Can you step back from your own mind and thus understand all things?
– The Tao te Ching
Can you? Can you deny your own mind, your own consciousness, in order to have infinite understanding? Here, the Tao, the way, is referring to the realm of the soul where, through meditation and aesthetic practice, one might step back from the self, become nothing, to understand everything. If we took this question to the cognitive, bodily and social realms then the question might be: Can you step back from your own morals, beliefs and values and thus understand another person’s way of life? This is the question I ask when I think about the goals of inclusive education. This question situates inclusion in a self and positions the self as an engaged actor in inclusive cognitive, bodily and social realms. “Can you?” seems pregnant with possibility. However the question is often “Can we?” Can we step back from our morals, beliefs and values and thus understand the life ways of the other? Here the question is situated in some bounded group, whose identity is probably forged on the real or imagined differences between we and other. “Can we?” is a question steeped in contestations of identity and the protection and recognition of group boundaries. Often, those who pose such a question perceive that they are in a state of crisis.
Crisis
The term “multicultural” often conveys a sense of crisis. The crisis is often that difference has slipped through a barrier—great distance, a sovereign border, ability, language, social class, religion, color—and is now among us. Multicultural education is then the crisis of difference in the schoolhouse. Many have proposed ways to solve the crisis of difference in schools. The laws and ordinances of the United States privilege the idea that the crisis of difference can be solved through policy, pedagogy and curriculum that attempt to rewrite past and contemporary social and economic inequities by creating equal access to opportunity. Others suggest that the crisis of difference can be solved through promoting tolerance for difference to secure civil behavior in the public sphere. Differences can be eradicated, so ending the crisis, through assimilation. Differences can be preserved and celebrated, transforming the crisis into an opportunity to learn about the life ways of others. Differences can be accommodated in schools by using culturally relevant pedagogy based on cultural psychology research. The crisis of difference can be blamed for much of the violence and anarchy in the world, both in historic and contemporary time. Yet the crisis persists. It persists largely because each successive generation is socialized, tacitly or explicitly, to mark, to not accept, to view as inferior and, in many cases, to abhor difference. Since the schoolhouse is one of the main socialization tools of nations, nation-states, religions and communities it has always been positioned as a fertile site for eradicating, preserving, tolerating and providing equal opportunity to populations deemed to represent difference. However, the school is only one agent of socialization in the lives of individuals.
In addition to the school individuals are socialized, implicitly and explicitly, by family, peer groups, class and social structure, media, the laws and ordinances of communities and nation-state and a host of other elements that influence the way that individuals gain membership or are viewed as members of particular or multiple groups. Socialization is a complex interactive process between individuals and the various agents of socialization. Inclusive education, for it to be effective, cannot rest only with the school, but must become the activity of the family and the community. The ideals of the school, family and peer group should not be in conflict. The main goal of multicultural education might be to socialize students in ways that positions multiculturalism, not as a crisis but as a challenge, a world view, a philosophy for living that affords students, their families and communities (hereafter- school community) to be actively engaged in seeing the world from many points of view through interactive conversation; to be slow to judge others; and to adopt a habit of seeking non-ethnocentric information about the life worlds of others.
Culture as Fluid
The way that one defines the “culture’ in multicultural education influences how one might shape the goals of multicultural education. According to Merriam Webster culture is a “shared set of beliefs, values, [and material traits] of a racial, religious or social group” (Merriam Webster). In this definition, any human grouping can have a culture, from racial groups, based on genetics, to workers in a particular occupation. This is a macro view of culture. Culture, in practice, operates on a micro level and is manifested in the actions and thoughts that exist in and/or between individuals. Bradd Shore’s definition of culture, part of a growing move toward psychological views of culture, posits culture as an “extensive and heterogeneous collection of models…that exist both as public artifacts ‘in the world’ and as cognitive constructs ‘in the mind’ of members of a community (Shore, 1996 p. 44). Cultural models may be mental or instituted. Mental models may be personal in that they are constructed by individuals “as a basic meaning making strategy” and not necessarily shared with the community (Shore, 1996 p. 46). Examples of mental models include personal taxonomies for organizing new information, maps of where things are located in a familiar setting such as a house or classroom. Mental models may also be conventional in that they are “part of the stock of shared cognitive resources of [one’s] community” (Shore, 1996 p. 47). Culture is both those interpretive frameworks that one shares with the community and those that are individually created. Shore’s definition of culture focuses on the resultant nature of culture, that is, the interpretive framework that results from one’s culture, which in essence is the manifestation of culture, the aspect of culture that we see, the aspect that causes most culturally-based conflicts. The elements that determine a particular interpretive framework are those things one normally associates with culture such as material and non-material artifacts and symbols, language, religion, history, position in class and social structure etc. If culture is the interpretive framework of individuals within a community, then culture is not fixed. Not all individuals, even though they claim to be part of the same culture, say Indians in Trinidad and Tobago, experience the culture of being an Indian in Trinidad and Tobago in the same way. Such persons can belong to more than one culture at the same time such as the culture of the business class or sugar cane workers, Hindu or Presbyterian, urban or rural …and the list goes on. Members of particular or multiple cultures differ in the degree to which they adhere to or do not adhere to cultural beliefs, norms and values. The boundaries of a culture become fluid as members negotiate and renegotiate the attributes of many cultures. Such negotiation and renegotiation occurs through interactive discourse and action between members within a culture and those deemed to be outside of it. In all, culture is a discursive practice in which cultural members negotiate and renegotiate their place within a particular or multiple cultures (Benhabib, 2002).
