Said, Edward W. (1993). New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Introduction (xi-xxviii)
Said contests that culture and imperialism are interconnected by controlling power to either narrate or block other narratives from emerging. Said points out that culture is often associated with the nation or the state and becomes a source of identity, and a rather combative one within the context of religious and nationalist fundamentalism in the formerly colonized world. In this sense, "Western imperialism and Third World Nationalism feed off each other" (p. xxiv) writes Said. In particular observing an emergence of vigorous non-Western feminist scholarship, Said refutes the binary oppositions between imperialism and nationalism; instead, he focuses on new alignments across borders, nations, types and essences that challenge the static notions of identity and culture bounded by a supposedly unbroken tradition. He argues:
Partly because of empire, all cultures are involved in one another; none is single and pure, all are hybrid, heterogenous, extraordinarily differentiated, and unmonolithic. (p. xxv)
For Said, multiculturalism in the United State is a process of integration, not separation, of women, minorities and recent immigrants who had been excluded from the main group and now claim for a place in it, thus by no means to be feared.
Body
Said defines as 'imperialism' "the practice, the theory, and the attitudes of a dominating metropolitan center ruling a distant territory" whereas colonialism a consequence of imperialism that implant settlements on distant territory (p. 9). He argues that, while direct colonialism has largely ended, imperialism lingers in a general cultural sphere as well as in specific political, ideological, economic and social practices.
Said describes the paradox of culture in the late twentieth century: whereas all nationally defined cultures aspire after sovereignty and dominance, these cultures come across national boundaries and assume many foreign elements, alterities and differences within themselves. Thus, people's cultural experiences are oddly hybrid and even contradictory.
There was scholastic intervention in developing the concepts of nation and its culture. Said notes that the parallel alignment between the rise of nationalism between 1745 and 1945 and the emergence of the Eurocentric Enlightenment under the alleged universalism. He writes, "when most European thinkers celebrated humanity or culture they were principally celebrating ideas and values they ascribed to their own national culture, or to Europe as distinct from the Orient, Africa, and even the Americas," (p. 44)
Lyotard and other post-modernists, however, criticize the impact of the Enlightenment, arguing that the modernity that the Western Enlightenment had aimed to achieve in fact failed. Said defines as post-modernism "the loss of legitimizing power of the narratives of Western emancipation and the enlightenment" (p. 57). Said states that it is an irony that Western societies enter post-modernism whereas simultaneously modernism is rediscovered in the formerly colonized world. For Said, modernism and post-modernism coexist today. Within this context, Said stresses that cultural experience or every cultural form is essentially hybrid and culture and experience should not be separated. This theoretical framework is important to Said because cultural dimensions of an imperial ideology precede its actual territorial accumulation world-wide. Thus, his focus is on formulating the relationship between empire and culture.
Showing posts with label cultural. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cultural. Show all posts
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Cultural Pluralism: An Overview of the Debate since the 60s
Helly, Denise. (2002). Ethnopolitics, 2(1), 75-96.
Helly, Montreal based, notes that public controversy over the equality of minorities since the 1960s has triggered a large-scale academic debate on cultural differentiation in a modern political system. This article provides an overview of the debate and an examination of the theoretical positions.
Political liberalism and republicanism
Helly suggests political liberalism and republicanism as two extreme political stance in liberty and equality, which came to a target of criticism in the 19th century. Political liberalism, based on classical liberalism, emphasizes an autonomous individual who has unconquerable liberty and freedom. According to this view, thus, cultural diversity is a natural extension of individual diversity and the state cannot intervene to define common morality and cultural values; instead, collectivity in this model can be negotiated only through individual reasoning. Thus Helly notes that the political in this view is instrumental and administrative. This perception is parallel to political relativism, as Gutmann notes.
Republicanism, on the other hand, does not rely solely on individual reasoning to obtain common values. As Helly observes, republicanism recognizes cultural and political dissidence, but it calls attention to "the predatory effect of liberty upon equality" (p. 76), because of the passivity of citizens. Thus, central to republicanism is to place collective interests over individual desires in order to preserve equality among people. From this perspective, republicanism emphasizes a construction of citizenship to instruct an active political behavior and build a public morality. This state's active role in civil society constitutes a sharp contrast with liberalism, which adheres to the insurmountable individual right to liberty.
