Tabib-Calif Et Al-2014-Anthropology & Education Quarterly

Symbolic Boundary Work in Schools: Demarcating andDenying Ethnic BoundariesYOSEPHA TABIB-CALIFEDNA LOMSKY-FEDERThe Hebrew University of Jerusalem

This article examines the symbolic boundary work that is carried out at a school whose studentpopulation is heterogeneous in terms of ethnicity and class. Based on ethnography, the articledemonstrates how the schools staff seeks to neutralize ethnic boundaries and their accompanyingdiscourse, while the pupils try to bring ethnic boundaries back in and place the interethnicencounter prominently on the schools agenda. [symbolic boundary work, ethnicity, ethnicboundaries, integration]

Introduction

Based on ethnography in a school whose student population is heterogeneous in termsof ethnicity and class, this article examines the symbolic ethnic boundary work that iscarried out in the schools public sphere. The literature on ethnic boundaries in schoolsdeals mainly with the practices of demarcation and difference that foreground theirpresence and the power relations behind them. In this study, we emphasize not only thepractices through which ethnic boundaries are directly reinforced but also those practicesthat conceal them and neutralize their political dimension. Moreover, we examine thedynamics of boundary work and show how it constantly shifts between practices ofdifferentiation and masking, and how different actors at the schoolteachers andpupilsoperate as the carriers of these practices.

More particularly, we show how the schools staff seeks to neutralize ethnic boundariesand their accompanying discourse, promoting competing discourses to explain the pupilsbehavior instead. At the same time, though, the schools pupils try to bring ethnic bound-aries back in and place the interethnic encounter prominently on the schools daily agenda.The pupils boundary work expresses their reaction and resistance to the attempts of theschools staff to refrain from dealing with the issue of ethnicity. As we shall demonstrate,these contradictory forces feed into one another, and neither can be understood separatelyfrom the other.

Symbolic Boundary Work in Schools

This article is based on the theoretical assumption that schools are the site of constantboundary work, which creates, hides, conceals, and redefines categories of ethnicity andclass. The concept of ethnic boundaries was first established by Fredrik Barth (1969), whoposited that ethnicity is not an innate quality but rather a social construct of particularhistorical circumstances, a construct that is constantly reconstructed and re-created(Wimmer 2008). Developing this approach, Michele Lamont and Virag Molnar (2002)distinguish between social and symbolic boundaries: social boundaries are the outcome ofthe structural arrangements that bring about the unequal distribution of social resourcesbetween ethnic groups, while symbolic boundaries are social actors interpretations andconceptualizations of this distribution. Social and symbolic boundaries are not onlymacrolevel social categories and structural arrangements, but also conceptual distinc-

bs_bs_banner

Anthropology & Education Quarterly, Vol. 45, Issue 1, pp. 2238, ISSN 0161-7761, online ISSN 1548-1492. 2014 by the American Anthropological Association. All rights reserved.DOI:10.1111/aeq.12045

22

tions individuals make in the course of their everyday lives and refer to how thesedistinctions canand doinfluence more durable and institutionalized social differ-ences (Pachucki, Pendergrass, and Lamont 2007:331).

Thus, the main thrust of the analysis of symbolic boundary work is to gain a deeperunderstanding of how institutional arrangements are translated (and sometimes evenchallenged) into everyday reality at the level of social actors interpretive schemas, per-ceptions of identity, and practices. More particularly, research into boundary workaddresses two interrelated analytical issues: first, how visible and prominent the bound-aries are, or, alternatively, the extent to which they are fuzzy and hidden; second, the waysin which boundaries are maintained, concealed, crossed, and challenged (Lamont andMolnar 2002).

Schools are one of the main sites of ethnic boundary work in everyday life. Theliterature in this regard has three main focuses. The first comprises studies of magnetschools that advance a social and political ideology of ethnic identity, such as bilingualschools in which conflictual ethnonational groups encounter one another (see, for instance,Donnelly and Hughes 2006; Bekerman 2009) or schools that practice radical pedagogywhere the ethnic identity of weaker groups is intentionally intensified (see, for example,Markovich 2007). These studies concentrate on pedagogical outcomes in relation to anideology that explicitly aims at changing social boundaries. The second focal pointincludes studies that view schools as an arena for the reproduction of social powerrelations. These studies try to expose the overt and latent structural mechanisms in schoolsthat reinforce and reproduce ethnic hierarchies (Shoshana 2006; Carlie 2011). The thirdfocus comprises microcultural studies that emphasize the agency of actors in schools(pupils, teachers, parents) and the way in which they interpret, produce, and demarcateethnic boundaries (McIntyre 1997; Carter 2006; Warikoo 2007; Reay et al. 2007; Zembylas2010). Some studies explore the varied responses of the students of the marginal ethno-class groups in the face of white hegemonic identity (Carter 2006), while others describethe boundary work of the dominant group in an attempt to deconstruct the taken-for-granted nature of the white ethnicity as a hegemonic identity (McIntyre 1997; Reay et al.2007).

Looking beyond these articles different theoretical starting points, what most of themhave in common is an emphasis on analyses of the practices that distinguish betweenethnic groups in the school. Apart from studies of white ethnicity, which show how itshegemony serves to make its ethnic boundaries transparent, the literature pays hardly anyregard to practices that conceal or neutralize ethnic boundaries and the mutual relationsbetween those practices and practices of distinction. In this article we uncover the prac-tices that enact ethnic boundaries, either directly, by marking the boundaries and thepower relations behind them, or by masking them and neutralizing their political aspect.We argue that these practices entail one another, in that neutralization is a response todemarcation and vice versa. These dynamics can be seen in terms of processes of updatingand tuning the power relations within the school. Who has an interest in marking out theboundaries, and who would rather conceal them? How are they neutralized or high-lighted? What is the social meaning of acts of demarcation or screening? These questionsmust be answered in the context of the social composition of the schools pupils and itsideology.

The Case Study: An Integrative School in the Israeli Context

This article focuses on a high school with an explicit ideology of ethnic integration: theschool is in a lower-class neighborhood and incorporates two ethnic groups: Mizrahim

Tabib-Calif and Lomsky-Feder Demarcating and Denying Ethnic Boundaries 23

(Jews from Islamic countries in Asia and North Africa), who are from the neighborhood,and Ashkenazim (Jews from Europe and North America), upper-middle-class childrenfrom adjoining neighborhoods.

