Multiculturalism in education and political philosophy

Anja Heikkinen, Jenni Pätäri & Gabriele Molzberger (eds), Disciplinary Struggles in Education Tampere University Press 2019, 155–172 http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-359-002-1 Multiculturalism in education and political philosophy Tarna Kannisto Abstract This paper considers conceptual mismatches between the theories of multicultural education and multicultural political philosophy. Will Kymlicka (2003) has argued that the levels of educational and political implementation might not be unequivocally compatible. From educational perspective, however, it is essential that the state’s chosen multicultural policy model reflects the educational reality of schools. At the same time, it is crucial to consider what kind of multicultural ideals the school upholds and promotes. I suggest that philosopher Anne Phillips’ (2007) notion of “multiculturalism without culture” could provide a conceptual way to overcome the discontinuities between education and politics. Keywords: multiculturalism, diversity, state, school, education Tarna Kannisto 156 Introduction All liberal, democratic societies are committed to implementing multicultural policies through their commitment to international human rights covenants and to multicultural ideals. These societies have a commitment to provide asylum for refugees, to offer fair conditions of integration for various cultural groups, to respect minority religions, to compensate for present disadvantages of various social groups, to remedy historical injustices committed towards various cultural groups and to prevent cultural bias, prejudice and racism. Even if the school had previously been one of the main instruments of assimilation in all the societies we now call democratic and liberal, nowadays education is often considered to be one of the most important tools to combat prejudice, racism and social inequality as well as a central tool to advance social integration and ascent. Furthermore, the formal, mandatory basic (school) education is often seen as one of the main arenas for children and young people to socialise with students from different cultural backgrounds and thus to learn social skills to manage their lives and thrive in socially and culturally diverse societies. At the same time, the school is also one of the central arenas of multicultural disputes. On a national policy level, decisions must be made on which subjects, topics and languages should be taught at schools, if religious subjects and symbols should be allowed within stateconducted basic education and how strong an influence parents should have on their children’s education. At the practical level, schools must make decisions on how they respond to problems such as racism, gender-based prejudices and various social inequalities in every day school life. However, political philosophy has paid surprisingly little attention to children and their education, despite that fact that the issues of children’s education have a wider societal and political background and that children’s formal education is an integral institution in any society, a part of society’s basic structure. Furthermore, as a branch of political philosophy, the theory of liberal multiculturalism has focused mainly on contemplating the just relations between the state and its (adult) citizens. By contrast, educational theories have long been involved in questions concerning diversity and equality at schools. Pedagogies aimed at managing diversity and levelling down societal inequalities tied to individuals’ cultural, social, economic, physical, personal, etc. differences have often been developed Multiculturalism in education and political philosophy 157 under the name of ‘multicultural education’. However, educational theories on social diversity and multiculturalism have developed without much connection to theories of multiculturalism in political philosophy. Rob Reich has noted that while multicultural educational theory and multicultural liberal philosophy discuss the same issues, these two branches of theory have developed curiously unaware of each other (Reich, 2002, p. 175). This lack of connection is potentially problematic for both theories. In consequence of this misconnection, and because these theories focus mainly on adults, political theories often lack a comprehensive picture of the educational reality of children and young people. Adult-focused political theories are not straightforwardly applicable to children and their education because children differ from adults in the sense that children are considered not yet fully rational and informed beings. Children are dependent on adults in many ways and are thus also vulnerable to adult decision making (Brighouse, 2002). Still, because the future success of any political community depends on the education of future generations, political theories should be able to give at least some guidance on why and how political ideals should be implemented in children’s education (Levinson, 1999). At the same time, educational practices should follow the most justified moral and political ideals. If there is no communication between political and educational theories, it might be impossible to trace political implications and consequences of educational practices. For instance, a fully individualistic educational approach to multiculturalism – an approach that focuses solely on improving individuals’ skills and dispositions, such as language skills or interpersonal skills – conforms to neoliberal views on education. Neoliberal ideologies of education are uninterested in topics of social justice and emphasise the abilities of an individual to compete with others in education and the job market. Intercultural