Cultural Pluralism is supposed to be a good thing. We are all one big happy family in the new world of Cultural Inclusivity, Acceptance and Tolerance. Yea!
At the same time, we are all encouraged to view our cultural inclusivity as an element of deep patriotic pride. The
Melting Pot theory of Nationhood. Since British Prime Minister Harold McMillan delivered his famous
Winds of Change speech to the Colonial South African Government in Cape Town in 1960, colonialism has been portrayed as a thing of the past. We now i
nhabit the
Post-colonial Era, so it is said. Here, in the Post-colonial World, difference is good. Acceptance is holy. And conversely, Exclusivity and Separatism are bad. Here endeth the first lesson. That's the rule! Those are the commandments! Tolerance, Acceptance and Inclusivity. The Holy Trinity of Postmodern theorising and cultural normativity. And all of this makes for a great and strong nationhood. A new
kind of nationhood. One not based upon the colour of a person's skin, or their spiritual belief system, but rather on an
Ideology - the ideology of
Democracy.
What a lovely, cosy picture this all makes. How comforting to believe that (yet again?) the White Western Mind has been able to conceive of a transcendent concept that moves beyond conflict and difference towards the idealised goal of One Nation, Indivisible, Under God....
And what is that One, Indivisible Nation about? It's about material, spiritual and intellectual Imperialism - about plundering the world's resources to benefit a few very rich and powerful individuals while the rest of humanity struggles to merely survive. How can it be that the most powerful nation on the planet, espousing a doctrine of Democracy can wilfully and without sanction violate the sovereign territory of Iraq or Afghanistan (or coming shortly Iran). Isn't there something a little odd and contradictory that this
Democracy needs to be
imposed? And like all other colonial impositions, isn't it once again being portrayed as "In their own good!" Have we ever wondered what the colonised indigenous peoples of the world who have suffered such impositions for centuries think about the myth of our Great Inclusivity? Those whom we have historically displaced, dispossessed, oppressed, assimilated, murdered and subject to genocide? Those upon whom we have imposed Democracy, the Rule of (European) Law, Property Relations, Christianity, Capitalism? What do they think about all of this generosity on the part of the Western "Democracies"?
Is it not strange to reflect that on Friday 14th September at the United Nations in New York it was precisely the great colonial powers who voted against the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The Declaration is
non-binding text which sets out the individual and collective rights of the world's 370 million indigenous peoples, as well as their rights to culture, identity, language, employment, health, education and other issues. It can be viewed in its entirety on my website at:
http://www.tonywardedu.com/component/option,com_weblinks/catid,35/Itemid,23/
The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (document A/61/L.67) was adopted by a recorded vote of 143 in favour to 4 against, with 11 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Gabon, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
Against: Australia, Canada, New Zealand, United States.
Now doesn't that tell a story! The four countries that have imposed the most on their native populations are the ones who precisely don't want to recognise their Rights.
Even the United Kingdom - perhaps historically the most powerful of all colonising countries voted in favour of the Declaration. Not without significance, the four single nations who voted against it, America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand are precisely the ones in which the dominant culture remains that of the colonising white majority. Not surprisingly, these are the countries in which the indigenous peoples suffer the highest incidences of poverty, alcoholism, drug abuse, domestic violence, ill health, suicide, crime and arrest. So much for cultural inclusivity, equity and justice! So much for Democracy!
It is in this context that it is important to interrogate the mythology of Cultural Pluralism and to challenge its implementation in the field of Education where notions of
Nation and
Patriotism are forged and nurtured.
Cultural Assimilation vs Cultural AutonomyWithin the framework of Lyotyard's postmodern theorising, it is important to realise that any authority in the teaching/learning environment cannot find its legitimacy by reference to totalising categories based on science or any other form of legitimating discourse. It is not possible for instance, to convince others of one's authority by presuming to espouse a theory or an ideology of "human emancipation" without reference to specific instances of oppression. Indeed, when we look to these specific instances, we will see that although they share a great deal in common, they also are unique in many respects. One of the things which they appear to share, however, is an overarching subordination by a dominant cultural grouping which presumes to a national identity. This is particularly true of conservative conceptions of authority, in which, as Henry Giroux has accurately noted:
"... the purpose of schooling is linked to a truncated view of patriotism and patriarchy that functions as a veil for a suffocating chauvinism."