In Jewish Israeli society, the discourse about ethnicity is primarily directed at thedemarcation between Mizrahim, who are identified with the Orient, and Ashkenazim,who are identified with the West.1 This cultural distinction between east and west isdeeply historically entrenched in Zionist ideology.2 The image and meaning of the newJew (as opposed to the old, Diasporic Jew) was constructed by Orientalist discourse,which has clearly defined immigrants with European rootsAshkenazimas bearers ofenlightened culture. Thus, the Mizrahim, as Jews, were included within the collectiveboundaries of Jewish Israeli society, but as nonwestern they were regarded as a primi-tive ethnic group and excluded from the dominant culture.3 Jewish Israeli society createdan ethnic hierarchy with the Mizrahim located at its bottom (Shenhav 2003). These ethnicpower relations can be seen in different areas of life (education, employment, the army,accommodation, and so on) and are directly related to class hierarchies. These gaps persistamong second- and third-generation immigrants (Cohen et al. 2007).

According to Mizrachi and others, despite their salience, ethnic differences are deniedby most social actors, regardless of their own ethnicity (Mizrachi 2006; Mizrachi andHerzog 2012). While this silence is occasionally broken and the ethnic issue comes todominate public discourse, the forces of denial remain more powerful because ethnicdifferences threaten the Zionist project. Specifically, ethnic identities undermine andcompete with the imagined Israeli identity that is shared by all Jewish groups.4 Mizrachicalls this gap between the centrality of the ethnic issue and its denial the paradox ofethnicity in Israel.

This is the social context in which the Emek Yovel School (the name has beenchanged)the school at the center of this articleoperates. The Emek Hayovel School wasfounded in 1981 based on the ideology of the Israeli Labor Movement. The school islocated in Jerusalem, in a neighborhood that is labeled as deprived and that is mostlypopulated by lower-class Mizrahim. Pupils from the local neighborhood study at theschool from grades 1 to 12, together with mostly Ashkenazi pupils from privileged neigh-borhoods all over Jerusalem. The schools founders sought to implement the idea of socialintegration by establishing a partnership with the residents of the neighborhood. Theunique idea behind the school was formulated by a number of bodies, including theEducators Movement, principals of state schools in Jerusalem, and teachers who wantedto effect a change of values in the education system. The political upheaval of 1977, whenthe labor movement lost control of the government for the first time since the establish-ment of the state, instigated a process of ideological self-reflection in general, including adiscussion of issues in education and how to bring the ideas and values of the labormovement into the school. The neighborhood, which at the time was part of a revitalizationprogram, seemed the ideal setting for such a process of change. The school was ultimatelyestablished in partnership with the leaders of the Tents Movement, an anti-institutionalprotest movement set up in the neighborhood at the beginning of the 1980s that empha-sized the importance of education. The members of the movement harnessed the coop-eration of the neighborhoods residents in setting up a local school populated by pupilsfrom the vicinity along with pupils from outside the neighborhood (Horowitz 1990).

Over the years, the ideology of social integration has weakened due to broader changesin the Israeli education system, in particular decentralization and the introduction of freeenterprise and open market principles, which in turn have increased gaps between schoolsin terms of investment and achievement (Dahan 2009). These trends penetrate the schoolsdaily routines, and the ethnic distinctions that exist in Israeli society are clearly present inthe school as well. They are evident in the schools social networks, in its academic

24 Anthropology & Education Quarterly Volume 45, 2014

streaming, and at times in direct confrontations between groups of pupils. During the timethe research was conducted (20032006), the schools ideology underwent a deep trans-formation. It moved away from social integration and began to adopt instrumental valuesrelated to academic achievement.

Methodology

This study is based on extensive ethnographic work conducted by the first author overa period of two and a half years. We were particularly interested in the symbolic ethnicboundary work in the schools public spaces, and so our ethnographic gaze focused onclasses and public events. We found these sites (as opposed to recess periods, for instance)especially intriguing because that is where teachers and pupils encounter one another.

Specifically, the lessons that were observed were 11th and 12th grade classes, mostly inhistory and citizenship studies, based on the assumption that they would deal withquestions of identity and ethnic boundaries. The public events observed included Holo-caust Memorial Day ceremonies, ceremonies for Memorial Day for Israels Fallen Soldiers,school graduation ceremonies, art exhibitions, Human Rights Day, and others. Such eventsare particularly fertile sites for negotiations over identity and for explicit and publicboundary work, either through the transmission of overt ideological messages or oppo-sition to them.

Along with the observations, in-depth interviews were conducted with both teachersand pupils: 20 Mizrahi and Ashkenazi pupils, boys and girls, who studied in different yeargroups (and who graduated from the school in 2004, 2005, and 2006), and six teachers,including the school principal. In addition, group interviews were held with the pupils. Inboth individual and group interviews, questions were posed about the schools ideologi-cal model and its expression in everyday life, the ethno-class conflicts between pupils, andtheir ethnic identities.5

Symbolic Boundary Work in the School

Observations of the schools public spaces revealed intensive and ongoing concern withquestions of ethnic identity, an issue that occupied both teachers and pupils, and that wasgiven expression in a range of different ways. It is particularly interesting that alongsidepractices aimed at symbolically demarcating ethnic boundaries, equally intensive workwas invested in concealing and denying them. Further observations demonstrated thedivision that exists between those who demarcate boundaries and those who deny themwas not random: while the schools staff acknowledged the existence of differencebetween ethnic groups in the school, it was concerned with covering up the politicaldimension of these differences and neutralizing their meaning in the schools daily rou-tines. In contrast, and largely in response to those practices of concealment, the pupils triedover and again to demarcate the social meaning of ethnic boundaries and their conse-quences for everyday reality at the school. As we shall see below, these processes arecoexistent and sustain one another.

Depoliticizing the Ethnic Discourse

Neutralizing Ethnicity on the Schools Agenda. During the 2003 school year, a group ofMizrahi students decided to devote Human Rights Day to an examination of the idea ofintegration and ethno-class relations in the school. This was an exceptional initiative in thecontext of the schools culture. Not only was it unusual for Mizrahi pupils from the


neighborhood to initiate this kind of event, but the subject they brought up was substan-tively different from those traditionally dealt with by the school, where most HumanRights Days were concerned with the complex relations between Jews and Arabs.