skill can be seen as individuals’ assets in competition for jobs and positions, especially in times of the free movement of capital and the workforce. Neoliberal educators welcome enhancing individuals’ capacities – as long as the underlying moral and political assumptions of the market-driven educational approach are left intact. Even the more social justice-oriented educational approaches can lead us astray, if their background assumptions are not questioned. For instance, a purely identity-based focus on cultural and social recognition might conceal those material inequalities which often go hand-in-hand with social and cultural marginalisation (Kymlicka, Tarna Kannisto 158 2004, pp. xiv–xv, see also Benhabib, 2002, p. 68). Similarly, educational approaches based on unproblematised group identities can exaggerate or even create differences between sociocultural and religious groups from a young age. Pedagogical practices based on a naïve understanding of ‘culture’ can at worst lead to ethno-cultural stereotyping, treating individuals mainly as representatives of ‘their’ cultural or social group (Reich, 2002, pp. 132, 177–178, 181). To avoid the unintentional promotion of unjustified political ideas, it is crucial that educational and political theories inform each other. Interaction between two branches of theory does not require unifying terms and perspectives, but the theories should be able to communicate. The most basic condition for theoretical interaction is that the different approaches understand each other’s main terms and concepts. In this paper, I first proceed to question the notion of ‘culture’ in both educational and political theories. One central observation is that social diversity at schools seems to entail the recognition of a wider repertoire of groups than what is traditionally recognised by philosophers of liberal multiculturalism. Thus, political philosophy should take the educational context into account more so if its aim is to provide a sounder theory and more relevant suggestions for educational practice. Second, I study the terminological mismatches between educational theory and political philosophy in general. I conclude that some of the terminological disparities are due to differences in perspectives. However, I also claim that practical implementations of multicultural ideals would benefit from wider interaction between these two theory branches. Last, I suggest that both educational theory and political theory would benefit from a more agent-centred perspective on culture and consider Anne Phillips’s conception of multiculturalism without ‘culture’ as one option for conceptually bridging educational and political theories of multiculturalism. The many faces of multiculturalism and the value of ‘culture’ To start with, it is important to separate between the descriptive and normative usage of the term ‘multicultural’. As a description, ‘multicultural’ simply characterises any modern society which is diverse by nature. However, there are various normative responses to social and cultural diversity. States that implement Multiculturalism in education and political philosophy 159 multicultural policies accept a couple of fundamental ideals: that a state is never composed of one nation only and that there is no need for assimilation or a requirement to hide one’s ethno-cultural background (Kymlicka, 2003, p. 150). At the minimum, a normative, value-based response to social pluralism entails that no active measures are considered necessary to reduce social diversity and pluralism: the state does not necessarily need to encourage integration but does not need to compensate for any disadvantages caused by minority status, either. A way of executing this kind of minimal response to social diversity would include granting social and cultural groups ‘the right to be left alone’. This means that, on the basis of respecting (adult) individuals’ freedoms of conscience and association, those social or cultural groups that so wish to would be given the right to live without interference from other sociocultural groups or from the state (Kukathas, 1992, p. 122). However, individuals or groups would not be encouraged or supported to uphold their own culture or customs, either financially or otherwise. Concerning education, Chandran Kukathas suggests that many such groups, such as the Roma in Europe, should be allowed to educate their own children according to their own customs, without being obliged to send their children to schools or any other kind of state-conducted education (Kukathas, 1992, pp. 117, 126–127). In contrast, according to ‘maximal’ normative responses to cultural diversity, active measures to maintain or encourage diversity are considered necessary. The range of the active measures employed vary: they can include granting state funding for religious or linguistic groups or even imposing restrictions on group members. For instance, a linguistic group could be compelled to educate their children in a minority language; such is partially the case of the French-speaking minority in Quebec, Canada. This maximal response is sometimes called ‘strong multiculturalism’, and it is often based on the normative idea of cultures as internally valuable and mutually exclusive. Curiously, many nationalistic political currents seem to be based on a similar ‘multiculturalist’ rationale on the ontology and value of culture – which, according to the nationalist perspective, could then be cherished and contained within the borders of a nation-state. ‘Multicultural policy’ refers to the common rules various cultural and social groups are to live by within a society. In practice, there are various multicultural policy models, many of which have been created according to purely pragmatic