Giroux, Henry. (1992). Cultural Critique, 21 (Spring), 5-39.
From the debate about education and democracy in the 1980s, Giroux deduces that culture is a terrain of political and ideological struggle. In particular, conservative attack on multiculturalism drew impact on social movement as well as education in general. Giroux states:
“What is being valorized in the dominant language of the conservative offensive is an undemocratic approach to social authority and a politically regressive moce to reconstruct American life within the script of Eurocentrism, racism, and patriarchy. Similarly, within these discourses, the call to define civilization as synonymous with selected aspects of Western tradition is being matched by a fervent attempt to reduce pedagogy to the old transmission model of teaching and learning.” (p. 5-6)
Giroux analyzes further the implications of conservative cultural offensive: in a larger social context, the conservative backlash was an attempt to dismantle/reverse the gains made by subordinate groups, such as gays and lesbians, women, racial minorities, etc. around a politics of identity. In higher education and public schooling, the attack was manifested against political correctness and multiculturalism. In the conservative view, multiculturalism provokes separatism, threatens western civilization and politicizes universities. D’Souza writes:
“Liberal arts students…are very likely to be exposed to an attempted brainwashing that deprecates Western learning and exalts a neo Marxist ideology promoted in the name of multiculturalism” (Illiberal Education, p. 35)
Conservative diatribes against multiculturalism were side by side with the attack on political correctness, which undermined multiculturalism. Giroux writes:
“The political correctness movement seizes upon the issue of free expression in order to undermine social criticism that opposes cultural chauvinism, racism, and gender discrimination. Political correctness is euphemism used by liberals and neoconservatives to disparage radical professors, cultural workers, and students from displaying ongoing pedagogical interests in fashioning a democratic culture within and outside of higher education. Accordingly, the rallying cry against political correctness is an act of bad faith designed to legitimate and enforce the pedagogical imperative to learn a selected cultural tradition and common culture invented in a monolithic and totalizing discourse.” (p. 10)
Giroux observes that common culture is a counter concept used by conservatives in attacking multiculturalism. Central to this concept is that the common culture of the United States is made up of diverse racial and ethnic groups. Giroux criticizes that this concept depoliticizes and dehistoricizes the idea of culture. In other words, common culture does not acknowledge inequality of power among social groups, the systematic maintenance of power domination, Eurocentric curriculum, social movement and struggle, etc. About this liberal notion of multiculturalism, Giroux critiques:
“Liberal notions of multiculturalism affirm difference within a politics of consensus that erases culture as a terrain of struggle constituted within asymmetrical relations of power, knowledge, and experience.” (p. 14)
Giroux states that, although liberal multiculturalism challenges totalizing and racist views of conservatives, it fails to question ways in which political and cultural authority is maintained in the academic canon and does not call attention to critical issues in forms of ‘domestic colonialism’ expressed in racial violence, unemployment among black and other minorities, etc.
Thus, Giroux observes that both liberal and conservative approaches to multiculturalism refuse to identify culture in the context of white supremacy and unequal power relations. He writes:
[C]onservative and liberal discourses that conflate multiculturalism with the imperatives of a ‘common culture’ generally suppress any attempts to call into question the norm of whiteness as a ethnic category that secures its dominance by appearing to be invisible. In this case, emancipatory interests in liberal approaches to multicultural education are generally limited to the call for either assimilation or the demand to reverse negative images of blacks and other ethnic groups as they appear in various forms of texts and images. (p. 15)
In sum, liberal multiculturalism fails to address post-colonial critiques. Calling urgent attention to constructing difference, Giroux seconds post-colonial approaches to democratic society. He explains post-colonial criticism as follows:
“Post-colonial discourses have pushed against the boundaries of the liberal and conservative debate on multiculturalism by asserting that politics and struggle are central to the discourse of difference.” (p. 18)
Post-colonialism emphasizes a politics of difference in contrast to a legacy of colonialism that veils specific forms of privilege. [Find a quote or two-Gayatri Spivak, Tiffin, Ngugi, Issac Julien, Kobena Mercer] About the central argument of post-colonialism, Giroux writes:
“At stake here is deconstructing forms of privilege that benefit males, whiteness, and property as well as those conditions that have disabled others to speak in places where those who are privileged by virtue of the legacy of colonial power assume authority and the conditions for human agency.” (p. 19)
“[Post-colonial discourses] provide a theoretical foundation for deconstructing the master narratives of white supremacist logic and redrawing the boundaries between the construction of experience and power…post-colonial criticism has illuminated how Eurocentric-American discourses of identity suppresses difference, heterogeneity, and multiplicity in their efforts to maintain racist hegemonic relations of power.”(p. 21)
Thus, Giroux sums that “Post-Colonial discourses represents a space in which to retheorize, locate, and address the possibilities for a new politics based on the construction of new identities, zones of cultural difference, and forms of ethical address.”(p. 22)
Within this context, Giroux calls for a border pedagogy to address power inscription in body, culture, space, history, land and psyche as a means of achieving anti-racist teaching.