A few days after the event, the pupils behind the Human Rights Day discussed theirinitiative:

David:6 We did the Human Rights Day because we wanted to change it from what it had been upuntil now.Shalom: [. . .] So we did the Human Rights Day. And it was good, wasnt it?

Up to this point they felt empowered by their initiative, though this feeling would notlast long. They went on to describe how, the very next day, the school put the issue ofnational conflict back at the top of the agenda:

Shalom: [Do you know] who they brought in the following day?David: Tzali Reshef!!! [a peace movement activist who was invited to talk about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict].S: Tzali Reshef. Do you get it? [. . .]S: Can you see what pieces of shit they are? [Interview, January 21, 2003]

From the students point of view, the school pushed the issue of ethnicity off theagenda. This led them to protest against the schools priorities in its extracurricularactivities, which focused mainly on the JewishArab conflict7 and questions of Jewishidentity,8 social issues that reinforce pupils common ground and not those that dividethem.

It should be noted that it was not only Mizrahi pupils who felt that the ethnic issue wasbeing pushed off the schools social agenda. Ashkenazi pupils also expressed similarcriticism. For instance, Daniella, a middle-class Ashkenazi 11th grade pupil at the schoolargued that the school avoided dealing with matters of ethnicity and inequality that weredirectly related to the pupils themselves:

The teachers of our grade decided that they want to hold a kind of seminar, and they asked thepupils to come and help think about the seminar so that wed be interested in it [. . .] and so wecame to the meeting [. . .] and we said: Lets do something about Ashkenazi/Mizrahi integration,lets talk about whats going on here. And they told us: OK, OK, thats a possibility but wethought wed talk about poverty in Israel, in other words something more general. One of theteachers got really excited about it and suggested we visit the city of Lod [a poor and peripheralcity] to see the poverty there. We thought it would be like going to the zoo, to go there, to see, tolook at the poverty, and come back. And its not as if we dont have poverty right on the schoolsdoorstep. So it annoyed us a bit. We really opposed it in that meeting, and we said: No, we thinkit should be something we feel closer to [. . .] And the weeks passed and they told us: OK, wellbe in touch. We ended up visiting Lod. [Interview, April 4, 2005]

The teaching staff tried to move the discussion away from home and into more distantterritories. Instead of dealing with poverty by looking closely at the school and its sur-roundings, they chose to relocate the discussion to Lod. The schools policy to bypass theethno-class issue was also evident in the principals speeches on festive occasions andevents. On such opportunities one would expect the principal to be engaged with theschools ideological uniquenessethno-class integrationyet this was not the case. Thiswas particularly notable in a speech delivered by the outgoing principal at the schoolsend-of-year party. In that speech, she took the opportunity to bid farewell not only to thegraduates but also to the entire school community and to summarize her years of activity:

It is precisely through pain, anxiety and embarrassment that we must see our humanity reborn.When so many people have given up hope, those who are able to and who want to think differently


must arise. We have to believe that it is possible to pull ourselves out of this situation. That we canand must return to being a more just society in which those who are capable show concern forthose who are less capable [. . .] When so many others are aggressive and violent, we seek otherways for dialogue [. . .] When so many people have ceased to believe in people, we will fight for ourhuman and humanist values [. . .] We shall spread the word of social caring, the messages of a justand humane society, for a future of peace between us and the neighbors around us. [Field notes,July 27, 2002]

This speech was delivered during the peak of the Second Intifada (2001).9 Given thisbackground, one can understand why the principal focused on the national mood, yet thecomplete absence of any reference to the schools ideology and its educational challengeswas puzzling. Extremely general and decontextualized statements about social justicehighlight the lack of reference to the schools values and its meanings. This was particu-larly notable in a speech delivered by the new principal, a year later, at a meeting with theparents of potential new pupils. During that meeting, the principal tried to persuade theparents as to why they should send their children to the school. As part of his marketingefforts, he emphasized the schools academic performance and the assistance provided tothose who need it. The schools unique ideologyethno-class integrationwas not men-tioned at all.

The absence of the schools ideology from the public sphere reflected the schoolsattempts to adapt to the neoliberal inclinations of the education system as a whole, as wellas being an expression of the staffs weariness from the politics of ethnicity and the senseof frustration surrounding the gap between the ideology of ethnic integration and every-day educational practices. Amnon, an Ashkenazi history teacher, reinforced this interpre-tation when, in interview, he expanded upon the obstacles preventing the realization of theschools ideology:

The school structurally defines itself from the outset in a contradictory way: a school in the spiritof the labor movement, with a normative, political leaning that puts it in a certain place, but thepopulation it faces isnt necessarily in that place. The school is problematic right from the start [. . .]the daily reality of Gonen is some kind of attempt at squaring the circle. [Interview, January 25,2005]

Amnon focused the difficulty of realizing the schools integrative ideology on the factthat the pupils from the neighborhood (lower-class Mizrahim) identity the labor move-ment with the oppressive Ashkenazi hegemony. Ethnic conflict is thus ever present,making it extremely difficult to perform his everyday pedagogical work.

Amit, an Ashkenazi history teacher, elaborated on this theme:

This is a school that makes a lot of declarations. I think its better to make declarations than not to,but its also one of the things that disappoints the pupils and some of the teachers. Today there areteachers here who are really cynical about it and say: If we werent judged by our declarationstheyd see that we are a thousand times better than other schools, but they always judge us inrelation to these awful declarations, so stop calling it anything and just remember that wereactually doing incredible work here. [Interview, March 16, 2004]

Amit saw the schools ideology as a burden that distracted from the schools success,constantly giving rise to a sense of dissatisfaction. The teachers displayed frustration andan inability to cope with the gap between ideology and praxis. They were tired of theethnic discourse and its accompanying sense of guilt. We argue that one of the ways ofresolving this is to minimize the presence of the ideology within the daily routines of theschool. The psychologization of ethnicity was another practice aimed at depoliticizing theschools social ideology.