Or more directly:
"In the new conservative discourse, authority is given a positive meaning and is often related to issues that resonate with popular experience. As an ideal that often embodies reactionary interests, this position legitimates a view of culture, pedagogy and politics that focuses on traditional values and norms. Authority in this view presents a rich mix of resonant themes in which notions of family, nation, duty, self-reliance and standards often add up to a warmed-over dish of Parsonian consensus and cultural reproduction. In educational terms, school knowledge is reduced to an unproblematic selection from dominant traditions of Western culture. Rather than viewing culture as a terrain of competing knowledge and practices, conservatives frame "culture" within the axis of historical certainty and present it as a storehouse of treasured goods constituted as canon and ready to be passed "down" to deserving students."
This chauvinism which presumes unanimity and cultural uniformity in fact operates upon the basis of a cultural politics of inclusion-exclusion in which "excluded majorities" and Fourth World peoples are embraced or rejected depending upon the political context in which State policies are being effected. The paradox whereby the "Iraqis" oppress "their" minority ethnic Kurds, the "Americans" suppress or dispossess "their" Lakota, "Canadians" "their" Mohawk, "Mexicans" "their" Maya and "New Zealanders" "their" Maori (as an autonomous and sovereign people) needs no further elaboration, except to note that the "people" (consciously, if ironically referred to here as being the sole rightful subjects of "their" nation) to whom the legitimating reference is made is a fiction.
Cultural inclusion on the other hand occurs within the context at the level of non-threatening cultural "song and dance" routines, in which Lakota, Maori or Kurdish cultural representatives are "wheeled out" to perform their ceremonies of welcome for visiting dignitaries and for international events, in order to portray to the world at large the cultural inclusivity of a particular national identity. All of this done, in defence of and as an expression of a collectivised conception of "the people" used to silence dissenting voices of marginalised Others. As Lyotard pithily puts it:
"It is therefore not at all surprising that the representatives of the new process of legitimation by "the people" should be at the same time actively involved in destroying the traditional knowledge of peoples, perceived, from that point forward as minorities or potential separatist movements destined only to spread obscurantism."
It is important, therefore, to distinguish the term "culture" from its association (by the dominant culture) with national identities. The British critical social and cultural theorist John Tomlinson notes that the discourse on nationality is beleaguered by a parallel discourse on culture. The model of social reality presented by the dominant culture is one in which nationality and culture are conflated, and seen as synonymous. In fact, the opposite is most usually the case, and we should more properly speak about the "nation state" (perhaps a misnomer) as a cultural multiplicity each component of which can be considered as a sovereign body. Only in this way, perhaps, can we avoid the paradoxical suppression of cultural difference in the name of cultural difference, defined as a mythological nationhood.
Cultural Autonomy vs PatriotismThe use of the term "the people", coupled with the confusing conceptions of the category culture has been the basis of much repression in the name of nationhood. Politicians often attempt to subsume the identities of potentially irritating "minority" groups through references to an imaginary unified nationhood. In New Zealand, for instance, successive conservative politicians have frequently used the phrase "We are all New Zealanders" as an attempt to marginalise dissident Maori claims of Treaty violation and to Maori sovereignty. Similarly, the formal address of United States Presidents in their televised pronouncements traditionally begin with an appeal to, "My Fellow Americans.."
Nor is it insignificant (from an education-hegemony point of view) that in the United States, every morning of every day, every child above the age of five in every school used to begin (as many still do) their day by standing, hand on heart, facing the Stars and Stripes, and pledging allegiance "To the United States, one nation, indivisible under God...etc." With this umbrella definition of American citizenship, ethnic and cultural differences disappear, and are subsumed within the overall framework of American. This may be particularly galling for those particular Americans who inhabited the continent originally, for whom the Pledge of Allegiance stands as a rallying point for their historical oppression.