Friday, January 8, 2010
New 'Politically Correct Metaphors Insult History and Our Campuses
Stimpson, Catharine. (May 29, 1991). The Chronicle of Higher Education. p. A40.
This article shows a heated debate over PC and its impact on academia. Criticized as intolerant, left, trendy, dominant, or even "Multiculturalism is a fad", Stimpson states:
"For the misuse of the term 'politically correct'--or P.C.--is a rhetorical virus that has been spereading through higher education and the meia so rapidly that it is nearing comic self-parody. The virus is also obscuring our vision of the real center of gravity in higher education." (Para. 3)
Stimpson criticizes that PC that was applied to a set of beliefs in the late 1980s became a conservatives' convenient label for their opposition to, for instance, affirmative action, women's studies, black studies, ethnic studies, gay and lesbian studies, and cultural studies....
This article shows a heated debate over PC and its impact on academia. Criticized as intolerant, left, trendy, dominant, or even "Multiculturalism is a fad", Stimpson states:
"For the misuse of the term 'politically correct'--or P.C.--is a rhetorical virus that has been spereading through higher education and the meia so rapidly that it is nearing comic self-parody. The virus is also obscuring our vision of the real center of gravity in higher education." (Para. 3)
Stimpson criticizes that PC that was applied to a set of beliefs in the late 1980s became a conservatives' convenient label for their opposition to, for instance, affirmative action, women's studies, black studies, ethnic studies, gay and lesbian studies, and cultural studies....
The Attack on 'Political Correctness'
: Islamophobia and the Erosion of Multiculturalism in Australia Under the Howard Regime. Poynting, Scott. (2008). Social Alternative, 27 (1), 5-9.
Poynting examines the erosion of multiculturalism since 1996 with the rise of State-sponsored Islamophobia in Australia. He notes that multiculturalism was a policy that has been developed since the early 1970s in response to the failure of the existing assimilation policy then and increasing inequality among immigrants. It was a fruition of 'New Social Movements' that called attention to recognition, access and equity.
The debate of PC in the United State undermined the multiculturalism in Australia, Poynting asserts. What's more, he sharply points out liberal leader John Howard seamlessly melded in his 2001 election campaign the 'othering' of Middle-Eastern asylum seekers and the Muslim 'enemy within'.
Poynting examines the erosion of multiculturalism since 1996 with the rise of State-sponsored Islamophobia in Australia. He notes that multiculturalism was a policy that has been developed since the early 1970s in response to the failure of the existing assimilation policy then and increasing inequality among immigrants. It was a fruition of 'New Social Movements' that called attention to recognition, access and equity.
The debate of PC in the United State undermined the multiculturalism in Australia, Poynting asserts. What's more, he sharply points out liberal leader John Howard seamlessly melded in his 2001 election campaign the 'othering' of Middle-Eastern asylum seekers and the Muslim 'enemy within'.
Roger Kimball
Ian Buruma and multiculturalism (April 29, 2007)
Arma Virumque, web blog of New Criterion.
Roger Kimball writes, "multiculturalism [is] university-nurtured version of cultural relativism that has now firmly ensconced itself wherever politically correct college-educated elites congregate, which is to say just about everywhere." He detests multiculturalism. Connecting to multiculturalism, he maintains a pejorative perspective on PC.
Introduction: What was a liberal education?