The Psychologization of Ethnicity: The Personal Is Not Political. To demonstrate thepsychologization of ethnicity, we shall return to the Human Rights Day. The event wascomprised of two parts. In the first part, which lasted until the early afternoon, the pupilsheard lectures about the history of MizrahiAshkenazi relations since the establishment ofthe state from a critical point of view. The second part was followed by group discussionson the ethnic relations in the school itself. The discussion in one of the groups became veryemotionally loaded and controversial. In order to calm things down, the school principalasked the facilitators for permission to talk:

Id like to say two sentences about whats going on here from a slightly different perspective. Whenwe find ourselves in a situationwhich I think is very productiveof quite harsh differences ofopinion and we are expressing our real selves, we have to express our real self from a place thattalks about facts, from a place that describes reality, and from a place that respects other peoplesview of reality. [Field notes, December 10, 2002]

The principal said nothing about the content of the disagreement but rather talkedabout how to argue. He thus turned a sociopolitical debate into a psychological andpersonal discussion that focused on the real self and the need to manage ones emotions:

If we only stick to the emotional level, we wont ever be free to hear what the other person thinksor believes or sees, which will be from his point of view and from the facts that he wants toemphasize [. . .] What I propose is that you try to think about how to carry on with this discussionwithout the personal level overcoming the intellectual level, because the discussion could go inthat direction. [Field notes, December 10, 2002]

It could be argued that this was a laudable pedagogical effort to calm everyone down.At the same time, though, it neutralized any political debate about the validity of theethnic discourse in the school through the psychological discourse (Mizrachi 2004(. Thisdiscourse scientifically validated universal models of development and thus remainedblind to discourses of social justice and identity politics (Nolan 1998; Mizrachi et al. 2009).

This interpretation of the psychological discourse as neutralizing was underlined byYuval. Yuval is a history teacher, a Mizrahi man who had been born in the neighborhood.He perceives himself as socially mobile, though, and during the study he was workinghard on his Ph.D. thesis. Yuval was interviewed after the Human Rights Day event, andmade reference to the stormy proceedings:

Interviewer: You know, when I interviewed Odelia (a Mizrahi pupil) just after the Human RightsDay, she made some very serious statements about how she suffered as a result of the emotionaland contentious discussion, so I want to ask . . .(Yuval interrupts)Yuval: What kind of suffering, for example? Shes an adolescent [he is laughing], and we shouldremember that [. . .](Interviewer interrupts)I: She feels that she is always being pushed to the side [. . .]Y: She cried a lot there. A lot of energy came out. Sure, but its not just energy, like you think,conceptualized only in terms of class, gender . . . There was a lot of emotion there, a lot ofpsychological elements of an adolescent girl who doesnt really get on with the system and shechannels her energy into certain places . . . You want me to tell you some very prosaic things? ShallI tell you about her serious shortcomings in her studies? Her inability to get to class on time? Thatshes always late? [. . .] You know, the laziness of all the pupils at Gonen, and she often gave that. . . she interpreted it in an ideological way. [Interview, November 24, 2004]

This exchange clearly illustrates two distinct models of interpretation: first, that of theinterviewer, who represents the model of radical pedagogy and sees the pupil in terms ofher location in social power relations (ethnicity, class, gender); and second, that of theteacher, who interprets the pupils behavior through the developmental psychological


discourse, according to which adolescence is characterized by emotional turmoil, conflictswith ones surroundings, and doing stupid things. Based on the developmental dis-course, he neutralizes ethnic tension.

The neutralizing of ethnic tension by the psychological discourse is even clearer inYuvals attitude to another instance of conflict between groups that the interviewer pre-sented to him, an event in which Michal, an Ashkenazi pupil, went into her classroom oneday and found Death to Ashkenazim written on the board. Yuval said:

Yes, but it was a joke, it shouldnt be taken too seriously. [Interview, November 24, 2004]

At first he defines it as a youthful joke, part of the universal psychological image of thisstage of life. He then explicitly rejects a possible critical explanation that centers on thepolitical dimension:

No, you wont persuade me that this tension is about Mizrahim and Ashkenazim. Its not like thatanymore and you wont persuade me otherwise, no. No! Thats not the problem at Emek Hayovel. . . I dont buy it. I dont care if you are a woman, Ashkenazi, or Mizrahi. Sorry, but here Imcompletely modernist, Im totally humanist. I look at the subject as a subject. [Interview, November24, 2004]

Yuval refused to see the students actions as expression of an ethnic conflict in the school.The academization of the interethnic encounter is another way of dealing with thepoliticalethnic discourse. While psychologization is focused on emotions and detachesthem from their political context, academization neutralizes emotions and objectifiesthem.

The Academization of the Ethnic Discoursel. During the research period, some of the teach-ers were at various stages of their doctoral studies. Amits action research into the teach-ing of history at the school was particularly interesting in this regard. His researchfocused on how Mizrahi and Ashkenazi pupils interpret historical events from thehistory of the State of Israel, mainly events strongly related to the ethnic conflict, such asthe absorption of the Mizrahim in the early years of the state (during the 1950s). Someof the history lessons observed for this study were part of Amits research project. In oneof the classes for pupils in a stream with extra matriculation credits in history, the dis-cussion referred to the integration of new immigrants into the education system in the1950s.

In the lesson, the pupilsall of whom were Ashkenaziwere asked to discuss theintegration of immigrants in the education system in the 1950s. They were split into threegroups of three to four pupils, and each group was given a tape recorder. Amit went overthe instructions:

Each group will get two questions that touch on the question of homogenous education. The firstquestion is at the level of the state: Was integration essential to the state [referring to the integrationof new immigrants], or was it a political manipulation? The second question is at the individuallevel: Was it a process that helped the immigrants or discriminated against them? Each group hasgot 15 minutes to reach a consensus and write a position paper. Afterwards there will be a shortgroup summary, and then youll all write down your own individual opinions. Please try to writeas intelligently as you can. [Field notes, February 24, 2004]

Amits instructions frame the discussion, demarcate it, and fashion it as analytical andintellectual. During the lesson, Amit moved between the pupils, helping them to under-stand and sharpen the questions, enforcing discipline when necessary, and interveningevery now and then after hearing a comment from one of the groups discussions. From


the side, the pupils appeared extremely active and involved in the discussion. They talkedabout immigrant absorption in theoretical and rational terms, and with a critical emphasis.For instance:

Yoav: There was oppression. They had to do social integration [. . .] there was manipulation by thegovernment.

Or,

Yonathan: The problem is that the immigrants rights were violated, you could say there wasdiscrimination [. . .] The main rights that were violated were the right to religious belief, totradition.