The Goals of Multicultural Education
Cosmopolitanism from Manywheres
I want to discard the crisis framework of multicultural education and adopt a framework of challenge. In The Uses of Culture (1998) Cameron McCarthy posits that multiculturalism is the challenge of living with each other in a world of difference. Imbedded in the challenge framework is the notion of a difficult endeavor that is constantly evolving and must be constantly negotiated. I add the notion of happiness to McCarthy’s challenge. Multiculturalism is the challenge to live happily with each other in a world of difference. One goal of multicultural education might be to help the school community to embrace the challenge of living happily with each other in a world of difference. The school community is actively aware that it is part of a process, difficult and at times confusing, of finding a way to live with those who possess different frameworks for interpreting the world than they do. Remember that based on Shore’s (1996) definition of culture it is possible for individuals who claim to be part of the same culture to see the world quite differently. To meet the challenge of living happily in a world of difference, another goal of multicultural education might be to help school communities to develop a particular worldview, the view from manywheres or the postmodern humanistic view (Shweder 2003). The view from manywheres “sets aside …the ascendancy of the West… and reconsider[s] the value of premodern and non-Western practices and understandings about the connections among person, society, nature and divinity” (Shweder 2003, p 2). Further, in the vein of postmodern thought, the view from manywheres values difference and diversity and is skeptical of singular truths. Looking from manywheres the school community is asked to be become fully informed before adopting a moral stance and to be slow to judge and to “engage in informed critique,” again only after a full non-ethnocentric exploration of the social, historical and contextual realities of the values, belief and morals of particular individuals or groups of individuals (Shweder 2003, p 5). Another goal might be to have the school community become aware of its own culture, and position this culture as a viewpoint within the view from manywheres that may conflict, conform or co-exist with others.
Appiah’s (2006) cosmopolitanism is another useful philosophy for living that might help school communities to meet the challenge of living happily with each other in a world of difference. Appiah spends much of his philosophical volume outlining and discussing the various ideas behind cosmopolitanism. His main idea is that “the human community…need[s] to develop habits of coexistence: conversation in its older meaning, of living together, association” (2006 p. xix). He develops this idea further into a tenable cosmopolitanism that “tempers a respect for difference with a respect for human beings” (Appiah 2006, p 113). The idea here is that we discard radical relativism where we view every value, belief and act as wholly right within its cultural context–stoning adulterous women to death is right…for those people—and view acts, beliefs and values as connected to human beings worthy of respect through our own culturally derived values morals and beliefs. Again, one does this only after a deliberative process of information gathering, conversation and a non-ethnocentric view of the life world of others.
What if I still can’t stand the thought of it?: Classroom Content and Universal Values
Aspects of various cultures–history, language, beliefs and moral systems–should be included in classroom content, and no particular cultural ideals should be privileged over another. But there is a caveat here. No cultural or interpretive framework is privileged over another, however, the unit of culture is the individual, and according to Appiah (1996), a respect for difference is tempered by a respect for the individual. So, yes, cultures should be taught without hierarchy …but up to a point. If one finds a practice or belief utterly abhorrent, one is obliged to loathe, to not take part, to disagree, to aid someone if they suffer due to a practice or belief if it is in one’s power to do so. Indeed, this seems to be a western individualist point of view that privileges the one over the many. In defense of this view, I propose that just as there are no pure, essential, monolithic cultures, there are no pure, essential, monolithic worldviews. There is no definitive individualist /collectivist divide. There has been much philosophical borrowing across this fluid boundary. In a multicultural classroom, students are taught to weigh all sides of an argument and make a choice, realizing that judgments, morals and values are choices and not determined by birth or initiation into a group.