Education as Cultural ImperialismWhat is at stake is, as Carnoy reminded us, a form of education as cultural imperialism, or as Freire says, a form of cultural invasion. As a result of these policies, countless thousands of "minority" young people drop out of school, fail to complete their secondary education or fail to complete their degrees, developing a culture of resistance and failure similar to Paul Willis’ "lads". What these "failures" reveal is the tendency of the educational system to operate within a particularly narrow and somewhat confusing definition of culture, often equating it with nation and in the process erasing traces of actual cultural difference through assimilationist policies of nationalism and nationhood. Tomlinson distinguishes four realms of cultural imperialism. He cites media imperialism, the imperialism of nationality, the cultural imperialism of global capitalism and the imperialism of modernity.
The system of education, insofar as it fills an important hegemonic role in society, operates to shape cultural reality in the latter three of these realms. It does so first of all by framing and making real an imaginary sense of nationhood which mitigates against dissident groups. It promulgates values which accept and reinforce the ethic of competition and hierarchy which are the very foundational elements of capitalism, and finally it supports forms of knowledge, themselves deeply implicated in modernist notions of "progress" as well as instrumental rationalism, which marginalise and silence other modes of experience and perception. It carries out these processes in ways which are mutually legitimating and which result in a general reinforcement of existing structures of authority and power in our society. The authority thus supported then reciprocally reinforces particular and specific forms of authority within the educational structure itself.
In other words, education reflects and supports the values and the continued dominance of a particular social group, and this social group reciprocally authenticates those forms of educational practice, establishing them as a normativity. Through this normalising process, marginalised internal dissent renders axiomatic the dominance of the system's own values. Within the context of Western hegemony we can see that each of these processes and structures are connected and linked through the ownership of the means of production of cultural knowledge. In other words, it is precisely the dominant culture in any given society which has in its possession the overwhelming means to reproduce and to give expression to its position of cultural dominance, or as Marx once put it:
“The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas; i.e., the class, which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production...”
The means of domination need not be coercive, in fact cannot be coercive lest they generate a resistance which would be destabilising and perhaps counter-productive. Hegemony is, rather, a persuasive process by which the dominated are persuaded to participate in their own domination by the use and adoption of such meta-identities as those promoted by colonising conceptions of nationhood, and education plays a fundamental part in the creation of such uniformalising categories.
Patriotism as OppressionGramsci theorised the role of the State in the creation of normative conceptions of nationhood. His analysis brings into focus the extent to which the State is able to shape public meaning. Specifically, the creation of nationalities is effected through the inculcation of an ideology of nationalism and patriotism throughout the educational system.
The ways in which conceptions of nationhood come about are of significance. They are invariably connected to structures and processes of power which operate between cultural groups, so that, as Stuart Hall and others have observed, processes of domination and subordination come into play, where the most powerful and influential cultural groups in society seek to exercise their hegemonic control over the whole of the social enterprise using in the process the mythology of nationhood as a means of establishing a cultural totalisation to which all subordinated cultures must accede. In this sense, both the elevation of a mythical social collective to and by the status of nationhood, as well as the reduction of diverse cultural groups to the status of "tribes" or "minorities" serves as a continuing colonising device to distance and marginalise the latter by an illusory comparison to the former.
This has very significant implications for a theory of liberatory education, because, as Lyotard once again reminds us:
"The State resorts to the narrative of freedom every time it assumes direct control over the training of "the people," under the name of the "nation" in order to point them down the path of "progress".
Multiculturalism in One NationDuring the last twenty five years there has been an increasing tendency in society at large and in education in particular to take seriously the issue of the distribution and reproduction of existing modes of power and culture. Nation states take an apparent pride in their cultural sensitivity and diversity. The United States, for instance, has for a long time portrayed itself as the cultural "melting pot" of the Western world. The "melting pot" metaphor has been a very powerful symbol of American identity, not least echoing the words of liberty herself. "Bring me your poor, your weak, your hungry...etc." The image is one of presumed equality, all the different natural ingredients melted down, and melded into a whole far stronger than any of its constituent parts, which are, at the same time rendered indistinguishable from each other. Nation as alloy. One colour, one consistency, one density, one strength.