The discussion that developed was mostly about themthe locals and the immi-grants from a different historical time. There is no emotional turmoil at any point in thediscussion nor any personal involvement. They do not link past events to the present; inthis regard, Lenas comments are the exception that proves the rule:

Its so disgusting and patronizing [. . .] The Mizrahi population is very bitter, and thats whatmakes them so poorly motivated, which is part of the cycle of poverty and its really sad [. . .]Though its not related in any way, I want to compare it to the Russian immigration of the 1990s thatI was part of. The Mizrahi population received the Russians in exactly the same way that theAshkenazim received the Mizrahim in the 1950s . . .

Here, Lena tried to link the past with the present, but neither the teacher nor the otherpupils in her group responded to her challenge. The discussion did not continue in thisdirection but was rather cut off. Lena did not bring any personal experiences into thediscussion, even though she holds a radical and sensitive approach to the matter; herexperiences in no way translated into the here and now, neither at the immediate level ofthe school nor at the level of contemporary Israeli society.

In another class, which was conducted as a regular history lesson and at which therewere equal numbers of Mizrahim and Ashkenazim, the pupils were asked to write theirpersonal opinion about the mass immigration that accompanied the establishment of thestate. Here, Amit met with difficulties as the pupils insisted on asking lots of questions,making wisecracks, and interrupting: I dont know anything about it, I dontknow what to write; Tell me, how large is your sample?; Amit, I dont remember myID number; Amit, if I dont have a clue, should I just write what I think?; Whenweve finished writing can we go home?; If I only copied one question, should I onlyanswer one question?; and so forth. The disruptions were far more common than inother history lessons with the same teacher and were largely instigated by Mizrahipupils.

Unlike the obedient pupils from the previous lesson, in this instance there was a greatdeal of resistance to Amits instructions. This could be interpreted as pupils regularopposition to changes to their routine, but we could also see this response as an expressionof their opposition to the detachment between the historical events and the current ethniccontext in the school and in the Israeli society in general.

In contrast to the overall tendency in the school to drop the issue of ethnicity from theagenda, the framework of Amits research certainly places it at the center of classroomdiscussions, providing a significant channel for debate while at the same time shaping astructured, restrained, and controlled discussion (unlike the stormy arguments that brokeout during Human Rights Day, for instance). Moreover, it could be argued that neutral-izing the emotional aspect of the ethnic conflict by discussing it in an academic mannerand relocating it in a different historical context is an effective pedagogical practice for


dealing with troubling social questions. Indeed, an article published by this teacher andsome colleagues of his (Goldberg et al. 2007) found that the schools pupils are critical ofthe absorption policy that shaped Israels ethnic hierarchies and that they vocally resist theofficial story as presented in the textbooks. However, we argue that this critical stanceshould not be attributed to pedagogical processes at the school. Rather, we see it as aninseparable part of the pupils insistence not to take the question of ethnicity off theschools agenda. As we have seen, they did this through a range of practices and in anumber of sites.

The Politicization of the Ethnic Discourse

In response to the teachers and managements efforts to conceal issues of ethnicity atschool, students, mainly Mizrahim, were active and noticeable in carrying out ethnicboundary work.

Mizrahi Voices. In February 2003, a history lesson was cancelled because Prof. ZaliGurevitch (a poet and sociologist at the Hebrew University and the father of a graduate ofEmek Hayovel) had been invited to give a lecture on the poetry of Bialik (an Ashkenazipoet who is considered to be Israels national poet). Some of the Mizrahi pupils wereextremely opposed to the lecture taking place and protested angrily that they had nointention of coming to the auditorium. During the argument that broke out between thepupils and Yuval, the teacher (who forced them to attend the lecture), one of the pupilssaid: Its not enough that were always studying Bialik at this school, but now we have togo and hear a lecture about him. When they eventually agreed to go, they made theirattendance conditional: If its boring, we fully intend to get the hell out of there as quicklyas possible.

The sea of silence spits secrets, read Gurevitch from one of Bialiks poems, in amelodramatic tone, expressing every syllable with an Ashkenazi meter. The seriousnesswith which the poem was recited aroused a degree of ridicule among the Mizrahi pupils,as if the language was foreign to them. While the lecturer was reading, two of the Mizrahipupils got up from their seats and moved to sit next to Yuval in the front row as an act ofprovocation. Not one minute later, another Mizrahi pupil got up and left the hall. Tenminutes later, four more Mizrahi pupils left. Yuval did not sit silently by; he followed themout, and the ensuing shouting match could be heard from inside the hall. Gurevitch, whocould feel the tension in the class, stopped his lecture for a few moments, and thenapologetically said: I hope I didnt say anything that might have caused offense. Lateron, when two more pupils decided to leave the hall, Gurevitch asked, sounding somewhathurt: Am I really that boring? By the end of the lecture, about ten Mizrahi pupils had leftthe auditorium. The lecture went on as planned, but those who remained found it hard toignore what had happened. At the end of lecture, Yuval expressed strong opposition to thepupils behavior, refusing to accept any kind of explanation of this behavior in terms ofcultural alienation and ethnic resistance:

The problem with them is their backwardness; theyre unwilling to open a book. Show me one timewhen they opened a book outside of school. Theyre not prepared to do anything. [Field notes,January 18, 2004]

Despite Yuvals refusal to see this event within the context of the schools ethnictensions, the above event expresses, as we shall see, a more widespread opposition amongthe Mizrahi pupils to what they identify as Ashkenazi culture. In another class with Yuvalhe introduced them to the famous album by Pink Floyd, The Dark Side of the Moon, a


canonical text in global rock culture. There was notable restlessness during the lesson,mainly led by the Mizrahi pupils. They interrupted, chatted, laughed, and left the room.Then Sarit, a Mizrahi pupil, asked him:

Why dont you give us a lesson about Mizrahi music?

Yuval: I admit that I dont really know Mizrahi music. If you do, Ill be happy to put a class togetherwith you. [Field notes, March 9, 2004]

Sarit turned down Yuvals offer, interpreting it as an evasion strategy, and demonstra-tively left the classroom along with some other pupils. Through their different musicaltaste, she and her friends marked out symbolic boundaries that illustrate their distinctethnic identity and demanded that that identity be seen and acknowledged.