Critics
Helly examines critics of these perspectives (fictitious argument over liberty and freedom) from various sectors since 1940s in North America. Helly states that Black and feminist movement in the United States and francophone movement in Canada reveals the illusory character of anti-discrimination law enactment. At the center of the critique is the debate on culture: minority rights, communinatianism, and nation and ethnocentrism. (I substantiate the debate around minority rights from Kymlicka and Norman.)
[Citizenship in Diverse Societies, Kymlicka & Norman (Eds.) Intro. 1-41]
Characterizing the Culture Wars in the 1980s and early 1990s as minority rights against cultural dominance, Kymlicka and Norman inquire whether minority rights can coexist the virtue of democratic citizenship and how the rights relate to underlying principles of liberal democracy, such as individual freedom and equality. They argue that the relationship between minority rights or cultural diversity and citizenship ideals is complex and no definite answers have been found yet. In their argument, however, the author allude to the importance of citizenship education and practices to build cohesion and generate common sense and values among diverse cultural groups.
In contrast to the concept of rational individuals, predominantly supported by John Rawls's A theory of Justice (1971), communitarianism (Sandel, Liberalism and the Limits of Justice, 1982; Taylor) emphasizes individual interaction with others and communities in the process of construction of identity. In this view, cultural inclusion and recognition are crucial to a human's well-being and this recognition has to be won. Taylor states:
"Yet inwardly derives, personal, original identity doesn't enjoy this recognition a priori. It has to win it through exchange, and the attempt can fail. What has come about with the modern age is not the need for recognition but the conditions in which the attempt to be recognized can fail. That is why the need is now acknowledged for the first time." (The Politics of Recognition, 34-35)
Taylor contests that liberalism cannot claim complete cultural neutrality because a scheduling of rights among different cultural interests is inevitable, thus liberalism is a fighting creed. Thus Helly notes that from communitarian perspective, the cultural neutrality of the state is a myth and only reinforces cultural dominance.
Helly asserts Article 27 of the the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as the optimal liberal answer to the protection of minority culture by making it an interpretive clause of individual rights:
Article 27. This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.
Helly locates communitarian responses, in particular from Taylor and Michale Walzer, as a liberal response to demands for multicultural diversity. According to Taylor, a recognition of cultural differences is necessary to obtain individual participation in political and collective life. For him, a politics of recognition is important in two levels: in the intimate sphere, and in the public sphere. As noted earlier, a politics of recognition is important as identity is formed in relation to significant others. This recognition comes to play a bigger role in the public sphere as this recognition refuses second-class citizenship, thus inviting a cohesion among the diversity. (FIND THE PHRASE)
As a republican response to demands for multicultural diversity, Helly notes that republican emphasizes political commonality and the unity of sovereign people reinforced by anti-discriminatory legislation and public intercultural education. Notable is Tourain. Helly summarizes his perspective: Tourain, criticizing a policy of cultural pluralism, focuses on ways in which social rules make reconcile individual sovereignty over their own life experience and diverse cultural identities. Thus for Tourain, democracy is an instrument of cultural communication and public school must be a place for the formation of respect for cultural differences, toleration, and for the intercultural.
(Touraine, Alain, 1994, Qu'est-ce que la Démocratie? Paris, Fayard.
; 1997, Pourrons-nous vivre ensemble? Égaux et différents)
Helly states that an inherent tension of the modern state lies between the cultural foundation of a specific society and its universal principles. Instead of relying on the abstract rationality of the state or universalism, the state exercises its sovereignty by intentionally integrating populations in different territories and creating a political identity in order to complement the abstract notion of the political identity.
It is interesting to note the way Helly approaches the formation of nationalism in the 19th century in Europe. Borrowing Gellner's argument, she sheds light on the ways in which capitalism played a role in forging nationalism by homogenizing culture and experiences and creating the sense of belonging to a territorial entity. In this process, she notes, citizenship and nationalism flourished and a good citizen became a patriot.