Powerful as the image has been in attracting oppressed millions from around the world, each willing to surrender substantial aspects of cultural identity for freedom from oppression, the internal reality/experience has been quite different. Structures of power and inequality, racism and other forms of oppression experienced as a lived reality by succeeding waves of immigrants have reinforced forms of cultural identity and solidarity which have coalesced into increasing demands for cultural, economic, legal and educational autonomy. The melting pot, powerful as a referent for outsiders, has proved to be a symbol of erasure for excluded majority groups. It has therefore begun to lose its appeal as a metaphor of American Unity, and has been replaced by a new image - the image of "multiculturalism". This form has the appeal of promising to honour identity and cultural integrity, portraying not "one people", but a multiplicity of peoples each maintaining their sovereign identity, within the framework of "one nation".
What the notion of multiculturalism leaves out, however, is any reference to the disparities of power which helped to shape the original concept of the "melting pot" - that is, the dominance of the dominant culture. Cultural inequality remains untheorised in the notion of multiculturalism - indeed specifically so, since the concept particularly fails to address the rights of those First Nations whose land was acquired by theft and whose sovereignty has never been surrendered, but whose quiescence is continuously and tacitly presumed.
For these people particularly, the notion of "multi-culturalism" stands as yet another symbol of the continuing process of colonisation whereby their land and their rights continue to be stolen by ongoing process of silencing and non-acknowledgement. For these ones, the notion of multiculturalism extends the concept of the melting pot by reducing their non-surrendered status and rights to those of the most recent immigrant. In failing to address these unique rights State governments perpetuate a process which began in 1492. The concept of multiculturalism constructs the notion of culture as a depoliticised social practice - separate from issues of power and illegality, and frames it instead against a background of non-threatening ritual practices. Indigenous peoples have understandably been unwilling to embrace a concept which wilfully fails to address their historic oppression.
At the level of education also, multiculturalism has failed to attract the support which its advocates hoped. The educational practice of multiculturalism has amounted to little more than attempts to celebrate particular cultural dates (in the USA, Martin Luther King Day, Chinese New Year etc.) while leaving untouched the institutionalised racism expressed in an insistent use of dominant cultural language, history, and canonical art and literature. The resulting high failure rates among many excluded majority students has led to yet further modification of the unifying metaphor, each successive one falling short of the important marker of sovereignty. "Multiculturalism" has been replaced by the most recent addition to the assimilationist lexicon, the notion of "Cultural Pluralism".
The History of Assimilation Through EducationThe development of education programmes to effect assimilationist policies was first officially sanctioned in the United States in the early part of this century, to attempt to absorb the numerous poor and illiterate refugees from Europe and to establish a national character which was consistent with the needs of production. The policies were based upon the racist theories of eugenics and neo-Darwinism which were prevalent at that time, and which lead to the 1924 Restriction of Immigration Act which sought to stem the flow of "genetically inferior races" of southern and south-eastern Europeans.
Those immigrants who passed through the net were, until very recently, the objects of explicit policies of assimilation, often carried out for apparently laudable motives. The introduction of school bussing, in America in the late 1960s and early 1970s, for instance, took place as a result of Civil Rights efforts to break the hard edge of racial segregation which had been prevalent throughout the South and much of the North.
But the physical separation of white and black students was only a small part of the problem. Much more significant for the black community was the disproportionate allocation of State and Federal resources to white schools at the expense of the black community. At the same time, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, together with the Emergency School Aid Act of 1972, sought to expand the teaching of cultural awareness in schools so as to defuse potential antagonisms which might result from these policies of forced assimilation without a parallel programme of cultural education. In addition, the Bilingual Education Act of 1968 sought to encourage the use in school of the first languages of non-English speaking children. Gradually, during this same period, there emerged a new vision of the multicultural society, driven, it must be said, as much by a recognition of the potential for industrial export earnings as by a desire to accommodate cultural difference as difference per se.
This vision of multiculturalism while promoted extensively within the dominant culture, was seen as a way of achieving the dual aims of both cultural and national identities without favouring either one. However, as noted previously it has met with a mixed reception from the "excluded majorities" and subordinated cultures themselves who see that in the process of accommodating their needs to the national prerogative, their actual and experienced cultural life has been reduced to a set of superficial stereotypes, and that the adoption of these stereotypes has had the opposite effect than the policies themselves were designed to accomplish. Asa Hilliard, the Afro-American Dean at San Francisco State University, in one of America's must culturally diverse cities has noted, for instance, that:
"For some educators, multicultural education is simply a matter of infusing regular school content with material which deals with different customs, dress, food, or other matters which fall under the label of cultural appreciation. This is a very limited perspective and will contribute little to the solution of the fundamental problems of inequality. The main reason is that it leaves out consideration of individual and institutional racism or other prejudice as part of the foundation for victimisation. As painful as it may be to deal with racism and other prejudice, it is impossible to approach problems realistically while ignoring these matters."
