From Pity to Compassion: The Ethics of Careand Human Rights Education
Yuka Kitayama and Yoriko HashizakiThis paper explores learning approaches for human rights education focusing on the ethics of care. Human rights education is primarily aimed at understanding principles of human rights as a core
to support democracy, and to provide a basis to societies that promote justice and peace in the world (Osler & Starkey, 1999). In human rights education, it is vital to understand human rights in the context of politics andeveryday realities, that might be different from the ideals of human rights,
and to explore human rights as a tool for change and transformation (Osler& Starkey, 2010). Hence, human rights education may involve not only an
endorsement of human rights principles, but also emotional engagements
such as imagination, empathy, and support to encourage students to commit to human rights issues.
With regard to emotional engagements, this paper argues that pity andcompassion are different sentiments. Drawing on Nel Noddings’ conceptionof the ethics of care, it discusses theories and practices of compassionate
learning of human rights education which would provide more inclusive approaches for social justice than the liberal theories of justice (Okano, 2016).
It examines a case study of human rights education at a junior secondary
school in Japan which aims to promote caring attitude of students and encourage them to learn from others’ struggles by taking their perspectives. It
investigates the care approaches for human rights education which connect
stories of particular individuals to the universality of human rights, and argue how they foster a sense of solidarity with common humanity.
Emotional Terrain of Human Rights Education
Human Rights Education in Japan
Human rights education in Japan has been influenced significantly by
Dowa education, which has been implemented since the 1950s especiallyin western Japan. It has theories and practices that overlap with human
269

270

H U M A N R I G H T S E D U C AT I O N I N A S I A - PA C I F I C

rights education and multicultural education, and has been one of the mostinfluential educational initiatives for social justice in Japanese education(Hirasawa, 2009). It addresses the inequality issues faced by Burakuminchildren, who are believed to be descendants of former outcast communities, face and aims to empower them and combat discrimination against
Burakumin. Dowa education tends to emphasize moral values, building the students’ self-esteem, and tackling interpersonal discrimination.
Consequently, relational and emotional dimensions such as “kindness” and“sympathy” have been placed in the center of learning. Since human rights
education in Japan developed in close relationship with Dowa education,
human rights education also tends to focus on interpersonal relationships
and emphasizes emotional aspects rather than legal and political aspectsof human rights (Ikuta, 2007). Nevertheless, Se and Karatsu (2004) argues
that consideration of personal relationships and the fostering of empathy
are commonly stressed both in school and family education, and humanrights education can be implemented more effectively by focusing on therelational and emotional dimensions because such approaches are more familiar for pupils educated in Japanese society. Akuzawa (2002), however,criticizes this emotion-centered approach of human rights education as it
often neglects concrete legal rights underpinned by the Constitution and/orinternational human rights instruments. Furthermore, Ikuta (2007) points
out that Japanese human rights education is typically depoliticized by emphasizing the moral dimension, tends to overlook legal conceptions of rights
and confuses equity with egalitarianism.
Empathy and Learning from Others’ Perspectives
Feelings of concern about others are not constrained by borders.
Empathy in human rights education therefore implies a cosmopolitan vision
as its source (Osler & Starkey, 2005). Appiah (2005) stresses the importanceof imagination and conversation in his arguments about cosmopolitanism
because they bring “imaginative engagement” (page 85). This “conversation”
does not only mean an exchange of languages, but indicates a “metaphor forengagement with the experience and the ideas of others” (ibid., 85) acrossboundaries, such as national or religious borders of people. He argues that
cosmopolitanism can be realized not by sharing a whole set of values orreasoning of others, but by a capacity to imagine others who have different