Symbolic boundary work was especially salient in the Mizrahi pupils attitude toHolocaust Memorial Day, which is identified with the Ashkenazi ethnicity and oftenperceived in the Israeli popular discourse as an Ashkenazi holiday. The opposition toHolocaust Memorial Day was notable among the radical core of Mizrahi pupils from theneighborhood. Not only did those pupils express themselves verbally, but they demon-stratively stayed away from the ceremonies. Shalom, Yossi, and David discussed thematter:

David: You wont see me at the ceremony at all. Its got nothing to do with anything, I just cantstand that day. I dont think we should commemorate them at all. Nothing. No, you wont see meat all. Not for the minutes silence, nothing. I dont feel connected to Holocaust Memorial Day.Yossi: So why do you feel connected to Memorial Day [for Israels fallen soldiers]?Shalom: You feel connected. You wont see me standing on Holocaust Day. You wont see me at theceremony at all. All these years, on purpose.Y: I dont understand why, explain why.S: On purpose. I dont feel connected to it, dont feel.Y: But why dont you? Youre Jewish, arent you?S: In my opinion, theyre not Jewish. Hows that for you?Y: Why arent they Jewish?S: In my opinion, theyre not Jewish. I dont count them as Jews.Interviewer: Who is them?S: All of the Ashkenazim. I dont count them. Dont count. They eat pig. What kind of Jews arethey? [Interview, January 21, 2003]

Shalom and David associated Holocaust Memorial Day with Ashkenazim alone. Theiralienation from and rejection toward Ashkenazim (Theyre not Jewish; They eat pig; Idont count them) led them to abstain from participating in the ceremony. In contrast toHolocaust Memorial Day, however, they did feel an affinity to Memorial Day for IsraelsFallen Soldiers. Nissim explains:

Holocaust Day doesnt do anything for me at all, certainly not like Memorial Day. Im connected tothis country. I was born here. Next year I hope to join a combat unit and serve the country and fightin her wars like my brother and my cousins . . . Thats my culture and my history. [Interview, May2, 2004]

Furthermore, they sometimes had to fight to be included in the ceremony. For instance,Yossi, a pupil from the neighborhood, waged a struggle to be allowed to sing a well-known Mizrahi song at a Memorial Day ceremony, which he explained in terms of hisdesire to make a Mizrahi voice heard. Memorial Day for Israels Fallen Soldiers accordswith the ethos of worthy citizenship, nationalism, and sacrifice for the country. Nissim andhis friends thus felt part of that ceremony and not alienated from it (see also Goodman andMizrachi 2008).


Make no mistake: not all of the Mizrahi pupils participated in these acts of resistance,and as well as pupils who promoted ethnic boundary work, there were Mizrahi pupilswho were indifferent to the whole issue. Shay, a Mizrahi boy from the neighborhood,explained why he sees discussion of ethnicity as irrelevant:

Everyone is friends with everyone else. People dont fight with each other here [. . .] 50 years agothere really was a difference [. . .] but today that difference has gone, its not there anymore.[Interview, June 1, 2004]

The Mizrahi identity at the school thus should not be seen as uniform and coherent.However, the voices of students who did demarcate their ethnic identity are extremelysignificant, and they include those of Ashkenazi pupils as well.

The Ashkenazim Also Have a Voice. The Ashkenazi ethnic voice was strongly raised at schoolgraduation ceremonies,10 which enabled, or even encouraged, a critical gaze throughhumor and parody. For example, the 2002 Graduates Day was organized by a group ofAshkenazi pupils and was given the slogan, Only at Givan Gonen, a derivative of thename of the popular Israeli television show, Only in Israel, which was broadcast in Israelbetween 1998 and 2003, and focused on ethnic conflict in Israel. It opened with a video clipof an Ashkenazi pupil sitting on a slide at a public park in the neighborhood, singing thefollowing words:

An integrated school only at Emek Hayovel

[. . .]

The principal doesnt careonly at Emek Hayovel

Someone got a bullet in their headonly at Emek Hayovel

Ashkenazim get beaten uponly at Emek Hayovel

This opening expressed a critique of the schools model of integration and the ethnicconflict, a theme that would intensify throughout the ceremony. The show was comprisedof skits that humorously and/or sarcastically portrayed the ethnic relations within theschool from the point of view of the Ashkenazi pupils. They depicted these relations asviolent and inverted the social power relations, presenting themselves as the victims of theMizrahim, the powerful group in the neighborhood and in the school. The pupils wereextremely critical of the staffs helplessness in dealing with these tensions. This criticalvoice closed the ceremony when a group of Ashkenazi pupils took to the stage dressed inIsraeli army uniforms offering their version of the song The Children of the Winter of73, a canonical military memorial song that is etched into the Israeli national conscious-ness. The yearning for peace that is a central theme in the original song was replaced by thepupils with a call for true integration at the school:

You promised education and integration, you promised equality, we got anarchy; you promised abudget, success; but its only illusions; you promised education; we are the children of Katamon,1984; we dont know what will happen at the school after we leave; war, probably; because we areleaving and you are staying with the same problems; theres no money, its dirty, theres violence,theres no sanity; and theres no chicken; and you are scared, teachers, pupils; yes, you, you arescared; because among you all there are two children who say there will be terror attacks; we arethe children of Katamon; and we are leaving this year; you are staying at this school; which thinksit is in the spirit of the labor movement; ah, ah, ah; the spirit of the labor movement.

The graduation ceremony did not have a happy ending, and the pupils left the schoolwith a great deal of criticism of its powerlessness to cope with its ethnic heterogeneity.


Criticism of the schools integration also came up in interviews with Ashkenazi pupils.Yahli, the son of academics, came to the school in seventh grade because of its ideologicaloutlook. As a 12th grader, he was able to point to the reasons behind his disappointment:

Basically, its too achievement oriented and too little value oriented, as its meant to be [. . .] Its lessideological than it should be [. . .] It does not think of itself as a regular school, but now it is firstand foremost a regular school, where its all studying, grades, and thats [. . .] I think its lost whatit was founded for. [Interview, May 2, 2004]

Tamir spoke in similar terms:

It was meant to be better than other schools in terms of values [. . .] My parents sent me herebecause of its humanist values, values of social justice, what they call the spirit of the labormovement, more or less, values of socialist Zionism, but today I cant see these values [. . .] I dontthink they have any grounding. [Interview, June 11, 2003]

Michal, an Ashkenazi 12th grader, tried to analyze the situation:

I think that theres really a situation of a blurred identity at the school. I dont know if its the ideaof integration itself, or because of how its implemented, that is so problematic. It could very wellbe that the whole idea is impossible to implement. Because theres a situation where youve got twocompletely different cultures which meet and they are different. And if here they try to blur thatdifference, then it actually harms what each side brings with it [. . .] The way the school sees it,theres no divided groups, and if everyone sits together and has a picnic and eats lunch together,then weve succeeded, the integration succeeded. But it doesnt work like that. Its much morecomplex than that and the school should be a place that develops it. [Interview, June 2, 2004]

Michal attributes the ethnic tensions in the school to the gap between the schoolsdeclarations regarding its policy of integration, and the everyday, practical level at whichit is experienced by the pupils. Just like the Mizrahi pupils, Michal and her friends wereaware of the ethnic tensions and the differences between the groups. They were notinterested in neutralizing these tensions; rather, they demanded that they be heeded andresolved. They had no issue with integration as a pedagogical ideology; quite the reverse.They came to the school because of those values and were disappointed to find themlacking.