The educational system in general and individual educators in particular have been unable to abandon the "melting pot" theory of cultural relations in the face of widespread evidence of resource disparity and institutionalised racism and minority-culture failure. It is for this reason that "excluded majority" groups see the "multicultural" and "cultural pluralism" banners as yet another attempt to reproduce assimilationist policies at the expense of their own cultural identities. Australian educational theorist Brian Bullivant notes that this reluctance on the part of the dominant culture to abandon multiculturalism as a model for cultural relations has been bolstered by what seems to be a concerted programme of media propaganda. Nor does the translation of the concept of cultural pluralism to a watered-down form of multiculturalism really deal effectively with issues of cultural difference in ways which count. Giroux notes for instance, that different pedagogical styles or forms of learning which are an integral part of a particular cultural group are neglected and ignored by the fact that the inclusion of cultural appreciation courses operate within the framework of existing dominant cultural pedagogical practices. In this case, the overt curriculum of respect for cultural difference is subverted by the hidden curriculum of cultural assimilation.
The Myth of Cultural PluralismTheories of cultural pluralism are not identical to theories of multiculturalism, however where they differ is that they recognise some of the disparities which are integral to the imposition of dominant cultural forms and values, and attempt to ameliorate these through a relaxing of the boundaries of permissible cultural practice. The notion of cultural pluralism has emerged in response to the insistent demands of diverse groups for a modification of programmes of systematic and institutionalised racism etc. Under the banner of cultural pluralism, schools have introduced courses in racial and cultural understanding and tolerance, and have sought to foster a wider recognition and acceptance of cultural difference.
Bullivant has shown, for instance, that the view of education as a cultural preparation for emergence into wider adult society extends from a demand for cultural autonomy of diverse ethnic groups at one end of the spectrum to cultural assimilation at the other. At stake is the key definition, assumed or adopted by many State education systems of the notion of cultural pluralism, as an apparent counterpoint and counter-strategy to the overarching tendency for States to indulge in cultural imperialism.
In point of fact, however, the normative State education policies of cultural pluralism also mask assimilationist policies which reduce culture to the superficial expression of different ethnic modes of dress, food, music etc., and deny the real and actual oppression of "excluded majority" groups with respect to access to resources and decision-making power which might positively impact upon their own sense of their own power, and might consequently lead to a redistribution of power within the wider social collective.
Cultural Pluralism and the Reproduction of DominanceAntonia Darder, a critical education theorist at Claremont Graduate School in California has noted that the definition of culture, divorced from any reference to instrumental power and to those exclusions which render the social framework of everyday life asymmetrical, has become the normative reality of school life, so that the activities which take place there are themselves reproductive of this normative standard. In other words, pedagogical practices which do not critically address the issue of power in the practice itself, and in the asymmetrical social relationships which it represents can only lead to a reproduction of these same asymmetries.
This is an important point, because it illustrates that for an actual acceptance of cultural difference to take place, cultural appreciation must work as a pedagogical practice as well as as a communicable element of knowledge. In other words, there must be a consistency between means and ends, between theory and practice before a real cultural pluralism between equals can take place, and this requires that the dominant culture be prepared to relinquish its its hold on the power to determine either pedagogical forms of curriculum content, or definitions of pluralism itself. In other words, what is at stake is the requirement that the dominant culture be prepared to surrender its monopoly on authority. Only in this way can marginalised groups hope to acquire access to what Bullivant terms equal "life chances" as opposed to "life styles".