and not by any normative reasons. For instance, a model such as the ‘German Tarna Kannisto 160 model’ was ‘created’ when foreign citizens were inducted into the country as a temporary workforce for purely economic reasons, whereas the ‘British model’ has its roots in the days of the British Commonwealth. In Germany, the predominantly Turkish foreign workforce was considered to be temporary, the state neither considered their social integration to be important nor offered many opportunities for integration. During the last few decades, this policy model has led to the creation of somewhat isolated migrant subcultures. In Britain, when conflicts occurred between various migrant groups during the 1980s, the chosen state-level solution was to establish and finance these groups’ ‘own’ cultural events and centres. This policy response, which from the governmental perspective was administratively easy and inexpensive, has contributed further to the formation of separate cultural groups within the society (see Malik, 2006). As liberal societies are based on the moral and legal respect of basic freedoms of expression, conscience and religion and upholding the freedom of speech, they maintain normative diversity at least in the minimal sense. At the same time, it is evident that not every model of multiculturalism encourages liberal values. Multiculturalism in the strongest sense can turn against some fundamental liberal principles if the preservation of cultural groups means compromising fundamental individual freedoms and rights. For instance, religious associations might be granted exemption from following state laws, such as in respecting the right to marry. In the same manner, multiculturalism in the weakest sense can leave the most vulnerable groups, such as non-native majority language speakers, refugees and children, without adequate support for integrating and succeeding in society. Therefore, liberal societies should situate themselves somewhere between the two extremes. Liberal democratic societies usually wish to preserve at least some common rules which apply to all individuals in society, even if some communities have been granted partial self-determination rights. The most important principles of liberal societies are individual freedom, equality and justice, which are expressed in the declarations and covenants of human rights embedded in national legislation. One of the more important principles of liberal multiculturalism therefore is respecting everyone’s central human rights. In liberal political philosophy, cultures are considered important because of their significance to individuals. Theories of liberal multiculturalism understand the value of culture as both instrumental and individualistic: a culture’s value is Multiculturalism in education and political philosophy 161 defined by its importance to its members. When a culture loses its significance to its members, it also loses its value (Kymlicka, 1995, p. 75; Margalit & Raz, 1995, p. 87). According to liberal multicultural theory, one’s culture plays an instrumental part in the person’s wellbeing and quality of life. Reflective freedom to live in accordance with our beliefs and values is considered to be a precondition for leading a good life in liberal theory (Kymlicka, 1995, p. 81). An individual’s selfrespect and feelings of dignity can be strongly tied to their cultural background and relations. Thus, if a person’s culture is not generally respected in society, their feelings of self-respect and dignity can be threatened. Public vilification of a cultural group can cause its members to lose their self-confidence and to internalise the negative collective image. In contrast, a flourishing culture can offer its members meaningful relationships, goals and opportunities to identify with and even provide a sense of belonging which is not conditional on achievements or merit (Margalit & Raz, 1995, pp. 84–85, 87; Benhabib, 2002, p. 51). Education is relevant to any multicultural political model because the development of an individual’s reflective freedom to live by their own chosen values requires access to relevant information about cultural choices as well as actual opportunities to make those choices (Kymlicka, 1995, p. 86). However, a comparison between multicultural political theories and multicultural educational theories reveals that despite being of the same topic, these two branches of theory understand their central terms in a very different manner. Conceptual mismatches I: ‘Cultural’ groups in education and political theory Normatively, multicultural and intercultural educational approaches are based on the ideal of educational equality: ‘…the idea that all students – regardless of their gender and social class and their ethnic, racial, or cultural characteristics – should have an equal opportunity to learn in school’ (Banks, 2005, p. 3). Multicultural educational theory has been developed in response to the observed personal, socioeconomic and cultural differences between pupils and to level out educational inequalities which correlate strongly with these differences. Multicultural educational approaches are concerned with ethnocentrism in education because certain ethno-cultural and social perspectives in education threaten to dominate, bypass or undermine minority perspectives. Culturally biased education can Tarna Kannisto 162 severely hinder minority individuals’ educational success by treating individuals according to stereotypical images – even when education is generally considered to be a central tool for overcoming social inequalities and providing opportunities for socio-economic prosperity. In addition to fighting straightforward racism, sexism and homophobia at school, pedagogical measures include diversifying