Multicultural Dilemmas: The Nation-state and Identity Politics
Inherent in the idea of globalism is the notion that the influence of cultural mores on individuals and groups might be reduced and replaced with a global culture. However, contemporary time is plagued with ethnic, religious and cultural balkanization and conflict that that run the gamut from relocating groups of people to genocide. While cultural theorists are attempting to redefine culture as something that is neither monolithic nor essential but differentiated even within groups, many diverse groups “have become contestants in the public sphere of capitalist democracies and are embroiled in the characteristic struggles for redistribution and recognition. Culture (author’s emphasis) has become a ubiquitous synonym for identity, an identity marker and a differentiator” (Benhabib 2002, p 1). Culture has always been a marker. What is different is the idea that culture is being used as an identity marker so that groups might demand, from states and nations, distributive and redistributive policies and the protection of cultural attributes. Multicultural education is part of this discourse. In the United States, multicultural education emerged as part of redistributive policies under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in which segregated schools were declared unconstitutional.
The state is traditionally defined by political and territorial boundaries, while the nation is defined as bounded by culture and language (Brubaker 2006, p. 28). Contemporary sociologists advocate that the state and nations are really imagined entities, yet the traditional definitions of state and nation persist in the minds of most people, particularly in the minds of policy makers. For example, in Sri Lanka, arguments for the seceding of the north and east are often framed in linguistic and religious terms, Tamil and Hinduism (Kymlicka, 2005). Multiculturalism is often seen as an affront to the nation. The existence of states and nations create many dilemmas for multicultural ideals. What does one teach in the multicultural classroom? Can you teach the view that nations and states are imagined when the ideas of these entities as definable, bounded communities are made explicit in the way that burdens, costs, sanctions and resources are distributed to groups? The nation, a phenomenon that dates back to the 17th century, often attempts to define itself with a single identity. Multiculturalism asks that it be pluralistic. Some might say fragmentary. Can the nation define itself with a single national language, dress and other markers of nationhood; yet grant diverse groups the right to live according to their cultural mores. What if those cultural mores conflict with the civil laws of the state and the nation? According to the working definition of culture for this essay, this would hardly matter, as culture is a discursive, negotiated practice that varies from individual to individual. One would not be able to site one’s culture if indicted in a criminal case. It will be taken into consideration as part of a critical awareness and as part of the view from manywheres, but not the sole reason for a decision of guilt or innocence. I am not sure how to reconcile the ideals of multicultural education, and the ideals of the nation. For now I couch this reconciliation in hope. The challenge to live happily in a world of differences, using the philosophies of manywheres and cosmopolitanism as one’s guide, seem capable of changing society over time. The idea is that through multicultural education, the school community is socialized to end ethnic and cultural conflicts. The hope is that the pupils and their families fill positions at all stages of society and slowly bring about change.
Conclusion
A goal or objective is a desired end point. With a topic so fraught with controversy, I was hesitant to say what the desired end points should be for multicultural education for fear that the goals may dictate the processes needed to achieve the goals. So this essay is tentative. It is what I think now. I think multicultural education should be a frank attempt at socialization with a view that socialization is a lifelong process, in which ideas learned in youth help shape a life. I talked only of the dilemmas that occur when multiculturalism is juxtaposed with the ideal of nations and states. But every facet of the multicultural prism is fraught with dilemmas. Much of this essay is filled with unexplained concepts, holes, contradictions, misrepresentations, even folly. But I cannot see them all, as I am only one mind that has tried to step back from itself to see this issue from other sides. So do not take this as a final product but as an attempt. To really see what I have written, others must look at it also.
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.
Brubaker, Rogers. Ed. (2006). Nationalist politics and everyday ethnicity in a
Transylvanian town. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Kymlicka, Will and Baogang He. (2005). Multiculturalism in Asia. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
McCarthy, Cameron. (1998). The uses of culture: Education and the limits of ethnic
affiliation. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.
Merriem Webster. (2007). Retrieved from http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/culture on
September 1, 2007.
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.