New Criterion; May2008, Vol. 26 Issue 9, p4-8, 5p
He moans the demise of liberal education, writing:
"Indeed, until at least the early 1960s there was robust agreement about the intellectual and moral goals of a liberal arts education even if those goals seemed difficult to achieve. There was, for example, a shared commitment to the ideal of disinterested scholarship devoted to the preservation and transmission of knowledge—which meant the preservation and transmission of
a civilization—pursued in a community free from ideological intimidation." (p. 4)
"[In the 1970s and 1980s] despite the rise of alternative voices here and there, those dominating the discussion at most institutions are committed to discrediting the traditional humanistic ideals of liberal education by injecting politics into the heart of the educational enterprise."(p. 5)
He finds the root of the demise in multiculturalism and PC. He criticizes:
"what generally travels under the name of "multiculturalism" is really a form of monocultural animus directed against the dominant culture...[Multiculturalists] encourage an orgy of self-flagellating liberal guilt as impotent as it is insatiable. Hence the sensitivity of the multiculturalist is an index not of moral refinement but of moral vacuousness. Multiculturalism is a paralyzing intoxicant; its thrill centers around the emotion of superior virtue; its hangover
subsists on a diet of ignorance and blighted good intentions...The most ironic aspect of this whole spectacle is that what appears to its adherents as bravely anti-Western is in fact part of tlie West's long tradition of self-scrutiny...No civilization in history has been as consistently self-critical as the West." (p. 5)
To Kimball, multiculturalists are enemies of Western civilization and values of American identity grounded in individual liberty and public virtue and these traditional values are "deeply at odds with the radical, de-civilizing tenets of the "multiculturalist" enterprise of political correctness." (p. 5)
He denounces PC resulted in students' poor acquisition of American history while promoting intellectual conformity and sentimentality. He criticizes academics' "self-infatuating embrace of political correctness" for the quintessential Western ideas under attack. He calls attention to:
"Respect for rationality and the rights of the individual; a commitment to the ideals of disinterested criticism and color-blind justice; advancement according to merit, not
according to sex, race, or ethnic origin."
Individual rights, blind justice and meritocracy are highlighted here. Politicization of campus is his ever concern, saying, "it is this failure—the colonization of intellectual life by politics—that stands behind and fuels the degradation of liberal education. (p. 8)
Institutionalizing our demise: America vs. Multiculturalism
New Criterion; Jun2004, Vol. 22 Issue 10, p5-16, 12p
He denounces, "Multiculturalism is a moral intoxicant" (p. 7) in that it threatens Western civilization and national identity; what's more, it fosters social and intellectual consequences beyond an academic phenomenon. He writes:
"One consequence has been a sharp rise in the phenomenon of immigration without--or with only partial--assimilation: a dangerous demographic trend that threatens American identity in the most basic way. These various agents of dissolution are also elements in a wider culture war: the contest to define who we live and what counts as the good in the good life." (p. 8)
Affirmative action is an irony and reverse discrimination from his perspective. He writes, "Multiculturalism and 'affirmative action' are allies in the assault on the institutions of America identity" (p. 10)
He refuses the notion that America is a nation of immigrants, insisting on a country of setters [sic]. He maintains that predominantly Anglo-Protestant settlers defines American culture, founding a state and making possible immigration later on. [In his view, there is no native American before the settlers.] In his view, immigrants became American "by embracing the Anglophone culture of the original settlers" (p. 10)
He asserts that immigration, characterized with Americanization or assimilation to the original culture, became a dangerous matter since the 1960s with the massive immigration from Asia, Latin America and Muslim countries. He criticizes that a great number of immigrants do not make concerted efforts, thus leading to disastrous and potentially irreversible impact on American identity. He rebukes multiculturalism for abetting such phenomenon at school. Thus, he continues to denounce multiculturalism, saying, "The combined effect of the multicultural enterprise has been to undermine the foundation of American national identity" (p. 12)
Arma Virumque, web blog of New Criterion.
Roger Kimball writes, "multiculturalism [is] university-nurtured version of cultural relativism that has now firmly ensconced itself wherever politically correct college-educated elites congregate, which is to say just about everywhere." He detests multiculturalism. Connecting to multiculturalism, he maintains a pejorative perspective on PC.
Introduction: What was a liberal education?
