010; Cipolle 2010; Zajda 2010; Sensoy and DiAngelo 2011).

Among those focusing their e orts on intergroup work in particular, also

referred to as intercommunal dialogue, some argue that without integrat-

ing elements of social justice education into models aimed at reducing,

managing, and resolving con ict between groups, programs will fail; dis-

cord between groups will inevitably continue despite practitioners’ best

e orts. Many in the  eld of con ict transformation—more speci cally,

among those who assert that the best way to ensure con icts do not

reemerge is to confront and reshape the con icts’ root causes—critique

programs that are based in con ict resolution that do not use social justice

educational methods (Redekop 2002; Fisher et al. 2007).

But what is social justice education? One common, but certainly not

ubiquitous, idea is that it explicitly recognizes the disparities in societal

opportunities, resources, and long-term outcomes among marginalized

groups (Shakman et al. 2007, 7). Others use di erent terms in its place,

such as anti-oppression education, diversity education, and multicultural edu-

cation (Cochran-Smith 2004; Sleeter and Grant 2007). At the end of the

day, de nitions for social justice education run the gamut; this term has no

single meaning or use. Although this is not necessarily a problem—the

heterogeneity surrounding an idea can potentially add great depth to its

meaning—when a term is used without simultaneously o ering a de ni-

tion, its meaning can become inconsistent or even super cial.

One way to deepen our understanding of social justice education is to

look at the ways it manifests in terms of ideology and application.  is

article explores a single case example—one understanding of a social justice

pedagogy used by an intergroup educational organization based in the

United States. Founded in 2003 and running programs since 2005, this

organization currently o ers  ve intergroup programs  rmly ensconced in

social justice education. As the organization’s founder and co-executive

director since its establishment, I have been intimately involved in each of

these programs. Although this creates an obvious partiality, the goal of this

article is not to evaluate the extent to which this organization has suc-

ceeded or not in terms of its pedagogy. Rather its intent is to describe the

A Pedagogy of Social Justice Education 413

C R Q • DOI: 10.1002/crq

institution’s rare approach to social justice education in both theory and

practice.  is article does not hope to heighten the stature of the organiza-

tion, o ering its model of social justice education as the yardstick to which

others should compare themselves or even aspire. Instead, it explores one

form of social justice education in an e ort to add to the larger  eld. In this

light, my relationship to the organization is not a hindrance but makes me

exceptionally well situated to carry out this task.

 is analysis is based on in-depth interviews conducted with and sur-

veys completed by administrators, educators, and student participants of

this organization’s intergroup programs. Using these data, I  rst look at

three of the educational pillars on which the organization’s pedagogy is

based: Paulo Freire’s approach to education and social justice, social iden-

tity theory, and intersectionality. For each one, I brie y touch on how it

manifests in the organization’s programs. Second, I describe the organiza-

tion’s programs and programmatic goals in greater detail, adding an exam-

ination of their approach to experiential education, including empowerment

and responsibility education, the fourth and  fth pillars of their pedagogy.

In this section, I also examine how  ve programs with distinct structures

working with a variety of constituencies can have the same pedagogical

underpinnings.  ird, I brie y discuss the long-term e ects of intergroup

programs in general, underscoring the nascent stage of the  eld’s develop-

ment. Although the jury is still out on the sustainability and e cacy of

social justice educational programs of this kind, the very question, Do they

work? must always be on our horizon.

Theory

Paulo Freire, Education, and Social Justice

For renowned Brazilian pedagogue Paul Freire, education is the key to

enacting social justice (Freire 2006). Freire contends that education provides

venues for students to achieve freedom, both intellectual and physical—the

“indispensable condition for the quest for human completion” (Freire

2006, 47).  is, he says, should be a primary pedagogical goal of all edu-

cational activities. Drawing from his own life experiences as someone born

into socioeconomic poverty, Freire asserts that education either domesti-

cates or liberates students and teachers (Rozas 2007). For this reason, more

often than not education plays a major role in perpetuating the status