Improved life chances for subordinated groups means, in this context, an equal sharing of power and resources rather than a superficial curriculum overview of cultural differences aimed at promoting cultural understanding. This, then, is the position of many of the subordinated cultural groups themselves to the educational policies which were intended to decrease their subordination. But normative perceptions of cultural reality are deeply ingrained and, coupled with the fear of real transformation, they mitigate against a full acceptance of the equal-authority model that these factors imply. Instead, the assimilationist model continues to be promulgated in the disguise of cultural pluralism and integrity. As Cynthia Enloe makes clear:
"Democratic ideology goes undisturbed as long as ethnic communities are intent upon assimilation or as long as they are too politically underdeveloped to make their existence forcefully known to the obvious majority. While this blissful condition lasts, democrats can sing the praises of individualism and pluralism simultaneously. The conceptual trick is to acknowledge the diversity of cultures within the society but assume that culture deals mainly with styles and cooking recipes and has relatively little impact on ambitions, moral judgements and public goals. If ethnicity is this shallow, then things that really matter to individuals will hardly be affected, and it will not impinge on important national decisions. In other words, the discrepancy between democratic ideology and ethnic reality is resolved by reducing ethnicity to style."
It is interesting to note that even Bullivant, who appears to promote some form of cultural power-sharing comes down in the end to an assimilationist view of education, citing the conservative sociologist Nat Glazer (who sided with the Berkeley administration and the conservative establishment against the students in the 1964 Free Speech Movement) in his weak and rhetorical call for a continuation of the status quo:
"We should still engage in the work of the creation of a single, distinct and unique nation, and this requires that our main attention be centred on the common culture. Cultural pluralism describes a supplement to the emerging common interests and common ideals that bind all groups in the society; it does not, and should not describe the whole." (emphasis added)
What all of this boils down to is an attempt to maintain establishment ideologies in place by a subtle framing of the horizons of meaning of key conceptual categories in the discourse of culture and power. Glazer's position is one which seeks to achieve change by remaining the same. His appeals to the "common culture" and "common ideals" suggests, at the level of curriculum design, for instance, that the choice of what to include in the curriculum "must be guided... by our conception of a desirable society, of the relationship between what we select to teach and the ability of people to achieve such a society and to live within it." This characterisation of the education process pays neither attention nor respect to the continuing process of struggle which typifies the cultural lives of ordinary people. In the first case, it presumes the collectivised subject-identity to be an a priori condition of the search for such a subjectivity - that "we" can embark upon a search for commonality in advance of a constitutive and democratic choice by the subordinated themselves to be included in that plurality. In this way, the mythologised plural subjectivity ("we") which is really projected into the discourse by the members of the dominant culture (in this case Nat Glazer), without any acknowledgement of their privileged status, or any reflexive recognition of how the power of their dominant status can skew the search for common meaning.
The terms of reference for such a search are those set by the dominant culture, rather than by the poor or marginalised, and become the a priori basis of the presumed common subjectivity. The cultural, social, political and economic autonomy of diverse (eg. indigenous) cultural groupings is never recognised by the dominant culture as a viability, and is automatically excluded from the discourse before the discourse begins. It never occurs to members of the ruling elite that oppressed peoples might question why they should want to accept a definition of plural subjectivity prescribed as necessary by the oppressor, simply because the oppressors never think of themselves as agents of oppression. By accepting definitions of plural subjectivity defined by their oppressors, subordinated groups relinquish the opportunity to reveal to the oppressor the extent and reality of his (in this case) oppression.
Glazer and other New Right educational theorists presume that access to educational resources is evenly distributed already, that all groups can play an equal part in the attainment of his idealistic egalitarian world without having to first confront the fundamental inequalities of power that currently prevent them from doing so. This version of conservative education theory idealises the future and simultaneously strips the present of its contradictions and tensions.
The Conservative Reframing of Culture in EducationThrough this educational process and through the meta-identities such as that suggested by Glazer - which are masked by such conceptual categorisations, a process of cultural assimilation is set in motion by which "minority" groups slowly lose their autonomous identity. The mechanisms whereby this assimilation is accomplished are many and varied. Control of the media obviously plays a part, as does cultural dominance of the organs of compulsory education and learning, and the superimposition of the languages of the dominant culture upon and throughout these institutions.