New Criterion; May2008, Vol. 26 Issue 9, p4-8, 5p
He moans the demise of liberal education, writing:
"Indeed, until at least the early 1960s there was robust agreement about the intellectual and moral goals of a liberal arts education even if those goals seemed difficult to achieve. There was, for example, a shared commitment to the ideal of disinterested scholarship devoted to the preservation and transmission of knowledge—which meant the preservation and transmission of
a civilization—pursued in a community free from ideological intimidation." (p. 4)
"[In the 1970s and 1980s] despite the rise of alternative voices here and there, those dominating the discussion at most institutions are committed to discrediting the traditional humanistic ideals of liberal education by injecting politics into the heart of the educational enterprise."(p. 5)
He finds the root of the demise in multiculturalism and PC. He criticizes:
"what generally travels under the name of "multiculturalism" is really a form of monocultural animus directed against the dominant culture...[Multiculturalists] encourage an orgy of self-flagellating liberal guilt as impotent as it is insatiable. Hence the sensitivity of the multiculturalist is an index not of moral refinement but of moral vacuousness. Multiculturalism is a paralyzing intoxicant; its thrill centers around the emotion of superior virtue; its hangover
subsists on a diet of ignorance and blighted good intentions...The most ironic aspect of this whole spectacle is that what appears to its adherents as bravely anti-Western is in fact part of tlie West's long tradition of self-scrutiny...No civilization in history has been as consistently self-critical as the West." (p. 5)
To Kimball, multiculturalists are enemies of Western civilization and values of American identity grounded in individual liberty and public virtue and these traditional values are "deeply at odds with the radical, de-civilizing tenets of the "multiculturalist" enterprise of political correctness." (p. 5)
He denounces PC resulted in students' poor acquisition of American history while promoting intellectual conformity and sentimentality. He criticizes academics' "self-infatuating embrace of political correctness" for the quintessential Western ideas under attack. He calls attention to:
"Respect for rationality and the rights of the individual; a commitment to the ideals of disinterested criticism and color-blind justice; advancement according to merit, not
according to sex, race, or ethnic origin."
Individual rights, blind justice and meritocracy are highlighted here. Politicization of campus is his ever concern, saying, "it is this failure—the colonization of intellectual life by politics—that stands behind and fuels the degradation of liberal education. (p. 8)
Institutionalizing our demise: America vs. Multiculturalism
New Criterion; Jun2004, Vol. 22 Issue 10, p5-16, 12p
He denounces, "Multiculturalism is a moral intoxicant" (p. 7) in that it threatens Western civilization and national identity; what's more, it fosters social and intellectual consequences beyond an academic phenomenon. He writes:
"One consequence has been a sharp rise in the phenomenon of immigration without--or with only partial--assimilation: a dangerous demographic trend that threatens American identity in the most basic way. These various agents of dissolution are also elements in a wider culture war: the contest to define who we live and what counts as the good in the good life." (p. 8)
Affirmative action is an irony and reverse discrimination from his perspective. He writes, "Multiculturalism and 'affirmative action' are allies in the assault on the institutions of America identity" (p. 10)
He refuses the notion that America is a nation of immigrants, insisting on a country of setters [sic]. He maintains that predominantly Anglo-Protestant settlers defines American culture, founding a state and making possible immigration later on. [In his view, there is no native American before the settlers.] In his view, immigrants became American "by embracing the Anglophone culture of the original settlers" (p. 10)
He asserts that immigration, characterized with Americanization or assimilation to the original culture, became a dangerous matter since the 1960s with the massive immigration from Asia, Latin America and Muslim countries. He criticizes that a great number of immigrants do not make concerted efforts, thus leading to disastrous and potentially irreversible impact on American identity. He rebukes multiculturalism for abetting such phenomenon at school. Thus, he continues to denounce multiculturalism, saying, "The combined effect of the multicultural enterprise has been to undermine the foundation of American national identity" (p. 12)
‘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.]
Thursday, January 7, 2010
A theory of justice (revised ed.)
Rawls, John. (1999). Harvard University Press.
Justice as Fairness (3-46)
By justice as fairness Rawls means that the principles of justice are drawn from an initial situation that is fair. In this situation, he explains, no one knows his position in society, his class or social status, his intelligence, and the like; and likewise no parties knows their conceptions of the good. Thus, "the principles of justice are chosen behind a veil of ignorance" (p. 11).