the curriculum by including histories of minority groups and offering pupils options for learning and interacting with other children and youth with diverse (cultural) backgrounds (Banks, 2005, Introduction; Reich, 2002, pp. 131, 175–176). Similarly, philosophers of liberal multiculturalism acknowledge that an individual’s access to culture is not automatically guaranteed in any liberal society. Cultural dominance can be devastating especially for people with indigenous cultures who have not chosen to live as a minority and who possessed a rich culture of their own before the colonisation of their land. Thus, securing access to culture requires more than upholding individual freedom and liberty. In addition to freedom, active measures of cultural or communal recognition and accommodation are needed. These special protections can include opportunities to study in minority and majority languages, financial support of cultural events and granting certain groups partial self-determination or even the right to full self-governance. According to liberal multicultural theories, these active measures of cultural accommodation are required to guarantee an individual’s access to his or her own culture. Furthermore, enough education on cultural issues and values is needed to provide information on cultural choices and to enhance students’ reflective capabilities as well as to develop their virtues of tolerance and acceptance (Kymlicka, 1995, p. 86; 2010). However, multicultural education and multicultural political theory perceive the most relevant ‘cultural’ groups very differently. Multicultural educational theories consider issues as varied as ethno-cultural groups, such as AfricanAmerican, Latino, First Nations or indigenous groups, student poverty, gender, class, ‘race’ and sexual minorities as well as ethnicity, creed, disability and talent (see also e.g. Banks & Banks-McGee, 2005; Reich, 2002, p. 176; Banks ‘Series Foreword’ in Mayo, 2014). One of the basic tenets of multicultural education has been that everyone has a culture according their group and that cultural differences must be recognised in order to avoid cultural bias in education. This means that teachers must first be aware of their own cultural and social background and how Multiculturalism in education and political philosophy 163 this background and one’s often unarticulated attitudes and biases might influence one’s way of teaching and treating pupils and choice of educational materials and topics (Banks, 2005, p. 4; 2014, p. viii). In contrast to educational theory, liberal multiculturalism focuses almost exclusively on groups of ethnic and indigenous origin, language and religion. Pioneering philosopher of liberal multiculturalism Will Kymlicka recognises in his theory only cultures with an institutional basis. In Kymlicka’s model, ‘culture’ is nearly identical to a nation or state. For instance, he describes the USA as one societal culture, which is dominated by the English-speaking culture (Kymlicka, 1995, pp. 77–78). These ‘societal cultures’ in Kymlicka’s theory include national minorities and indigenous groups as well as immigrant groups (as originating from other societal cultures). In Kymlicka’s model, these groups are granted different rights. In his model, indigenous groups are entitled to the most extensive self-determination rights, whereas national minorities, such as minority language groups, would only be granted less extensive rights to partial self-determination or rights to political representation. Immigrant groups would mainly be granted rights to fairer terms of integration (Kymlicka, 2010). Other groups, such as ones based on gender variation, class, sexuality or ‘race’, Kymlicka defines not as cultural groups but as social movements (Kymlicka, 1995, pp. 18, 76–77). Therefore, when applied to education, Kymlicka’s theory clearly provides a different idea from what we typically consider to be multicultural education. Learning about the history of different nations or peoples or studying foreign languages would not usually be thought of as multicultural or intercultural education. Rather, learning about world history or learning a new language is usually considered to be an essential part of any liberal or general (basic) education. Therefore, the first problem in comparing the perspectives of multicultural education on one hand and liberal multiculturalism in the other is that they are clearly talking about different sociocultural groups. It might be that in multicultural educational approaches, the term ‘culture’ is used too loosely. On what conceptual basis can we consider gender and sexual minorities, people with disabilities or the gifted as ‘cultures’? If these groups are considered to be ‘cultures’ which require recognition and accommodation, what rights should gender minorities or the specially gifted be entitled to as cultural groups, for instance? Would all these various groups be accommodated on a similar moral or Tarna Kannisto 170 aimed at recognising groups rather than individuals. Rather than considering the needs of specific groups, educational approaches should be developed to better meet the needs of the individuals. Cultural features would still be considered to be important, not as group characteristics but rather as individual qualities. However, the dissolution of ‘culture’ might not solve the tension between intercultural educational approaches and multicultural policies. Because of its individualistic stance, multiculturalism without ‘culture’ would be more compatible with intercultural educational approaches. However, the potential tensions between individualistic intercultural education and group-based multicultural policies are not necessarily undesirable. Rather, providing they are