Discussion

In this article we have shown that intensive symbolic boundary work around ethnicidentity is being carried out in the schools public spaces. Practices for demarcating ethnicboundaries can be found alongside practices aimed at neutralizing and denying thoseboundaries. These two practicesdemarcation and denialcannot be disentangled fromone another. Moreover, demarcation is largely a response to attempts to hide ethnicboundaries and vice versa. It is particularly interesting that there is a clear distinctionbetween those who wish to neutralize the boundaries and those who would demarcatethem: the staff denies ethnic boundaries, mainly by taking the issue of ethnicity off theschools agenda and positing competing discoursesthe psychological and theacademicthat neutralize the political component of the interethnic encounter. In con-trast, both Ashkenazi and Mizrahi pupils, in response to the schools strategy, repeatedlytry to draw attention to the ethnic boundaries and make the schools ideology of integra-tion relevant for everyday life in the school.

The staffs attempt to neutralize the political discourse and to repudiate the schoolsintegrative ideology can be understood first as the schools response to changes in the


Israeli education system, where neoliberal ideology has come to dominate in the last twodecades, and the principles of competition, success, and grades have marginalized itspedagogical social ideology (Dahan 2009). The difficulties in implementing social integra-tion, along with the schools efforts to adapt to market trends, have driven the staff to denythe ethnic boundary work that is going on within its walls.

While the first explanation of the schools policy relates to structural processes withinthe education system, a further, complementary explanation lies in the essence of theethnic discourse in Israeli society in general. The processes of denial among the schoolsmanagement resonate with Mizrachis (2006) argument about the paradox of ethnicity inIsrael: ethnic differences are salient yet often denied by most social actors, regardless oftheir own ethnicity. Efforts at denial are particularly notable in the context of schools, asMizrachi and his colleagues have shown in their studies of Israeli high schools (Goodmanand Mizrachi 2008; Mizrachi et al. 2009). They demonstrate that despite the existence ofdata pointing to clear ethno-class gaps in schools (tracking, grades, and achievements),both pupils and staff deny the existence of an ethnic division and even more strongly rejectthe possibility that social power relations might explain the phenomenon. Instead, theyput forward explanations to do with individual capital and personality traits. Thesestudies show that, even in integrative schools, the threat to a shared Israeli identity leadsto the silencing of ethnic boundary work within the school.

Going back to our school, the teaching staffs frustration in trying to implement anintegrative ideology and the difficulties of dealing with ethnic tensions within the schoolled them to distance themselves from this unique social ideology. They would rather beassessed according to the prevalent criteria of academic achievements, thereby aligningthemselves with the broader processes of denial characteristic of the education system andsociety as a whole.

The interesting question here is why the pupils in the school did not go along with thisgeneral trend but rather refused to deny the existence of ethnic boundaries. Further, theywere actively engaged with demarcating these boundaries in various public spaces in theschool. It seems that the answer lies in the unique structure of the school, which wasestablished for two very different student groups: lower-class Mizrahi pupils from theneighborhood and middle-class Ashkenazi pupils from outside the neighborhood. Thisethno-class polarity highlights the gaps and differences and makes it harder to concealthem in everyday life.

This structure did not come about by chance but rather was intended to realize theschools foundational ideology, which saw integration as its main aim.

This ideology has been eroded over the years, and the social structure of the schoolspupils has become less binary. However, the schools (structural and ideological) distinc-tiveness is etched into its consciousness, and the presence of ethnicity is felt in a range ofways and with varying intensity (see also Bekerman 2009, regarding ethnonational iden-tities at bilingual schools). Moreover, the gap that has emerged over the years between theschools intended ideology and the denial of the issue of ethnicity by the schools staffcreates disquiet and gives rise to critical voices that keep the issue of ethnicity center stageand enable everyday boundary work.

While the Mizrahi pupils seek visibility and acknowledgment, the Ashkenazi pupils areno longer able to remain transparent (Sasson-Levy 2008). They refuse to play the role of thepowerful group imposed on them by the Mizrahi pupils, and they blur the dichotomybetween strong and weak, between victim and victimizer within the school. Putting asidethe various motives and interests of each ethnic group, what the pupils from the differentgroups have in common is that they are all concerned with demarcating ethnic boundaries.They demand that the school act in the spirit of its declared values, especially in light of thestaffs efforts at denying the existence of ethnic tensions and their political meaning.


In sum, the different actors at the school carry out their boundary work in relation tothe schools unique ideology of ethnic integration, which they wish to change and redefineso as to narrow the gap between ideology and reality. These tuning processes take placesimultaneously through the demarcation and repudiation of ethnic boundaries.

Yosepha Tabib-Calif is a Ph.D. student of Sociology of Education at the Hebrew Univer-sity of Jerusalem ([email protected]).Edna Lomsky-Feder is professor of Sociology of Education at the Hebrew University ofJerusalem ([email protected]).

Notes

1. It should be noted that over the years the ethnic map in Israel has become more complexfollowing waves of immigration from Ethiopia and the former Soviet Union.

2. For more on the ethnic power relations in Zionist ideology see: Kazzum 1999; Shohat 2001;Shenhav 2003.

3. The Mizrahim are Jews from different cultural communities. However, the processes of unifi-cation in the Israeli ethnic discourse produced an inclusive category that blurred the differencesbetween groups. Identical processes took place in relation to Ashkenazi groups as well.

4. This is because Zionism as a national project sought to construct a national identity that wouldunite all Jews from across the Jewish Diaspora and that would stand up to the national demands ofthe Arabs.