As to minority nations, Helly observes the idea that the state must become multinational (Resnick 1994; Gagnon and Rocher 1997; Bourque and Duchastel
2000). She asserts the implication of this idea in Canadian context:
"In Canada, this solution implies the sharing, amongst Quebecois and also some sixty native nations, of powers relating to the organization of collective life (Royal Commission 1996), as well as an alliance with the federal state in matters of money and international politics." (p. 87)
In response to the liberal argument that cultural rights would form closed communities and harm the unity among cultural groups, Helly argues that cultural rights concerns persons, not groups, and cultural rights do not interfere with the collectivity among the groups. For instance, Article 27 does not annul the predominance of the two official languages in Canada. She further notes that the only granted collective right in the Charter is the right to impose French as official language in Quebec. [This indicates that Quebec is a special case in Canada among many national groups. Quebec itself is not composed of the same cultural group, but the predominance of French culture is recognized as such in the federal level. Looking at Quebec at a micro level is an interesting topic to see how a cultural diversity is played out.]
As to a post-modern response to cultural plurality, Helly points out that post-modernism denies the unitary idea of living together and all controls exerted by the state codify a particular form of cultural plurality and create a illusion of commonality and social unity.
Lastly Helly states as to social cohesion:
"It affirms that 'social cohesion' grows out of cooperation between individuals and constitutes a source of social peace, equality and a sense of social belonging. It suggests that this cohesion is eroded by the decline of civic life, of political interest, of social solidarity, and an absence of any
sense of social obligations on the part of individuals." (p. 89)
Helly, Montreal based, notes that public controversy over the equality of minorities since the 1960s has triggered a large-scale academic debate on cultural differentiation in a modern political system. This article provides an overview of the debate and an examination of the theoretical positions.
Political liberalism and republicanism
Helly suggests political liberalism and republicanism as two extreme political stance in liberty and equality, which came to a target of criticism in the 19th century. Political liberalism, based on classical liberalism, emphasizes an autonomous individual who has unconquerable liberty and freedom. According to this view, thus, cultural diversity is a natural extension of individual diversity and the state cannot intervene to define common morality and cultural values; instead, collectivity in this model can be negotiated only through individual reasoning. Thus Helly notes that the political in this view is instrumental and administrative. This perception is parallel to political relativism, as Gutmann notes.
Republicanism, on the other hand, does not rely solely on individual reasoning to obtain common values. As Helly observes, republicanism recognizes cultural and political dissidence, but it calls attention to "the predatory effect of liberty upon equality" (p. 76), because of the passivity of citizens. Thus, central to republicanism is to place collective interests over individual desires in order to preserve equality among people. From this perspective, republicanism emphasizes a construction of citizenship to instruct an active political behavior and build a public morality. This state's active role in civil society constitutes a sharp contrast with liberalism, which adheres to the insurmountable individual right to liberty.
Critics
Helly examines critics of these perspectives (fictitious argument over liberty and freedom) from various sectors since 1940s in North America. Helly states that Black and feminist movement in the United States and francophone movement in Canada reveals the illusory character of anti-discrimination law enactment. At the center of the critique is the debate on culture: minority rights, communinatianism, and nation and ethnocentrism. (I substantiate the debate around minority rights from Kymlicka and Norman.)
[Citizenship in Diverse Societies, Kymlicka & Norman (Eds.) Intro. 1-41]
Characterizing the Culture Wars in the 1980s and early 1990s as minority rights against cultural dominance, Kymlicka and Norman inquire whether minority rights can coexist the virtue of democratic citizenship and how the rights relate to underlying principles of liberal democracy, such as individual freedom and equality. They argue that the relationship between minority rights or cultural diversity and citizenship ideals is complex and no definite answers have been found yet. In their argument, however, the author allude to the importance of citizenship education and practices to build cohesion and generate common sense and values among diverse cultural groups.