From Pity to Compassion: The Ethics of Care and Human Rights Education

271

ways of living, values and reasoning. He also notes that it does not require
people to have a consensus particularly about their values.
Barton and Levstik (2004) define historical empathy as an act of carewhich involves emotions and a sense of civil and social justice. They suggest
perspective-taking as a critical skill that promotes the students’ understanding about historical facts from the minorities’ viewpoints and helps them toimagine their experiences and feelings. In his study on human rights education though indigenous history at two Swedish secondary schools, Nygren(2016) illustrates that students described different historical perspectives
through critical referencing and corroborating in their writing assignments,
and connected such injustice in the past to the conceptions of human rights
in the present. Students “care about the past, care that people were treatedunjustly, care for people suffering and care to connect the past to the present
and the future” in this learning process (Nygren 2016, 130).
In contrast, a study by Røthing and Svendsen (2011) about the Social
Studies curriculum in Norway suggests how human rights education could
fail to connect particularity and universality of human rights. It reveals thathuman rights issues, such as gender inequality, are commonly portrayed asproblems in other countries that are typically developing countries, and it
may generate radicalized stereotypes and exclusions. It indicates that learning about sufferings of distant others may end up having a sense of superiority and pity without taking the other’s perspectives that could provide aconnection between the particularity of their human rights struggles anduniversal conception of human rights. In addition, an empirical study by
Keskin (2014) examines the different elements of empathy as stages of theempathetic learning process. By scrutinizing the data collected from activities focusing on empathy, he highlights elements such as perspective-taking,feeling, understanding, acting, meaning, which are often considered as substitutions for empathy, but are not independent from empathy and forms
the stages of empathetic learning process.
Although there are criticisms against human rights education in Japanfor its emotion-focus approaches and disregard of the legal and political aspects (Akuzawa, 2002; Ikuta, 2007), the pedagogical effects of emotional
approaches of human rights education have not been investigated much. Inorder to examine it from a pedagogical perspective, we examine the learningof human rights and democratic citizenship focusing on Nodding’s conception of the Ethics of Care.

272

H U M A N R I G H T S E D U C AT I O N I N A S I A - PA C I F I CConceptual Framework
In order to conceptualize human rights education focusing on the ethics ofcare, we start by exploring different forms of empathy drawing from Hannah
Arendt’s discussion about pity and compassion. Then we scrutinize the conception of care as an approach for human rights education, followed by an
examination of the Council of Europe’s empathy model for a key competence for democratic culture.
Pity, Compassion and Solidarity
Arendt (1963) argues about empathy by distinguishing pity and compassion as sentiments that both occur with a sense of co-suffering with reallife struggles of others. She problematizes pity as a sentiment which generalizes suffering beings to an abstract image. In her analysis of the French
Revolution, pity comes from compassion for the suffering masses rather
than suffering individuals, and consequently it generalizes others’ sufferingsand eliminates its individuality and particularity. In contrast, compassion
occurs in a face-to-face situation with particular individuals who are suffering. She notes that this particularity of individuals and the direct connection
with them do not leave a space for generalization, and this co-suffering withstruggles of particular individuals or groups brings a sense of solidarity tostudents despite the physical distance between them.
Compassion may help students understand the sufferings of others;
however, Arendt warns that because of its nature compassion may abolishthe psychological distance between oneself and a suffering individual, andthis close relation in the private sphere would disconnect them from thepublic realm. In other words, an experience of co-suffering with a particular
individual makes the experience and situation too special, and prevents the
person from locating own suffering to a wider context. Instead, she emphasizes the importance of a sense of solidarity which is triggered by another’s
struggle. Mediated by concerns for the world, a sense of solidarity becomesa reality through common interests among people, not because of the lifeof a particular individual. Nevertheless, instead of rejecting the potentialof compassion, a Japanese political philosopher Saito (2010) stresses theimportance of exploring how compassion towards individuals can be connected to a shared interest which brings a sense of solidarity to the wholehumankind.

From Pity to Compassion: The Ethics of Care and Human Rights Education

273

The Ethics of Care
According to Noddings (2002) a concept of care is a moral attitude anda basic element in human life. She places human relationships in the centerof the ethics of care because “human beings are born from and into relation;
it is our original condition” (Noddings, 2010, 390). She emphasizes face-toface encounter between the carer and the cared-for. If an act of care is given
without substantial personal contact, the carer may only have an abstract
knowledge about the cared-for and it would prevent them from recognizing
the cared-for as unique individuals. She illustrates three elements in a caring
encounter:
1. A cares for B – that is, A’s consciousness is characterized by attention and motivational displacement,
2. A performs some act in accordance with (1), and
3. B recognizes that A cares for B.
(Noddings, 2002, 19)
In a caring relationship, a carer listens to the cared-for attentively.
Noddings stresses that this attention is receptive, in other words, the carer
puts aside her/his “own values and projects, and tries to understand the expressed needs of the cared-for” (Noddings, 2010, 391). Therefore, a carer
does not judge or attempt to apply her/his own values on others, or accept
their values as a whole. So, there is no “right” value in the ethics of care,and it does not reject or exclude people who have very different values thatcarers do not agree with. She also mentions the differences between rights
and needs of the cared-for. Needs are claimed by particular individuals andtherefore they are not necessarily applicable to other people, while rights
have more universal nature.
She distinguishes between caring-for and caring-about. Caring-for indicates to a face-to face encounter between one person who cares directly
another, while caring-about implies more general acts, such as being concerned about children in poverty in a developing country and wanting to
do something, such as donation (Noddings, 1984). Although caring-for isconsidered as a preferred form, she argues that caring about others whoare in a distant place may also provide the foundation for a sense of justiceand functions as an instrument in establishing and enhancing conditions inwhich caring-for flourishes (Noddings, 2002). Hence, caring and justice are274