The teaching of various cultures extends to the teaching of various languages. The choice of languages depends on the area where students live and their linguistic background. The school community might choose the most useful languages. When people are multilingual, they can often learn new languages, fairly quickly, well into adulthood. Lessons might also be taught according to various pedagogical styles suited to the best way that students learn. I am not saying that if there are thirty interpretive frameworks to a class that a teacher should teach in thirty different styles. This might be impossible in the current teacher centered classroom. It means that the structure of the classroom might be adjusted so that students take more active roles. The teacher in the multicultural classroom is an important guide to learning and setting the tone for school culture. And how do we measure student success? Success might be measured according to the potential of each student. The potential of each student is determined through communication, interaction and collaboration between the teacher, the family and the community. These entities must communicate often. They are aware of each other’s goals and can, ideally, help each other in supporting the happy life of the children and adults in the relationships. I also advocate an ethic of care, as only in a caring atmosphere might the school community be able to develop environments for discussing and engaging with contested issues related to culture.
A Critical Awareness of the World
Much of the major conflicts between cultures involve the ways that various peoples’ structure perceive and govern sexuality and gender roles. The view from manywheres is most useful in socializing the school community to see such contested topics, and others, from various points of view. Further, as Shweder (2003) advocates, individuals must seek thorough information from a non-ethnocentric view. In light of this, another goal of multicultural education might be to promote a critical awareness of the world, an exploration of the historical, social, economic and political contexts of ideas and events. Within this view, topics such as female genital surgeries (FGS) might be repositioned within a context and with a thorough understanding of who circulates information about this topic. Why? Who benefits from negative or positive views of FGS? Which voices are heard and not heard in the discourse? And, more importantly, on what is our abhorrence based? In the case of FGS, it is difficult to focus on context when the practice is bound up with ideas of intellectualism and liberalism political correctness. Add to the cache of appearing enlightened if one denounces FGS, the notions of gender inequality and patriarchal domination figure heavily in FGS discourse. A full discussion of how and why abhorrence of FGS figures so prominently in the western psych is beyond the scope of this work. However consider that it is only those stories of botched surgeries (true mutilations) and young women seeking asylum to avoid surgeries that are given extensive coverage in the media. Claims that FGS reduces sexual pleasure are based on western folk beliefs about sexuality and not on actual evidence (Shweder 2003, pp. 186-187). Most strikingly, at least to liberals anyway, the majority of women from north and east African, from tribes and locations where FGS is a marker of adulthood, elect to undergo surgeries, despite increases in wealth and education levels. Perhaps, as Shweder suggests, the First World attack on FGS, carefully coordinated through the policies of international organizations like the UN, UNESCO and The World Bank, on the Third World is a form of imperial liberalism (Shweder 2003, pp 195- 198). One group imposes its values and beliefs on another and imposes sanctions (loan application denials, reduced immigration quotas) for noncompliance.
It might seem that I speak with a fork tongue. Earlier I said that it is well to loathe a practice and to help someone who suffers if it is in one’s power and now I suggest that one should not impose one’s views on another. My tongue is intact. Yes, it is well to loathe a practice and to aid others who suffer, but only after a thorough non-ethnocentric checking of the facts. In the case of FGS, this has not been done in the public sphere, and I suspect rarely in the private sphere. So many well meaning people simply inherit their viewpoint without thinking critically about how that viewpoint was constructed.
If the school community has a critical awareness of the world, migration and immigration become “natural” aspects of human existence on planet earth. Any curriculum with a multicultural focus must treat migration and immigration as simply the way that groups come to be in a place or to not be in a place, whether the move was made voluntarily or involuntarily. Further, if we looked at the issues of migration and immigration from the point of view of speciesism, we see that humans are only one of many species that migrates from place to place on planet earth. Flocks of Sandhill Cranes migrate, from Mexico to the northern US every year, seeking better habitats. The pilgrims were forced to migrate to America because of religious persecution.
In Part II, we will discuss the nation state and identity politics.
References
Appiah, Anthony Kwame. (2006). Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a world of difference. New York: W. W. Norton and Company.
Benhabib, Seyla. (2002). The claims of culture: equality and diversity in the global era. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
McCarthy, Cameron. (1998). The uses of culture: Education and the limits of ethnic
affiliation. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.
Shore, Bradd. (1996). Culture in Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Shweder, Richard A. (2003). Why do men barbecue? Recipes for cultural psychology. Boston: Harvard University Press.