In contrast to the concept of rational individuals, predominantly supported by John Rawls's A theory of Justice (1971), communitarianism (Sandel, Liberalism and the Limits of Justice, 1982; Taylor) emphasizes individual interaction with others and communities in the process of construction of identity. In this view, cultural inclusion and recognition are crucial to a human's well-being and this recognition has to be won. Taylor states:
"Yet inwardly derives, personal, original identity doesn't enjoy this recognition a priori. It has to win it through exchange, and the attempt can fail. What has come about with the modern age is not the need for recognition but the conditions in which the attempt to be recognized can fail. That is why the need is now acknowledged for the first time." (The Politics of Recognition, 34-35)
Taylor contests that liberalism cannot claim complete cultural neutrality because a scheduling of rights among different cultural interests is inevitable, thus liberalism is a fighting creed. Thus Helly notes that from communitarian perspective, the cultural neutrality of the state is a myth and only reinforces cultural dominance.
Helly asserts Article 27 of the the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as the optimal liberal answer to the protection of minority culture by making it an interpretive clause of individual rights:
Article 27. This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.
Helly locates communitarian responses, in particular from Taylor and Michale Walzer, as a liberal response to demands for multicultural diversity. According to Taylor, a recognition of cultural differences is necessary to obtain individual participation in political and collective life. For him, a politics of recognition is important in two levels: in the intimate sphere, and in the public sphere. As noted earlier, a politics of recognition is important as identity is formed in relation to significant others. This recognition comes to play a bigger role in the public sphere as this recognition refuses second-class citizenship, thus inviting a cohesion among the diversity. (FIND THE PHRASE)
As a republican response to demands for multicultural diversity, Helly notes that republican emphasizes political commonality and the unity of sovereign people reinforced by anti-discriminatory legislation and public intercultural education. Notable is Tourain. Helly summarizes his perspective: Tourain, criticizing a policy of cultural pluralism, focuses on ways in which social rules make reconcile individual sovereignty over their own life experience and diverse cultural identities. Thus for Tourain, democracy is an instrument of cultural communication and public school must be a place for the formation of respect for cultural differences, toleration, and for the intercultural.
(Touraine, Alain, 1994, Qu'est-ce que la Démocratie? Paris, Fayard.
; 1997, Pourrons-nous vivre ensemble? Égaux et différents)
Helly states that an inherent tension of the modern state lies between the cultural foundation of a specific society and its universal principles. Instead of relying on the abstract rationality of the state or universalism, the state exercises its sovereignty by intentionally integrating populations in different territories and creating a political identity in order to complement the abstract notion of the political identity.
It is interesting to note the way Helly approaches the formation of nationalism in the 19th century in Europe. Borrowing Gellner's argument, she sheds light on the ways in which capitalism played a role in forging nationalism by homogenizing culture and experiences and creating the sense of belonging to a territorial entity. In this process, she notes, citizenship and nationalism flourished and a good citizen became a patriot.
As to minority nations, Helly observes the idea that the state must become multinational (Resnick 1994; Gagnon and Rocher 1997; Bourque and Duchastel
2000). She asserts the implication of this idea in Canadian context:
"In Canada, this solution implies the sharing, amongst Quebecois and also some sixty native nations, of powers relating to the organization of collective life (Royal Commission 1996), as well as an alliance with the federal state in matters of money and international politics." (p. 87)
In response to the liberal argument that cultural rights would form closed communities and harm the unity among cultural groups, Helly argues that cultural rights concerns persons, not groups, and cultural rights do not interfere with the collectivity among the groups. For instance, Article 27 does not annul the predominance of the two official languages in Canada. She further notes that the only granted collective right in the Charter is the right to impose French as official language in Quebec. [This indicates that Quebec is a special case in Canada among many national groups. Quebec itself is not composed of the same cultural group, but the predominance of French culture is recognized as such in the federal level. Looking at Quebec at a micro level is an interesting topic to see how a cultural diversity is played out.]
As to a post-modern response to cultural plurality, Helly points out that post-modernism denies the unitary idea of living together and all controls exerted by the state codify a particular form of cultural plurality and create a illusion of commonality and social unity.