H U M A N R I G H T S E D U C AT I O N I N A S I A - PA C I F I C

not considered as a dichotomy, but as interconnecting each other; caring
promotes a sense of justice, which is considered as more public conception.
In addition, Okano (2016) argues that the ethics of care is a more inclusive approach to social justice. From a feminist perspective, she notes thatliberal theories of justice “have failed to see injustice in the exploitation ofdomestic workers, who constitute the image of economically independent
male citizens that defines what kind of rights should be respected” (ibid.,93). In another words, it may have a connotation of the presupposed inequality based on asymmetric power relationship between the majority andthe marginalized minority (Okano, 2012). The ethics of care pays attention
to contexts and consequences of suffering people, rather than judicial andmoral judgment. Therefore, it is more responsive to different dimensions ofvulnerability and allows more sensitive approaches to learning from others’
struggles and perspectives.
Pedagogical Applications: Three dimensions of empathy
With more concrete conceptions of empathy being applied in educational settings, the Council of Europe (2016) proposes a conceptual model ofthe competences for democratic culture which consists of four dimensions:values, attitudes, skills, and knowledge and critical understanding. Amongthem, empathy is considered as one of the key skills “to understand andrelate to other people’s thoughts, beliefs and feelings, and to see the worldfrom other people’s perspectives” (Council of Europe, 2016, 13). Empathy
plays an important role in human rights education to decentralize one’s own
perspective and psychological framework and imagine “other people’s cultural affiliations, world views, beliefs, interests, emotions, wishes and needs”(ibid., 47). This model proposes three different dimensions of empathy:
1. Cognitive perspective-taking – the ability to apprehend and understand the perceptions, thoughts and beliefs of other people;
2. Affective perspective-taking – the ability to apprehend and understand emotions, feelings and needs of other people;
3. Sympathy, sometimes called “compassionate empathy” or “empathic concern” – the ability to experience feelings of compassion
and concern for other people based on the apprehension of their
cognitive or affective state or condition, or their material situationor circumstances.
(Council of Europe 2016, 47)

From Pity to Compassion: The Ethics of Care and Human Rights Education

275

As this model proposes, perspective-taking involves both cognitive andaffective/emotional aspects of learning that are considered as importantparts of critical learning. Also, re-imagining the world from another person’s
perspective may provide a counter-image for stereotypes and reduce prejudices (Galinsky, Moskowitz, & Insko, 2000; Todd, Bodenhausen, Richeson,
Galinsky, & Simpson, 2011). While (1) cognitive perspective-taking and (2)affective perspective-taking are about apprehending and understanding ofother’s perceptions and emotions, (3) sympathy – or “compassionate empathy” or “empathic concern” - involves the emotion of students based on
their apprehension of the cognitive or affective state or condition, or actual circumstances of the other people. Thus, “compassionate empathy” or”
empathic concern” proposed in the third dimension does not stand alone,
but it needs to be accompanied by cognitive perspective-taking or affective
perspective-taking because otherwise it could be a mere sense of pity whichlacks apprehension of the other’s perspectives, feelings or needs.
In order to examine how the ethics of care connects the concept of
empathy to practice, we discuss Arendt’s concepts of pity and compassion,
explore a form of human relationship based on the ethics of care approach,and examine how it can be applied to educational settings drawing fromthe conception of empathy by the Council of Europe. As Arendt points out,
compassion is distinguished from pity which is based on generalized imageof the other and fails to recognize individuality and particularity. In pedagogical context, the Council of Europe’s model illustrates different dimensions of empathy and highlights how perspective-taking brings cognitive
and affective learnings that connect to compassionate empathy. Humanrights education based on ethics of care emphasizes the students’ attentive
listening and acceptance of others’ sufferings from their (others) viewpoints,
and understanding and responding to their needs. In a caring relationship,
one does not judge them even if the values of a cared-for are too different
to agree with. A carer is encouraged not to reject such different values, but
continue a dialogue and a caring relationship with a cared-for, and search
for a common project. Caring does not stand for an essentialist world view,
instead it promotes questioning and reimagining the borders between acarer and a cared-for, such as boundaries made by culture, religion, ethnicity, politics or anything else. For example, in encountering people such as aworking class Muslim girl with veil who wishes to keep her religious practiceat her workplace or school, or a man from an oppressed ethnic group who

