Just back from teaching a three-week, three-credit course at a women’s university in Bahrain, I am reflecting on my past experiences in the country prior to the Arab uprising and presently. I was fortunate to receive a Fulbright Specialist grant through the U.S State Department to fund this experience.* Though I have been to the country only four times, I witnessed some stark differences between this trip and my previous visits. I was not able to go to Bahrain in 2011, but I had been there in 2009 and 2010.
In 2010, the last time I taught my course, I had no idea which students in my class were Shia or Sunni. Some of the young women chose to cover with an abaya or a hijab, while others did not, and that was the only difference I saw. This time, it was disturbingly obvious. There was no difference in their appearance or speech or how they treated me as the professor, but the difference was clearly how students interacted (or did not interact) with one another.
At the beginning of the course, I thought it was mere friendships or “cliques” that separated students in the classroom. As an American professor, I have seen this happen many times with U.S. students—people who know one another typically sit together. However, my Arab students’ soft protests to mixed-student group work was more pronounced than is typical in my American classroom.
Since half my students were from Bahrain and the other half from Saudi Arabia, I thought perhaps friendships were developed along country lines, however that hypothesis proved false as well. A few days into the course, it became apparent to me why students were sitting on different sides of the room. The Shia women were sitting on one side of the room and the Sunni women were sitting on the other. This type of separation did not occur in my classroom two years ago—or at least it was not apparent to me.
As part of our class discussion on leadership, we spoke about race, class, and gender and the implications for society. Being an “outsider,” I asked students about their understanding of what happened during the uprising in Bahrain, and how it continued to the present day. While none of the students wanted to discuss it openly in the classroom, separately, each group shared its interpretation. The gross generalizations that were deemed “fact” were surprising. When I challenged the young women on their assumptions by saying: “do you really believe that the other students in THIS class would do that?” they were not sure how to respond.
The course I teach goes beyond the typical college classroom. I try to foster interaction after class by inviting students to have dinner with me, going to the theater or to the mall, for example. By interacting with such frequency, we learn a lot more about each other’s cultures than we would if we were only talking in the classroom. Because I wanted all of the students to interact with me, it forced the students to come together in a way in which they were not accustomed to in the classroom. I was eager to know each of them and the students were curious to know more about me—an American woman.
What I found remarkable was that in the last week of the course, two different Bahraini students invited our entire class to their homes for dinner. Though only one dinner was able to accommodate all of us in the course, it was such a positive and heartfelt move on the part of the students to both host and attend the event, that I was overwhelmed. Having students, who sat on opposite sides of the classroom, come together and share a meal was more important to me than any other lesson on mutual understanding that I could teach in a course.
I continue to wonder whether negotiations between Bahraini leaders and the opposition would be able to move forward. What has occurred to me is that the larger talks between leaders may be less important on the path to common ground than the discussions between individuals. Person to person diplomacy, where one individual listens with care and concern to another individual, could have more impact. I believe this type of interaction reflects the Fulbright mission. I also think this type of followership, at a grass-roots level of negotiation, may be more beneficial than waiting for the decree of a leader in a position of power to potentially solve the problems.
Dr. Lisa DeFrank-Cole is the director of the Leadership Studies Program and a Clinical Assistant Professor at West Virginia University.
* The reflections in this article are mine alone and do not reflect the position of the Fulbright Commission in any way.
In 2010, the last time I taught my course, I had no idea which students in my class were Shia or Sunni. Some of the young women chose to cover with an abaya or a hijab, while others did not, and that was the only difference I saw. This time, it was disturbingly obvious. There was no difference in their appearance or speech or how they treated me as the professor, but the difference was clearly how students interacted (or did not interact) with one another.
At the beginning of the course, I thought it was mere friendships or “cliques” that separated students in the classroom. As an American professor, I have seen this happen many times with U.S. students—people who know one another typically sit together. However, my Arab students’ soft protests to mixed-student group work was more pronounced than is typical in my American classroom.
Since half my students were from Bahrain and the other half from Saudi Arabia, I thought perhaps friendships were developed along country lines, however that hypothesis proved false as well. A few days into the course, it became apparent to me why students were sitting on different sides of the room. The Shia women were sitting on one side of the room and the Sunni women were sitting on the other. This type of separation did not occur in my classroom two years ago—or at least it was not apparent to me.
As part of our class discussion on leadership, we spoke about race, class, and gender and the implications for society. Being an “outsider,” I asked students about their understanding of what happened during the uprising in Bahrain, and how it continued to the present day. While none of the students wanted to discuss it openly in the classroom, separately, each group shared its interpretation. The gross generalizations that were deemed “fact” were surprising. When I challenged the young women on their assumptions by saying: “do you really believe that the other students in THIS class would do that?” they were not sure how to respond.
The course I teach goes beyond the typical college classroom. I try to foster interaction after class by inviting students to have dinner with me, going to the theater or to the mall, for example. By interacting with such frequency, we learn a lot more about each other’s cultures than we would if we were only talking in the classroom. Because I wanted all of the students to interact with me, it forced the students to come together in a way in which they were not accustomed to in the classroom. I was eager to know each of them and the students were curious to know more about me—an American woman.
What I found remarkable was that in the last week of the course, two different Bahraini students invited our entire class to their homes for dinner. Though only one dinner was able to accommodate all of us in the course, it was such a positive and heartfelt move on the part of the students to both host and attend the event, that I was overwhelmed. Having students, who sat on opposite sides of the classroom, come together and share a meal was more important to me than any other lesson on mutual understanding that I could teach in a course.
I continue to wonder whether negotiations between Bahraini leaders and the opposition would be able to move forward. What has occurred to me is that the larger talks between leaders may be less important on the path to common ground than the discussions between individuals. Person to person diplomacy, where one individual listens with care and concern to another individual, could have more impact. I believe this type of interaction reflects the Fulbright mission. I also think this type of followership, at a grass-roots level of negotiation, may be more beneficial than waiting for the decree of a leader in a position of power to potentially solve the problems.
Dr. Lisa DeFrank-Cole is the director of the Leadership Studies Program and a Clinical Assistant Professor at West Virginia University.
* The reflections in this article are mine alone and do not reflect the position of the Fulbright Commission in any way.
on this article