This transformation of the content of education displaces more democratic concerns for citizenship, replacing them with an overt call to patriotism. Giroux amongst others, has pointed out that under recent New Right ideologies, the new educational reform movement involves a discourse of citizenship which has been reconfigured and reduced to an overtly conservative notion of patriotism. The terrain over and on which political socialisation takes place has been ideologically narrowed. A form of citizenship education has emerged in which students are rarely exposed to forms of knowledge or pedagogy that celebrate the democratic imperatives of public life or that provide them with the skills they will need to engage in a critical examination of the society in which they live and work. As a result of these changes to the content and form of education, a new tradition has been established - a "back to basics" which sounds plausible, but which, under closer scrutiny is revealed to be "the basics" of and according to, the dominant culture in society. Underlying the call for a national or patriotic harmony is a "politics of silence" and an "ideological amnesia":
"A pedagogy of chauvinism dressed up in the lingo of the Great Books presents a view of culture and history as if it were a seamless web, a warehouse of great cultural artifacts. No democratic politics of difference is at work here. For within this vision difference quickly becomes labelled as deficit, as "the other," deviancy in need of a psychological tending and control. In the meantime, the languages cultures, historical legacies of minorities, women, blacks, and other subordinate groups are actively silenced under the rubic of teaching the dominant version of (American) culture and history as an act of patriotism."
A Critical Appraisal of Cultural Pluralism in Education
Within conceptual and socially constructed frames of reference of nationalism and cultural autonomy there lie numerous different social realities, each one of which presumes a different meaning to the term "culture" itself as a mediating factor in the perception of cultural difference and national identity. Take, for instance this 1971 definition of cultural pluralism suggested by the National Coalition for Cultural Pluralism at the Chicago Conference of Education and Teacher Education for Cultural Pluralism:
"(Cultural pluralism is) a state of equal co-existence in a mutually supportive relationship within the boundaries or framework of one nation of people of diverse cultures with significant different patterns of belief, behaviour, colour, and in many cases with different languages. To achieve cultural pluralism, there must be unity with diversity. Each person must be aware of and secure in his (sic) identity, and be willing to extend to others the same respect and rights that he expects to enjoy himself."
This definition sounds high-minded and plausible at face value. However, it ignores the fact that within any different cultural (or national) context, these two factors of unity and diversity are rarely ever given equal weight. Nor are they perceived as being equally important by different cultural groups within the wider society. Reflecting upon this definition, for instance, black and "minority" groups have suggested that if cultural pluralism signifies a form of partnership, then this cannot be achieved without a basic equality (since partnership can not exist in a power vacuum) and since true partners must first of all be equally powerful. In this regard, they have suggested that it is much more critical to establish a greater sense of cultural autonomy and identity as a prerequisite for any partnership arrangement:
"To function effectively in a pluralistic relationship, each group needs to define its own cultural base and develop a pervasive sense of cultural identity, as well as cultural unity. In order to accomplish this cultural unity, the racial and ethnic groups separate prior to negotiating back into pluralism. After separation, subsequent negotiations with others may proceed from genuine strength rather than traditional stereotyped cultural positions. Social justice as a treasured... concept may then take on real meaning in practice, as each group may define and demand equality of opportunity and constitutional protection. Cultural pluralism as a philosophy and strategy is all-encompassing and means co-existence of these separated, and significantly distinct groups."
The cultural issue from this perspective requires that cultural autonomy and/or sovereignty precede any form of cultural pluralism, since in the absence of agreement by autonomous and sovereign marginal(ised) groups - agreement freely given - pluralism itself remains an imposition. Freedom to choose pluralism (or to reject it) is the inalienable prerequisite of a process which does not collapse into further domination, and the prerequisite of freedom is a state of social, political and economic independence and autonomy in which disempowered or dispossessed groups are not subjected to the coercion of existing colonised and colonising constitutional frameworks and forms.
Cultural Pluralism as Transformative PracticeAt its worst, the conservative doctrine of cultural pluralism subverts the demands of minorities to an equal voice in their destiny. At the best, when issues of cultural difference are taken seriously, and when the dominant culture is prepared to relinquish its grasp on the horizon of meaning, it offers an opportunity for diverse cultural groups to press for autonomous status and identity, and to lobby across coalitions of excluded majorities and other disenfranchised groups for real social change. As a key element in postmodern educational theorising, the concept of cultural pluralism embodies both liberal and conservative tendencies, and the struggle for hegemony is a continuing process within the field of educational and cultural theorising. Initially conceived as an oppositional or counter-theory to cultural imperialism, it has had some success in raising public awareness of the importance of cultural difference both as an aspect of educational effectiveness and as a motivation factor in developing a diverse rather than an ethnocentric national identity. The concept of cultural pluralism is currently a site of cultural struggle in which, on the one side, the dominant culture seeks to mask an ongoing logic of assimilation and colonisation behind a myth of cultural equity. On the other hand, marginalised groups - particularly First Nations of Fourth World status - see cultural pluralism as either an instrument of further marginalisation or as a lever for advancing their more important demand for cultural autonomy and sovereignty.