276

H U M A N R I G H T S E D U C AT I O N I N A S I A - PA C I F I C

is involved in the resistance movement against the government in his country, or a refugee from a minority religious group who escaped to Europe
with fake identification papers, an ethics of care approach helps students
to realize the complexity of the situation and identity of individuals, andencourages them to understand how a particular situation is perceived bya particular individual and be concerned and compassionate to her/him. In
the following section, we explore how this concept of empathetic learningwith caring encounter can be implemented in an educational setting, particularly in a school.
Case study: Cross-curricular learning of human rights basedon the ethics of care
The School and the Curriculum
In order to examine empathetic learning in human rights education,
this paper scrutinizes a case study from a junior secondary school in Japan.
It analyzes the Moral Education curriculum which is implemented as education for human rights and democratic citizenship. It also examines materials and students’ worksheets, observed lessons, and conducted a semistructured interview with the homeroom teacher. All students and teachers
mentioned in this paper are given pseudonyms to respect and maintain theirprivacy.
The school is a state-funded junior secondary school in Nara, in the
Kansai region of western Japan. Based on the school’s principle of building “a culture of peace in the mind of students,” human rights education
and Peace Education are embedded in a whole school curriculum and arelearned in different places and contexts. For example, Peace Education isconnected to the school trip to Okinawa where one fourth of local population perished in the Battle of Okinawa in 1945 and currently hosts more thanhalf of the US military bases in Japan.
The school has an experimental school status which allows teachers tomore flexibly introduce special initiatives alongside the national Course of
Study, the national teaching guidelines for primary and junior secondary
schools. We present a case study of Moral Education developed as a crosscurricular scheme by a teacher, Mr Ogawa (not his real name). He mainly
teaches Social Studies, which covers History, Geography and Civics, butalso in charge of planning the overarching three-year curriculum in which

From Pity to Compassion: The Ethics of Care and Human Rights Education

277

Moral Education is placed at its center. He developed curriculums that effectively connect Moral Education, Social Education and other extra-curricular activities and school trips (see Table 1). For instance, students explore
conceptions of identities in their studies of holocaust in History and readingof The Diary of Anne Frank in Moral Education with the care approach, andthese learnings are also reflected on the student-organized annual art festival (Kitayama, Osler, & Hashizaki, 2017).
Table 1. Overview of the three-year teaching plan
Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Theme

What are the borders that
separate me and others?
What is common humanity?

‘Who I am? What are theimportant elements thatmake up my own or others’
identity? How can people
relate to each other as
human beings?

How can people relate
to each other as humanbeings?
What can I do to makea better society withothers?

Moral Education

1. Basic learning: meetingwith students with special
education needs (SEN)
2. Project work in groups
3. Reflection

1. Basic learning: identityof family
2. Project work in groups
3. Reflection

1. Basic learning: identity of
Amerasians
2. Project work in groups
3. Reflection

Extra-curricular
activities

1. Short school trip
2. School art festival
3. Peace meeting

1. Short school trip
2. School art festival
3. Peace meeting

1. School trip to Okinawa
2. School art festival
3. Peace meeting

Social Studies[Geography]
Holocaust, Anne Frank andChiune Sugihara/
Okinawans’ identity andborder of Japan/
Overseas Chinese[History]
Nation-states in ancient andpresent times/ expansion of
Yamato state/ Frontier andindigenous group (Yezo).

[Civics]
Okinawa and US militarybases/
Multicultural policy in
Okinawa/ Identity of
Amerasian/ Civil revolutions/Japan’s colonialism/
Contemporary issues on
citizenship

The Moral Education curriculum of Year 1 (12-13 years old) has the main
goal of examining the boundaries between “them” and “others” and explore
the nature of the human being in the culturally diverse society. Two mainquestions are posed: What are the borders that separate me and others?
What is common humanity? The curriculum consists of three parts: 1) Basiclearning; 2) Project work in groups; and 3) Reflection.