morally and politically justified, intercultural and multicultural educational approaches might also help to challenge untenable multicultural policy models. Conclusions When one compares theories on multicultural education and multicultural political philosophy, it soon becomes evident that these two theoretical branches understand social diversity and ‘multiculturalism’ very differently. In this paper, I observed two main mismatches between theories of liberal multicultural philosophy and multicultural education. First, it seems that liberal multicultural political theory presents a more restricted definition of cultural groups than the theory of multicultural education. At the same time, political theory does not seem to recognise the actual diversity in schools. This diversity includes a significantly wider variety of social groups than what is theorised in political theories. Second, multicultural educational theory and multicultural political theory seem to employ different sets of terminology when addressing the same social and cultural phenomena. For instance, while liberal multiculturalists prefer to address diverse societies as ‘multicultural’, educational theorist prefer the term ‘intercultural’. I claim that these disparities in the central conceptions and terms can lead to problematic misapprehensions if the political concept of multiculturalism is straightforwardly applied to public educational contexts or if the practices of multicultural education are not placed under critical political scrutiny. Both theories would benefit from more substantial mutual interaction. Multiculturalism in education and political philosophy 171 If the aim of school education is to remedy or overcome societal inequalities, both educational and political theory would benefit from at least some kind of theoretical continuum between the theories. Otherwise, educational and political theories seem to operate in a quite different kind of multicultural society and arrive at dissimilar remedies for social injustices. To overcome these disparities, I suggest that both educational and political theories employ a more agent-centred conception of culture. I propose that Anne Phillips’s theory of ‘multiculturalism without culture’ might assist in conceptually bridging political and educational theories. Phillips’s theory emphasises the fact that different individuals accord a different kind of moral weight to ‘their’ culture. Individuals also employ varying strategies when navigating between the pressures of majority and minority culture. A more nuanced and agent-centred conception of culture appreciates these individual choices and aims to understand the rationale behind them. Embracing this more individualistic notion of culture in liberal multicultural theory would help to include more diversity in the theorising of multicultural society. Moreover, wider interaction between liberal multicultural philosophy and educational theory would help in selecting the most morally justified educational and policy responses to social and cultural diversity. Tarna Kannisto 172 References Banks, J. A. 2005. Introduction. In J. A. Banks & C. A. Banks-McGee (eds), Multicultural Education – Issues and Perspectives. 5th edition. Wiley. Benhabib, S. 2002. The Claims of Culture – Equality and Diversity in the Global Era. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Erickson, F. 2005. Culture in Society and in Educational Practices. Chapter 2. In J. A. Banks & C. A. Banks-McGee (eds), Multicultural Education – Issues and Perspectives. 5th edition. Wiley. Levinson, M. 1999. The Demands of Liberal Education. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kukathas, C. 1992. Are there any cultural rights? Political Theory, 20 (1), 105–139. Kymlicka, W. 1995. Multicultural Citizenship. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kymlicka, W. 2003. Multicultural states and intercultural citizens. Theory and Research in Education, 1 (2), 147–169. Kymlicka, W. 2004. Foreword. In J. A. Banks (ed.), Diversity and Citizenship Education – Global Perspectives. Jossey-Bass (Wiley). Kymlicka, W. 2010. The Rise and Fall of Multiculturalism? New debates on inclusion and accommodation in diverse societies. UNESCO, Blackwell Publishing. Margalit, A. & Raz, J. 1990. National Self-Determination. The Journal of Philosophy, 87 (9), 439–461. Malik, K. 2016. Monikulttuurisuus. Translation from English Tapani Kilpeläinen. Tampere: Niin & näin 2016. Orig. Multiculturalism and its Discontents: Rethinking Diversity after 9/11. University of Chicago Press. Mayo, C. 2014. LGBTIQ Youth & Education. Multicultural Education Series, ed. by A. J. Banks. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University. Okin, S. 1999. Is multiculturalism bad for women? In J. Cohen, M. Howard, M. C. Nussbaum (eds), Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women? New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Phillips, A. 2006. What is ‘culture’? In B. Arneil, M. Deveaux, R. Dhamoon & A. Eisenberg (eds), Sexual Justice / Cultural Justice. London: Routledge, 15–29. Phillips, A. 2007/2009. Multiculturalism without Culture. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Reich, R. 2002. Bridging Liberalism and Multiculturalism in American Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press Rodríquez-Izquierdo, R.M. 2018. Researching the links between social-emotional learning and intercultural education: strategies for enacting a culturally relevant teaching. Intercultural Education, 29 (5–6), 609–623. Song, S. 2009. The subject of multiculturalism: Culture, religion, language, ethnicity, nationality, and race? In B. Bruin et al. (eds), New Waves in Political Philosophy. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 177–197.