Lastly Helly states as to social cohesion:
"It affirms that 'social cohesion' grows out of cooperation between individuals and constitutes a source of social peace, equality and a sense of social belonging. It suggests that this cohesion is eroded by the decline of civic life, of political interest, of social solidarity, and an absence of any
sense of social obligations on the part of individuals." (p. 89)
Friday, January 8, 2010
‘Political correctness’: the politics of culture and language
Fairclough, Norman. (2003). Discourse Society, 14 (1), 17-28.
Fairclough locates the controversy of political correctness (PC) around cultural politics, in particular, within the context of a controversy over language. From this perspective, his main question revolves around how to achieve political or social change through cultural/lingual politics.
He explains the grounds of emergence of PC: the increasing impact of culture industries on social life and growing competitive global economy have turned education as a primary concern of right politics in order to form and transformation identities and values through 'cultural governance'. Left politics, however, was behind. He writes:
"Meanwhile, left politics, unable to respond to these social transformations and the ideological assault of the New Right and neo-liberalism with an effective counter-hegemonic strategy (Hall,
1994), has become fragmented. They are no longer centred upon the political parties and social classes but oriented to ‘single issues’ and to a politics of recognition, identity and difference as much as to a politics of re-distributive social justice." (p. 21)
Fairclough sharply points out that PC is cultural interventions (changing representations, identities, and values as a way of social change) orchestrated by Reagan and Thatcher at different levels of socio-economic-political practices as part of projects for changing culture and discourse--neo-liberal discourse.
In responding to his main question, Fairclough criticizes the fragmentation of the left that remains only at a rhetoric level of PC. Instead, he calls for a hegemonic politics that brings together interventions of various levels of the social.
In particular, he calls attention to the critique of PC in the context of the controversy over political asylum as it is crucial to the analysis of contemporary global migration. [I should look for a debate over this issue.]
Fairclough locates the controversy of political correctness (PC) around cultural politics, in particular, within the context of a controversy over language. From this perspective, his main question revolves around how to achieve political or social change through cultural/lingual politics.
He explains the grounds of emergence of PC: the increasing impact of culture industries on social life and growing competitive global economy have turned education as a primary concern of right politics in order to form and transformation identities and values through 'cultural governance'. Left politics, however, was behind. He writes:
"Meanwhile, left politics, unable to respond to these social transformations and the ideological assault of the New Right and neo-liberalism with an effective counter-hegemonic strategy (Hall,
1994), has become fragmented. They are no longer centred upon the political parties and social classes but oriented to ‘single issues’ and to a politics of recognition, identity and difference as much as to a politics of re-distributive social justice." (p. 21)
Fairclough sharply points out that PC is cultural interventions (changing representations, identities, and values as a way of social change) orchestrated by Reagan and Thatcher at different levels of socio-economic-political practices as part of projects for changing culture and discourse--neo-liberal discourse.
In responding to his main question, Fairclough criticizes the fragmentation of the left that remains only at a rhetoric level of PC. Instead, he calls for a hegemonic politics that brings together interventions of various levels of the social.
In particular, he calls attention to the critique of PC in the context of the controversy over political asylum as it is crucial to the analysis of contemporary global migration. [I should look for a debate over this issue.]
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Redefining Multicultural Education
Ghosh, Ratna. (2002). (2nd Ed.). Scarborough, ON: Nelson Thomson Learning.
1. Multicultural Education (pp. 1-22)
Ghosh criticizes the liberal perspective of multicultural education in that it attempts to accommodate other ethnocultural groups within a dominant educational framework of a monocultural pedagogy. In lieu of ethnic cultures she stresses multicultural education should emphasize the politics of difference such that difference is considered a right, views and experiences of all students both dominant and minority are incorporated in class, and differential treatment of students with dissimilar experiences. Besides, Ghosh puts an emphasis on identity development as a critical element of multicultural education. The teacher's role is, she asserts, to create unity within the diversity by helping stuents interpret their multiple social relations that contribute their identity construction. By unity within diversity she means "to integrate a positive ethnic and gender identity at the individual level with a national Canadian identity" (p.8) and states that the success of multiculturalism depends on this ability. [Why identity construction is a critical part of multiculturalism and why towards a Canadian identification?]