278

H U M A N R I G H T S E D U C AT I O N I N A S I A - PA C I F I C

Basic Learning: Critical examination of the construction of difference
In the beginning of the academic calendar, learning activities focus onbuilding good relationships and a sense of trust among students in the classroom and the school. Mr Ogawa started the Moral Education class by asking the students if they knew about students in a class for special educationneeds (sen), a class for students with cognitive disabilities. Then he posed
a question: What is the difference between you and them? He arranged ameeting with a sen student named Takuya. After the meeting, the students
continued communicating with Takuya by exchanging letters about eachother’s everyday life. They also explored about the meaning of disabilities
with the sen class teacher, and discussed the theme ‘What is disability?’
Here are some extracts from students’ comments on this basic learning unit:
I was glad that he (Takuya) told me about their [students
with education needs] struggles.
I realized that he actually has a lot of thoughts, but he is justnot good in expressing them (…) like me, I am a very shy person.
These students’ remarks from the session suggest that the encounter
with Takuya and their learning about disability also provided them an opportunity for self-reflection.
Also, this unit encouraged students to carefully examine differences
existing in their school and to realize a constructive nature of the boundary between them and Takuya, and helped them to become more critical
about perceived differences in their classroom as well as in the wider society, where some differences are more recognized and often problematized,
while some others are unnoticed or ignored.
Project Work in Groups: Face to face caring encounter
After they started to critically examine the borders, the students undertook a group project on different topics under the common theme of“What are the borders that separate me and others?” A group focused ona theme inspired by the meeting with Takuya, and other groups went outof the school and interviewed people who are engaged in caring for othersin the community. In order to create an opportunity for students to have aface to face encounter which would prevent them from having generalized
image of these people, Mr Ogawa assisted the students in finding people
who fought for equality and social justice and also who did not fit into a

From Pity to Compassion: The Ethics of Care and Human Rights Education279

stereotype. For example, Mr Ogawa introduced a deaf person in a local
community who helped other people with disabilities. This encounter challenged the students’ sense of pity towards a generalized image of “people
with disabilities.” Other groups had meetings with students in Fukushima, apriest who grew “roses of Anne Frank” that were given by Anne’s father Otto
Frank, and a group of students who visited Okinawa. When Nara students
interviewed them, they were encouraged to understand the interviewees’situation, thoughts, beliefs and feelings as well as how they responded toothers’ needs.
A group of students (consisting of three senior secondary school students and a university student who were graduates of the Nara junior secondary school) visited Fukushima as part of the Moral Education curriculum on a weekend in August 2015. The district was in the area affected by theearthquake and the nuclear disaster in 2011. Although the district was outside the evacuation zone, the reputation of its tourist, agricultural and fishing industries suffered serious damage regarding radioactive contamination
despite the enormous clean-up efforts and the implementation of a foodmonitoring program. The students interviewed people who were actively
involved in the reconstruction of the community such as people from local
non-profit organizations (npos) and local markets. They also met six local
students (ages 15-18) who were involved in volunteer work in the community tourism reconstruction projects. Having similar age, the Nara students
became emotionally affected in meeting the Fukushima students. The Nara
students asked them about their situation when the disaster occurred, thereasons for their continued stay in Fukushima and the motivation for theirreconstruction projects. The visiting group shared their experience on thevisit with the Year-1 students at the Nara school.
The Fukushima students told their stories and feelings to the Nara
students:• I remained in Fukushima only because I wanted to keep being connected to my family, my friends and my school;• It hurts when people outside Fukushima have pity on me. They
asked me questions like “Are you worried?,” “Will it be possible foryou to have a child?;”• There is a complex feeling about the nuclear plant. Many of ourparents have worked for the nuclear industry and lost their jobs;

280

H U M A N R I G H T S E D U C AT I O N I N A S I A - PA C I F I C•

It was a natural disaster and no one should be blamed. It’s everyone’s responsibility to reconstruct Fukushima.