Rawls emphasizes the importance of deriving the principles of justice from the ideal situation as justice as fairness, stating:
"[E]ach person finds himself placed at birth in some particular position in some particular society , and the nature of this position materilaly affects his life prospect. Yet a society satisfying the principles of justice as fairness comes as close as a society can to bring a voluntary scheme, for it meets the principles which free and equal persons would assent to under circumstances that are fair. In this sense its members are autonomous and the obligations they recognize self-imposed." (p. 12)
In the foundation of his conception of justice as fairness, there is a view that each person possesses an inviolability based on justice, which "does not allow that the sacrifices imposed on a few are outweighed by the larger sum of advantages enjoyed by many" (p. 3). In this view, individual rights and liberties take a precedence over a greater good shared by others, and a society is more or less self-sufficient association of people who recognize certain rules and act accordingly. However, Rawls notes that, because of inevitable conflicts and identity of interests among its members, a set of rules is required to prioritize and arrange certain distributive principles for the basic structure of society. This is the concept of social justice that Rawls delves into.
A conflict that arise in this situation, according to him, is that without strong and lasting benevolent impulses, a rational man would not accept a basic structure for a greater good because each person desires to protect his interests and advance his conception of the good. Here he argues that people would choose two principles in the initial situation that is fair: (1) the first principle requires equality in the assignment of basic rights and duties, and (2) social and economic inequalities must result in compensating benefits for everyone. Thus he maintains the justice for a greater good, writing, "[T]here is no injustice in the greater benefits earned by a few provided that the situation of persons not so fortunate is thereby improved." (p. 13).
Justice as Fairness (3-46)
By justice as fairness Rawls means that the principles of justice are drawn from an initial situation that is fair. In this situation, he explains, no one knows his position in society, his class or social status, his intelligence, and the like; and likewise no parties knows their conceptions of the good. Thus, "the principles of justice are chosen behind a veil of ignorance" (p. 11).
Rawls emphasizes the importance of deriving the principles of justice from the ideal situation as justice as fairness, stating:
"[E]ach person finds himself placed at birth in some particular position in some particular society , and the nature of this position materilaly affects his life prospect. Yet a society satisfying the principles of justice as fairness comes as close as a society can to bring a voluntary scheme, for it meets the principles which free and equal persons would assent to under circumstances that are fair. In this sense its members are autonomous and the obligations they recognize self-imposed." (p. 12)
In the foundation of his conception of justice as fairness, there is a view that each person possesses an inviolability based on justice, which "does not allow that the sacrifices imposed on a few are outweighed by the larger sum of advantages enjoyed by many" (p. 3). In this view, individual rights and liberties take a precedence over a greater good shared by others, and a society is more or less self-sufficient association of people who recognize certain rules and act accordingly. However, Rawls notes that, because of inevitable conflicts and identity of interests among its members, a set of rules is required to prioritize and arrange certain distributive principles for the basic structure of society. This is the concept of social justice that Rawls delves into.
A conflict that arise in this situation, according to him, is that without strong and lasting benevolent impulses, a rational man would not accept a basic structure for a greater good because each person desires to protect his interests and advance his conception of the good. Here he argues that people would choose two principles in the initial situation that is fair: (1) the first principle requires equality in the assignment of basic rights and duties, and (2) social and economic inequalities must result in compensating benefits for everyone. Thus he maintains the justice for a greater good, writing, "[T]here is no injustice in the greater benefits earned by a few provided that the situation of persons not so fortunate is thereby improved." (p. 13).
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Critical Internatilsim
Lee, Benjamin. (1995). Public Culture, 7(3), 559-592.
This article calls for a revision of internationalism or international studies in higher education. Within the context of multiculturalism, Lee states:
"As debates over curriculum, multiculturalism, cultural studies, and identity politics intensify the larger public debates over immigration policies and affirmative action, the boundaries between academic and public debates become increasingly porous." (p. 567)
To me, multiculturalism is an arena where post-colonial theories come into contact with people's ordinary life.
This article calls for a revision of internationalism or international studies in higher education. Within the context of multiculturalism, Lee states:
"As debates over curriculum, multiculturalism, cultural studies, and identity politics intensify the larger public debates over immigration policies and affirmative action, the boundaries between academic and public debates become increasingly porous." (p. 567)
To me, multiculturalism is an arena where post-colonial theories come into contact with people's ordinary life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