Ghosh states that multicultural education also challenges objective universal knowledge and thus curricula, i.e. how are students with different backgrounds affected by the dominant curriculum? How can those students become active participants in learning process?
Radical theories focus on structural discrimination that originates from the view of homogeneous student population. Based on these theories, Ghosh stresses that class is the first factor of student's failure and seconds the argument that education reinforces class differences (p. 13, Berstein, 77; Bourdieu & Passeron, 77; Bowles & Gintis, 1976). Besides she notes that the structure and process of education classify students, thus dumping a large number of students into special-education classes or dropping out of school. The problem is not individuals but the school system to which many do not fit, she argues. Therefore she underlines that the goal of multicultural education at the institutional level is to provide an equal chance to all students to develop their full potential by offering different needs to different students.
3. A Framework for a Redefined Multicultural Education (p. 39-67)
"Besides being an act of knowing, education is alos a political act. That is why no pedagogy is neutral" (Shor & Freire, 1987, p. 13; as cited on p. 40).
Bourdieu (1979, Symbolic Power, Critique of Anthropology, 4, 77-85) refers the maintenance of dominant-group power both in school and in society as symbolic violence (as cited on p. 57). Ghosh argues that traditional pedagogy techniques and content make minority students feel unworthy and "culturally deprived" and lose selt-esteem. Noting an important role that schools play in constructing self-esteem, Ghosh proposes involvement of parents in school activities as a good way of developing positive self-concept. (p.57).
*Shor, I. & Freire, P. (1987). A pedagogy for liberation: Dialogues on transforming education. South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey.
4. The School Environment (pp. 69-86)
Ghosh continues to criticize the exclusion of parents of ethnic/racial minority and working-class students from the educational environment. It is, Ghosh argues, because of "culturally embedded perceptions of and communication difficulties with school administration and teachers" (p. 74). Ghosh stresses that this communication gap, which is reiterated elsewhere in the book as an important issue in anti-racist education, should be bridged such that parents and school share a shared responsibility for education, for example, by seeking cultural and linguistic translators and the assistance from community leaders.
With regard to school discipline, Ghosh contests that the symbolic violence (Bourdieu & Passeron, 77) that results from a school environment of rules, test and punishment based on manipulation and subordination causes a "performance strike" (Shor & Freire, 1987, p. 127), and writes, "this takes the form of passivitiy and rebellion: refusing to perform and do homework, using bad labguages, missing classes, dropping our literally or figuratively (passivity), using drugs and alchol, and engaging in crime. Passivity is not a natural condition of childhood; it is proviked, and can produce aggression" (p. 79).
*Bourdieu, P. & Passeron, J.C. (1977). Reproduction in education, society, and culture. Beverly Hills. CA: Sage.
5. Teacher Education and Classroom Interactions (pp. 87-109)
Ghosh contests that pre-service teacher education in North America is far behind changing society in the multicultural environment, thus leaving most of multicultural education to individual teachers' ad hoc initiatives due to their situation or their own moral imperatives. Among several factors that influence this reluctance to change, Ghosh writes teacher themselves have tended to avoid discussing politically controvertial issues, which resulted in taking nonracist/nonsexist approach rather than anti-racist/anti-sexist strategy, and "neutralize inequality and mask unequal power relations" (p. 90).
Ghosh continues to argue that teachers who believe in transformative education dare not "rock the boat" for fear of losing their jobs and stresses that the system has little incentive for teacher to undertake changes (p. 92).
"Students come in as curious individuals. The manner in which traditional education tends to subdue and silence children is well documented" (Holt, 1982; Kozol, 1991; cited on pp. 102-103).
*Holt, J.C. (1982). How children fail. NY: Delta/Seymour Lawrence.
*Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequlaities: Children in American Schools. NY: Crown Publications.