Through the meeting, the Nara students emotionally reacted whichindicates a sense of co-suffering for the real-life struggles of Fukushima
students. Some of them replied that they were shocked in knowing that
Fukushima students have such a strong sense of responsibility to their community while they have not thought about their own community as seriously
as Fukushima students did. A student shed tears and asked the Fukushima
students if there was anything that they could do back home. Toward theend of the meeting, the Fukushima students told the Nara students thatthey were so glad to have an opportunity to share their experience and feelings with them, and asked them to tell their friends about the situation in
Fukushima.
Reflections: Critical examination of borders and awarenessof common humanity
Reflection session followed the group projects and student presentations. This activity aimed to help the students a) explore commonalities andconnections among the findings of the different groups, b) critically examine the conceptions of borders, and c) be aware about common humanity.
It started with the students talking about what they thought were the mostimpressive words of Anne Frank. A student chose a quote of Anne; “I want
to be useful or bring enjoyment to all people, even those I’ve never met.” Mr
Ogawa followed up the student’s response by asking questions to the wholeclass: “So, how could we become a person like this (a kind person who isuseful or bring enjoyment to all people)? How could we make our society
be like this?”
Keeping this question in mind, students from each group presented
what they learned and found through their project. A student from the
Fukushima project commented that despite the tragedy and hardships, theFukushima students have been working hard to reconstruct their community. Also, she thought that their feeling of loss and pain could not be understood by others easily. Her comments imply that even though they realizedthat they were not be able to fully understand the Fukushima students’ feelings, she still tried to accept them as they were.

From Pity to Compassion: The Ethics of Care and Human Rights Education

281

A student who met Takuya, a student from sen class, gave a criticalreflection about boundaries. He identified positive and negative borders:“There are negative borders which created discrimination. But I found there
were also positive borders, for example, streaming the class to fit individual
attainment to promote equity.” Then Mr Ogawa asked a question: “Whatkind of border is between Takuya and us?” A student replied: “I can’t drawa border between Takuya and me if I empathized with him.” His commentsuggests that he realized a border as something constructed.
During the students’ reflection session, Mr Ogawa wrote on the whiteboard some words expressed by the students particularly those reflecting
compassionate empathy. At the concluding part of the class, Mr Ogawa
asked the students whether or not they agreed with the quote of Anne Frank,“In spite of everything, I still believe that people are truly good at heart,”
and asked if they have understood the essential human nature. Students discussed the questions drawing from what they learned from the encounterswith people in their group project, and identified three essential elements:
To support each other; to respond to somebody’s needs; and to try to know
the others’ situation more deeply.
Discussion
Before the exchange with the Fukushima students, the Nara students did notunderstand why the young people in Fukushima stayed in their hometown
despite the dire situation, based on their assumption that everyone would
want to escape from a place that was damaged by an earthquake and radioactive contamination. Through the exchange meeting, they learned how
the Fukushima students cared for their family and friends, and how theydecided to reconstruct their community and to challenge a number of difficulties and struggles. Also, listening to their stories gave the Nara students
the motivation to take action in the future.
In order to avoid generalization and making judgment during the reflection session, Mr Ogawa tried to avoid the Nara students from discussing the
Fukushima students’ circumstances based on their own viewpoints as outsiders. Instead, he asked questions that encouraged the students to carefullyreflect on the ways of thinking, experiences and emotions of the Fukushima
students as unique individuals. He employed the ethics of care approach tohis teaching to overcome a pitfall of emotionally-engaged learning, such as282

H U M A N R I G H T S E D U C AT I O N I N A S I A - PA C I F I C

having a mere sense of pity to a group of people with an abstract image, by
taking their perspectives which promotes compassionate empathy.
Mr Ogawa realized that a number of exchange meetings in Moral
Education class provided learning beyond what they understand about
these individuals themselves. Students commented,
I used to believe that a person with a disability is different
from myself. I don’t know why, but I started to believe that weare the same human being after I learned about Anne Frank anda Bosnian student.
I realized that a border, which I myself drew, started todissolve.
Mr Ogawa said:
At the end of the first year, their study about the border stillleft some questions: “Who draws a border and for what reasons?
Who would take advantage of it?” So, I plan the second-year curriculum about identity to develop their understandings about
self and others, and borders.
This Moral Education curriculum also suggests an approach to promotecompassionate learnings in human rights education. The ethics of care approach helps students understand a complexity of unique individuals withvarious vulnerabilities and particular needs, not simply as anonymous “disabled,” “refugees” or “sufferers from a disaster” who are simply entitled touniversal rights.
Concluding Remarks
This paper has argued about the potential use of the ethics of care approachon human rights education by focusing on learning from the others’ struggles, listening to the others’ voices, and understanding their perspectives as
unique individuals. Based on a notion of vulnerable human beings, the ethics of care approach enables students to understand the situation of others
and the decisions they make in a relative manner, which leaves a space to be
more sensitive to social justice for people with various dimensions of vulnerability than the liberal theory of justice. The case study of Year 1 students

