Introduction

Abstract

Around the world, schooling and other forms of education shape the lives of children and their communities. During her own school reunion, the Noble Peace Prize Laureate from Burma, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, addressed her former school friends from the Methodist English High School in Rangoon in a speech emphasizing the communal and intergenerational aspect of education: ‘Education is about to enable us to meet any challenge that life might throw at us, not just for ourselves but for those with whom we live. And those with whom we live are not just those in the family or town or country, but in this world today’ (Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, Methodist English High School, Burma Reunion 4th& 5th January 2013). As a matter of fact, the United Nations Millennium Development Goals are committed to improving access to primary education as an important means to promote gender equality and empower women. As a matter of fact, in 2015 the primary school net enrolment rate in poor countries has reached 91 % and the literacy rate among youth aged 15–24 years has increased globally to 91 %. The gap between educated women and men has also narrowed (United Nations 2015: 4–5). In spite of this progress, many children are still excluded from formal education systems and those who access school feel they are not learning the skills they need for their adult lives (Department for International Development 2013: 4). According to the Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2015 worldwide there were around 58 million children who were not attending school and around 100 million children who dropped out of primary school. Out-of-school children often come from poor families and frequently live in conflict zones. As a consequence, many young people lack the formal skills they need for the white-collar jobs they aspire to have in the future. Therefore, within a global context of neo-liberal markets and economic restructuring, it is increasingly necessary that the learning needs of children and young people as well as adults are met through equal access to learning programmes that encourage sociocultural skills (Banerjee and Duflo 2011: 74; Pells and Woodhead 2014: 42–44; UNESCO 2015a: 110–111). This is particularly relevant in settings where increased aspirations for schooling impact on intergenerational relations, as parents invest in the education of their children and expect them to become bearers of knowledge and skills (Wagner 2015: 14). This book develops the interplay between learning, migration and intergenerational relations through the experiences of Karen boys and girls at different historical times and different geographical locations. The Karen value education as a gift that cannot be immediately reciprocated. As one research participant put it: ‘I really believe in education. So, to give some education is a gift, priceless’ (Nant Bwa Bwa Phan, interview, 10 April 2015). Anthropological theory questions the gratuitousness of a gift (Hendry and Underdown 2012: 65). In Argonauts of the Western Pacific (1922), Malinowski described how the economic system of the Trobriand Islanders is based on a system of gift exchange. Gifts included armshells, curved tusks and fine long necklaces. The opening gift of the exchange always has to be reciprocated by a counter-gift. Yet, just so these gifts do not end up as barter, the gift exchange requires that gifts are of different nature and also the passage of time between giving and returning a gift is mandatory. If a person is for a longer while not able to return a gift equivalent in value to the gift given, he can meanwhile use intermediary gifts of inferior value to fill in the gap. As soon as a gift of equivalent value has been returned the transaction of giving and receiving is concluded by a clinching gift (Malinowski 1922: 352–358). According to Mauss (¹1925), the act of giving and receiving gifts tells about power relationships between two parties because ‘the bond established between donor and recipient is too strong for both of them (...) the recipient puts himself in a position of dependence vis-à-vis the donor’. Yet the power relations thus established differ from markets: ‘It is all a matter of etiquette, it is not like in the market where, objectively, and for a price, one takes something. Nothing is unimportant. Contracts, alliances, the passing of goods, the bonds created by these goods passing between those giving and receiving—this form of economic morality takes account of all this. The nature and intention of the contacting parties, the nature of the thing given, are all indivisible’ (Mauss 1990: 76–77). In this study I suggest considering education as a non-material gift, because similar to material gift exchanges, education always engages people in permanent commitments, therefore creating and sustaining relationships between educators and pupils of different ages. This intergenerational dimension is important to understanding processes of giving and receiving education. Like other gifts, education cannot in most instances be reciprocated immediately. Time is needed to return the intellectual and practical benefits of learning. While this is often a question of years, sometimes it may only take hours for children to bring new knowledge home and cause change in the economy of the household. Conversely, when young people miss the chance to return what they received, they remain indebted towards their elders. In this case, the value of education as a priceless gift is called into question. This is particularly relevant for humanitarian aid in refugee situations (Harrell-Bond 1999) and in modern economies where young people increasingly migrate for secondary and tertiary education, but are left without meaningful employment (Boyden and Crivello 2014; Kabeer 2000: 473). The book also relates to a conceptual framework that recognizes that education is about different learning processes and learning contexts ranging from formal and highly structured settings (for example schools with professional teachers) to informal highly structured processes (for example government sponsored or non-state forms of education, such as independent school projects for refugees), formal unstructured processes (for example when children learn informally from their peers at school) and informal settings where learning takes place informally (for example transmission of sociocultural learning at home). Recognizing how these areas operate in interdependence allows us to discern how children not only learn at school, but also learn at home from their parents and grandparents. Such a framework is also sensitive to the social dissonance during childhood.