6. Teaching Strategies and Evaluation (pp. 111-125)
With regard to a neutral approach taken by teachers with concern of indoctrination, Ghosh stresses that teachers must address the fundamental values of justice, fairness and respect. Taking a neutral approach, in other words, avoiding discussion of racism and sexism, under the guise of avoiding indoctrination, she argues, is harmful and evasive becasue neither school nor society is neutral. She writes, "A 'neutral' approach is a stance that serves to perpetuate inequality. While the teacher must protect divergent views, teaching is designed to bring about certain outcomes. Tacism and sexism are wrong; to say so is not indoctrination" (p. 121).
1. Multicultural Education (pp. 1-22)
Ghosh criticizes the liberal perspective of multicultural education in that it attempts to accommodate other ethnocultural groups within a dominant educational framework of a monocultural pedagogy. In lieu of ethnic cultures she stresses multicultural education should emphasize the politics of difference such that difference is considered a right, views and experiences of all students both dominant and minority are incorporated in class, and differential treatment of students with dissimilar experiences. Besides, Ghosh puts an emphasis on identity development as a critical element of multicultural education. The teacher's role is, she asserts, to create unity within the diversity by helping stuents interpret their multiple social relations that contribute their identity construction. By unity within diversity she means "to integrate a positive ethnic and gender identity at the individual level with a national Canadian identity" (p.8) and states that the success of multiculturalism depends on this ability. [Why identity construction is a critical part of multiculturalism and why towards a Canadian identification?]
Ghosh states that multicultural education also challenges objective universal knowledge and thus curricula, i.e. how are students with different backgrounds affected by the dominant curriculum? How can those students become active participants in learning process?
Radical theories focus on structural discrimination that originates from the view of homogeneous student population. Based on these theories, Ghosh stresses that class is the first factor of student's failure and seconds the argument that education reinforces class differences (p. 13, Berstein, 77; Bourdieu & Passeron, 77; Bowles & Gintis, 1976). Besides she notes that the structure and process of education classify students, thus dumping a large number of students into special-education classes or dropping out of school. The problem is not individuals but the school system to which many do not fit, she argues. Therefore she underlines that the goal of multicultural education at the institutional level is to provide an equal chance to all students to develop their full potential by offering different needs to different students.
3. A Framework for a Redefined Multicultural Education (p. 39-67)
"Besides being an act of knowing, education is alos a political act. That is why no pedagogy is neutral" (Shor & Freire, 1987, p. 13; as cited on p. 40).
Bourdieu (1979, Symbolic Power, Critique of Anthropology, 4, 77-85) refers the maintenance of dominant-group power both in school and in society as symbolic violence (as cited on p. 57). Ghosh argues that traditional pedagogy techniques and content make minority students feel unworthy and "culturally deprived" and lose selt-esteem. Noting an important role that schools play in constructing self-esteem, Ghosh proposes involvement of parents in school activities as a good way of developing positive self-concept. (p.57).
*Shor, I. & Freire, P. (1987). A pedagogy for liberation: Dialogues on transforming education. South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey.
4. The School Environment (pp. 69-86)
Ghosh continues to criticize the exclusion of parents of ethnic/racial minority and working-class students from the educational environment. It is, Ghosh argues, because of "culturally embedded perceptions of and communication difficulties with school administration and teachers" (p. 74). Ghosh stresses that this communication gap, which is reiterated elsewhere in the book as an important issue in anti-racist education, should be bridged such that parents and school share a shared responsibility for education, for example, by seeking cultural and linguistic translators and the assistance from community leaders.
With regard to school discipline, Ghosh contests that the symbolic violence (Bourdieu & Passeron, 77) that results from a school environment of rules, test and punishment based on manipulation and subordination causes a "performance strike" (Shor & Freire, 1987, p. 127), and writes, "this takes the form of passivitiy and rebellion: refusing to perform and do homework, using bad labguages, missing classes, dropping our literally or figuratively (passivity), using drugs and alchol, and engaging in crime. Passivity is not a natural condition of childhood; it is proviked, and can produce aggression" (p. 79).
*Bourdieu, P. & Passeron, J.C. (1977). Reproduction in education, society, and culture. Beverly Hills. CA: Sage.