From Pity to Compassion: The Ethics of Care and Human Rights Education

283

in this paper shows compassionate emotional engagement of the students,and how it helps them to explore connections between the particularity ofothers and common humanity. As this is planned as three-year-curriculum,
the development of the students’ learning will be observed by paying attention to how this awareness of common humanity will promote a sense ofsolidarity, a foundation for social justice.
References
Akuzawa, M. 2002. “Whither institutionalized human rights education? Review of
the Japanese experience,” Human Rights Education in Asian Schools, 5, 175-184.
Appiah, K. A. 2005. The Ethics of Identity. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press.
Arendt, H. 1963. On Revolution. London: Faber and Faber.
Barton, K. C. and Levstik, L. S. 2004. Teaching History for the Common Good.
Mahwah: Mahwah, US: Taylor and Francis.
Council of Europe. 2016. Competences for Democratic Culture: Living together as
equals in culturally diverse democratic societies. Retrieved from Strasbourg:
https://rm.coe.int/16806ccc07
Galinsky, A. D., Moskowitz, G. B. and Insko, C. A. 2000. “Perspective-Taking:Decreasing Stereotype Expression, Stereotype Accessibility, and In-Group
Favoritism,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(4), 708-724.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.78.4.708
Hirasawa, Y. 2009. “Multicultural Education in Japan.” In J. A. Banks, editor, The
Routledge International Companion to Multicultural Education (pages 159-170).
Oxon: Routledge.
Ikuta, S. 2007. Jinken to kyoiku: Jinken kyoiku no kokusaiteki doutoku no nihon tekisaikaku. [Human rights and education: International and Japanese trends of
Human Rights Education]. Kyoto: Buraku Mondai Kenkyusho.
Keskin, S. C. 2014. “From what isn’t Empathy to Empathic Learning Process,”
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 4932-4938. doi:10.1016/j.
sbspro.2014.01.1052
Kitayama, Y., Osler, A. and Hashizaki, Y. 2017. “Reimagining Japan and fighting extremism with the help of a superhero: A teacher’s tale,” Race Equality Teaching,34(2), 21-27.
Noddings, N. 1984. Caring: a feminine approach to ethics & moral education.
Berkeley, Calif: University of California Press.
__________. 2002. Starting At Home: Caring and Social Policy. Berkeley: Universityof California Press.
__________. 2010. “Moral Education in an Age of Globalization,” Educational
Philosophy and Theory, 42(4), 390-396. doi:10.1111/j.1469-5812.2008.00487.x
Nygren, T. 2016. “Thinking and caring about indigenous peoples’ human rights:
Swedish students writing history beyond scholarly debate,” Journal of Peace
Education, 1-23.doi:10.1080/17400201.2015.1119106

Okano, Y. 2012. Feminism no seijigaku: Kea no rinri o global shakai e [Feminist
Politics: Applying the ethics of care to the global society]. Tokyo: Misuzu shobo.
__________. 2016. “Why Has the Ethics of Care Become an Issue of Global Concern?,”
International Journal of Japanese Sociology, 25, 85-99.
Osler, A. and Starkey, H. 1999. “Rights, Identities and Inclusion: European action
programmes as political education,” Oxford Review of Education, 25(1-2), 199215. doi:10.1080/030549899104215___________. 2005. Changing Citizenship: democracy and inclusion in education.
Maidenhead: Open University Press.
___________. 2010. Teachers and human rights education. Oakhill: Trentham books.
Røthing, Å., & Svendsen, S. B. 2011. “Sexuality in Norwegian textbooks: constructing
and controlling ethnic borders?,” Ethnic and Racial Studies, 34(11), 1953-1973. doi:10.1080/01419870.2011.560275
Saito, J. 2010. Kokyosei [Public nature]. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten.
Se, T. and Karatsu, R. 2004. “A conception of human rights based on Japanese culture: Promoting cross-cultural debates,” Journal of Human Rights, 3(3), 269-289.
doi:10.1080/1475483042000224842
Todd, A. R., Bodenhausen, G. V., Richeson, J. A., Galinsky, A. D., and Simpson, J. 2011.
“Perspective Taking Combats Automatic Expressions of Racial Bias,” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 100(6), 1027-1042. doi:10.1037/a0022308