Sovereignty: The Ultimate Demand What is clearly being distinguished in these instances is the sovereign right of groups to resist or refuse assimilation. Cultural pluralism cannot be an assimilative movement or position, but must be the negation of assimilation. It is a perspective which maintains that "there is more than one legitimate way of being human without paying the penalties of second class citizenship." Cultural pluralism requires unavoidably the right not to assimilate, the right to refuse or reframe cultural pluralism - or to put it another way, a right to sovereignty.
This right is particularly evident in the stand taken by indigenous or First Nations, who maintain that they never relinquished their sovereignty in the face of colonisation, and who often point back to violated treaties in evidence of their claims. The Maori in New Zealand, the Mohawk in Canada, and the Lakota in the United States, the Maya in Mexico, the Miskitos in Nicaragua are all cases in point. Such groups base their claims also upon international precedents and rights over and above nationally accepted norms, often taking their cases to the United Nations or the World Court. In this sense they repudiate national norms and laws under which their own voice has historically been suppressed. The concept of cultural pluralism which these groups espouse often equates with cultural separatism - a need and a right to develop their own modes of cultural production and reproduction away from and outside of the assimilationist policies and mechanisms of the dominant culture. Such demands extend to a separate education system, a separate legal system, a separate form of justice, a separate health system and (occasionally) a demand for separate trading status with respect to the world market.
"Excluded majority" groups often see the call for national unity as an extension of previous discredited policies of assimilation. Often, the call for unity is still associated with the epithet of "multiculturalism", which, while seeming to offer a recognition of and a dignity to cultural difference in fact has the effect of reducing cultural difference to superficialities of dress, food, song, dance and other expressions of cultural identity, without attacking the root issue of the inequality of opportunity and access to and control over resources.
One Final Thought
If there were any need for further evidence of the assimilationist potential of Cultural Pluralism doctrines, it must surely be found in the rough and crude categories under which indigenous peoples are supposed to participate. Take, for instance their very names. “Maori” for instance being a case in point which serves as a marker for all indigenous communities. The word “Maori” simply mean “ordinary”. When James Cook first arrived on the shores of Aotearoa-New Zealand in 1769 and asked the local people who they were, they told him that they were just “ordinary people” – Maori, and the name has stuck and been applied to all indigenous inhabitants. Yet the name was meaningless in the actual cultural lived realities of the Maori themselves. The supposed Maori culture was made up of many different tribal groups (Iwi) – Tainui, Ngati Porou, Arawa, Ngati Awa, Nga Puhi etc. Each Iwi (identical in many ways the the “Nations” of Lakota, Iroquois, Arapahoe etc. in the United States) had and has its sub-tribes (Hapu) and extended families (Whanau). The constitutional forms of the so-called Maori operated primarily not even at the Iwi level, but at the hapu level. In recent times, and in an effort to right the injustices carried out by the Colonial Government in violation of the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi, Treaty settlements have been made between the Crown and recognised claimants. These are often Iwi groups or collectivities of hapu with whom the Government already has a cordial relationship, and with whom it feelsd it can more easily make a deal and this has led to further significant inter-hapu resentments and conflicts regarding manawhenua (Land Rights). The tendency of the dominant culture (represented in this case by the Government) to generalise identities and the erasure of actual differences even below the level of nationalism stands as evidence of the violence attendant upon the laying-on of identities and meanings which are such an important component of the Cultural Pluralism ideology. Such practices ought to alert us to the threat of too easily and uncritically embracing the notion of Cultural pluralism as a step towards greater equity and emancipation.
Ruatoki, New Zealand, 2007.
Ruatoki, New Zealand, 2007.