5. Teacher Education and Classroom Interactions (pp. 87-109)
Ghosh contests that pre-service teacher education in North America is far behind changing society in the multicultural environment, thus leaving most of multicultural education to individual teachers' ad hoc initiatives due to their situation or their own moral imperatives. Among several factors that influence this reluctance to change, Ghosh writes teacher themselves have tended to avoid discussing politically controvertial issues, which resulted in taking nonracist/nonsexist approach rather than anti-racist/anti-sexist strategy, and "neutralize inequality and mask unequal power relations" (p. 90).
Ghosh continues to argue that teachers who believe in transformative education dare not "rock the boat" for fear of losing their jobs and stresses that the system has little incentive for teacher to undertake changes (p. 92).
"Students come in as curious individuals. The manner in which traditional education tends to subdue and silence children is well documented" (Holt, 1982; Kozol, 1991; cited on pp. 102-103).
*Holt, J.C. (1982). How children fail. NY: Delta/Seymour Lawrence.
*Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequlaities: Children in American Schools. NY: Crown Publications.
6. Teaching Strategies and Evaluation (pp. 111-125)
With regard to a neutral approach taken by teachers with concern of indoctrination, Ghosh stresses that teachers must address the fundamental values of justice, fairness and respect. Taking a neutral approach, in other words, avoiding discussion of racism and sexism, under the guise of avoiding indoctrination, she argues, is harmful and evasive becasue neither school nor society is neutral. She writes, "A 'neutral' approach is a stance that serves to perpetuate inequality. While the teacher must protect divergent views, teaching is designed to bring about certain outcomes. Tacism and sexism are wrong; to say so is not indoctrination" (p. 121).
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste
Pierre Bourdieu. (1984). Richard Nice (Tr.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
5. The Sense of Distinction (pp. 260-317)
Bourdieu examines patterns of consumption shown in life-styles which are largely composed of distribution of economic/cultural/educational capital. He contrasts intellectuals who enjoy 'cultural profit' from work itself for minimum economic cost with dominant class's conspicuous consumption as seen in a 'night-out' for instance. He compares teachers' and professionals' aesthetic choices, which reflects their cultural capital, which is reinforced by economic capital. Their social perspectives stemming from the disparity between cultural and econmic capitals are explained as following: "The disparity between economic capital and cultural capital, or, more precisely, the educational capital which is its certified form, is undoubtedly one of the foundations of their propensity to contest a social order which does not fully recognize their merits because it recognized other principles of classification than those of the educational system which has classified them...In contrast, for those who, like the professionals, live on the sale of cultural services to a clientele, the accumulation of economic capital merges with the accumulation of symbolic capital, that is, with the acquisition of a reputation for competence and an image of respectability and honourablility that are easily converted into political positions as local or national notable." According to Bourdieu, intellectuals and artists have a particular interest in disinterestedness and universal and highest values, and thus make a virtue of necessity of their activities in order to discredit the activities of the dominant class.[What does this mean?]
5. The Sense of Distinction (pp. 260-317)
Bourdieu examines patterns of consumption shown in life-styles which are largely composed of distribution of economic/cultural/educational capital. He contrasts intellectuals who enjoy 'cultural profit' from work itself for minimum economic cost with dominant class's conspicuous consumption as seen in a 'night-out' for instance. He compares teachers' and professionals' aesthetic choices, which reflects their cultural capital, which is reinforced by economic capital. Their social perspectives stemming from the disparity between cultural and econmic capitals are explained as following: "The disparity between economic capital and cultural capital, or, more precisely, the educational capital which is its certified form, is undoubtedly one of the foundations of their propensity to contest a social order which does not fully recognize their merits because it recognized other principles of classification than those of the educational system which has classified them...In contrast, for those who, like the professionals, live on the sale of cultural services to a clientele, the accumulation of economic capital merges with the accumulation of symbolic capital, that is, with the acquisition of a reputation for competence and an image of respectability and honourablility that are easily converted into political positions as local or national notable." According to Bourdieu, intellectuals and artists have a particular interest in disinterestedness and universal and highest values, and thus make a virtue of necessity of their activities in order to discredit the activities of the dominant class.[What does this mean?]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