5. More emphasis was placed on how these dimensions were enacted in the schools publicspaces and less on social relations (such as friendships or romantic relationships) in privatespheres.

6. All names have been changed.7. For instance: Arabic and Hebrew studies together with children from Abu Ghosha joint

study program for eighth graders who learn language and culture together: pupils teaching pupils;joint trips with children from the Arab village of Beit Safafa to France and Switzerland in order tomeet youth from overseas; Children of Peace, a joint program for tenth graders and children froma school in east Jerusalem; and more.

8. For instance: a multidisciplinary study program of the weekly Torah portion for ninth gradersincluding sources from the weekly Torah portion as well as historical, religious, philosophical,literary, and current affairs sources that are relevant to the pupils everyday lives; a Bar Mitzvahprogram led by Midreseht Oranim, and others.

9. The Second Intifada was a Palestinian uprising in which suicide attacks with a large number ofJewish Israeli victims were carried out. Jerusalem was a focal point of these attacks.

10. Graduates Day events are part of the tradition of graduation ceremonies for 12th graders at theschool. The event take place close to the graduation ceremony, mainly before it, and its main aim isto enable release as well as to allow the pupils to reminisce about their experiences from their yearsat the school.

References

Barth, Fredrik1969 Introduction. In Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Culture Differ-

ence. Fredrik Barth, ed. Pp. 938. London: Allan and Unwin.Bekerman, Zvi

2009 Identity vs. Peace: Identity Wins. Harvard Educational Review 79(1):7483.Carlie, Anna

2011 An Ethnography of Permanent Exclusion from School: Revealing and Untangling theThreads of Institutionalized Racism. Race, Ethnicity and Education 15(2):175194.

Carter, L. Prudence2006 Straddling Boundaries: Identity, Culture, and School. Sociology of Education 79(4):304328.

Cohen, Yinon, Yitchak Haberfeld, and Tali Kristal2007 Ethnicity and Mixed Ethnicity: Educational Gaps among Israeli-Born Jews. Ethnic and Racial

Studies 30(5):896917.


Dahan, Yossi2009 Introduction. Alpayim 34:1118 (in Hebrew).

Donnelly, Caitlin, and Joanne Hughes2006 Contact, Culture and Context: Evidence from Mixed Faith School in Northern Ireland and

Israel. Comparative Education 42(4):493516.Goldberg, Tzafrir, Dan Porat, and B. Baruch Schwarz

2007 Between Official Narrative and Counter-Narrative: Students Narrative of the Great Aliaduring the Early Years of the State of Israel. Magamot 44(4):609635. (In Hebrew).

Goodman, Yehuda, and Nissim Mizrachi2008 The Holocaust Does Not Belong to European Jews Alone: The Different Use of Memory

Techniques in Israeli High Schools. American Ethnologist (35):95114.Horowitz, Ruth Tamar

1990 Between Neighborhood Community and Ideological Community: The Establishment andInstitutionalization of Givat Gonen High School in the Spirit of the Labor Movement. Jerusa-lem: Henrietta Szold Institute.

Kazzum, Aziza1999 Western Culture, Stigma and Social Closure; The Origins of Ethnic Inequality among Jews in

Israel. Israeli SociologyA Journal for the Study of Society in Israel 2:358428 (in Hebrew).Lamont, Michele, and Virag Molnar

2002 The Study of Boundaries in Social Science. Annual Review of Sociology 28:167195.Markovich, Dalya

2007 Ethnicity, Education and Identity: The Case of the Kedma School, an Academic High Schoolin the Community. Ph.D. dissertation, Hebrew University of Jerusalem (in Hebrew).

McIntyre, Alice1997 Making Meaning of Whiteness: Exploring Racial Identities with White Teachers. Albany:

SUNY Press.Mizrachi, Nissim

2004 From Badness to Sickness: The Role of Ethnopsychology in Shaping Ethnic Hierarchies inIsrael. Social Identities 10(2):219243.

2006 Who Is Afraid of Mizrahiness? Lecture given at a New Israel Fund conference at Tel AvivUniversity (in Hebrew), August.

Mizrachi, Nissim, Yehuda Goodman, and Yariv Feniger2009 I Dont Want to See It: Decoupling Ethnicity from Social Structure in Jewish Israeli High

Schools. Ethnic and Racial Studies 32(7):12031225.Mizrachi, Nissim, and Hanna Herzog

2012 Participatory Destigmatization Strategies among Palestinian Citizens, Ethiopian Jews andMizrahi Jews in Israel. Ethnic and Racial Studies 35(3):418435.

Nolan, James L., Jr.1998 The Therapeutic State: Justifying Government at Centurys End. New York: New York

University Press.Pachucki, A. Mark, Sabrina Pendergrass, and Michele Lamont

2007 Boundary Processes: Recent Theoretical Developments and New Contributions. Poetics 35:331351.

Reay, Diana, Sumi Hollingworth, Katya Williams, Gill Crozier, Fiona Jamieson, David James, andPhoebe Beedell

2007 A Darker Shade of Pale? Whiteness, the Middle Classes and Multi-Ethnic Inner CitySchooling. Sociology 41(6):10411060.

Sasson-Levy, Orna2008 But I Dont Want an Ethnic Identity: Social Boundaries and Their Erasure in Contemporary

Discourses of Ashkenaziness. Theory and Criticism 33:101129 (in Hebrew).Shenhav, Yehuda

2003 The Arab-Jews: Nationalism, Religion and Ethnicity. Tel-Aviv: Am Oved Press (in Hebrew).Shohat, Ella

2001 Forbidden ReminiscencesA Collection of Essays. Tel-Aviv: Kedem Publishing (inHebrew).

Shoshana, Avi2006 Invention of a New Social Category: Special-Care Gifted Pupils. Theory and Criticism

29:125147. (in Hebrew)Warikoo, K. Natasha

2007 Racial Authenticity among Second Generation Youth in Multiethnic New York and London.Poetics 35:388408.


Wimmer, Andreas2008 The Making and Unmaking of Ethnic Boundaries: A Multilevel Process Theory. American

Journal of Sociology 113(4):9701022.Zembylas, Michalinos

2010 Racialization/Ethnicization of School Emotional Spaces: The Politics of Resentment. Race,Ethnicity & Education 13(2):253270.


Tabib-Calif Et Al-2014-Anthropology & Education Quarterly

Documents

Transcript of Tabib-Calif Et Al-2014-Anthropology & Education Quarterly