The Intercultural Dimension: education for diversity, pluralism and inclusion

In an earlier paper (Clay et al., 1992), we argued strongly for a European-wide response to the realities of cultural diversity and pluralism in member countries. At that time we highlighted the need to combat the rise in racism and for teacher education to equip teachers to respond to this threat. Within this context, the authors have met regularly, during the past five years, with European colleagues from the Intercultural Education and Teacher Education Working Group of the Association for Teacher Education in Europe (ATEE). Our shared intention was to: engage educators as cultural intellectuals, to refuse to accept the politics of identity as given, but to critically examine how representations of Europe and Europeans are constructed, for what purpose, by whom and with what components. (Clay et al., 1992, p. 117) The resulting policy statement (Appendix 1) provides, in our view, a strong foundation for the development of a Code of Practice. We see the need for a theoretical understanding of oppression leading to inequality as essential in the development of a critically informed framework. We therefore draw attention to the commitment embodied within the policy statement that ‘the education process must empower minorities; defined in terms of power (our emphasis) rather than numbers present in a given population’ and its recognition of the centrality of teacher education as a site for the formation of a critically informed profession. The term “power” as employed above is clearly shaped by a Freirean analysis of oppression that is based on the premise that inequality and injustice are hallmarks of contemporary society across the world. The interactions and transactions in such a system produce and distribute more benefits and scarce resources for some of its members than for others, and correspondingly more losses and disadvantages for some than for others. This makes the system oppressive: its beneficiaries are oppressors, its losers are oppressed. This definition of oppression, oppressor and oppressed is based on the systemic relationship between winners and losers and in such a system: one person’s gain is another person’s loss. This applies not only at the micro and macro levels, but also in the private and public spheres where each of us operate. Finally, whether one is an oppressor or one of the oppressed is independent of one’s wishes or intentions but dependent on one’s objective location in an overall system of gains and losses (Richardson, 1990). This has implications for the education of members of majority communities: who need to acquire an understanding of principles of justice and equity which are appropriate to a plural and democratic society, and to learn to challenge the false sense of superiority which can distort their understandings of themselves and their place in society. (ATEE Intercultural Working Group Policy Statement, 1995, p. 1) The construction of a framework for the development of a Code of Practice for Intercultural Education should, in our view, be informed by a politics of recognition that goes beyond the politics of equal dignity, an emphasis that we failed to develop fully in our previous paper. The politics of equal dignity is grounded in the idea of equal treatment in terms of rights, responsibilities and access that assiduously avoids differences and is entirely individualistic. The politics of recognition, on the other hand, is rooted in the twin politics of difference and identity. This acknowledges and affirms the potential for both challenging the continuously shifting dynamics of power relations and also for promoting constructive changes. Kathleen Lynch (1995) powerfully argued for setting equality objectives within public policy contexts. Her analysis of the objectives underpinning the different discourses on equality provides an insight into the ideological stances that can be adopted. Equality objectives, she posits, can be placed on a continuum that starts with equal formal rights and responsibilities as the basic minimum, to ensure equality of access, which is synonymous with the slogan ‘equal opportunities for all’. The next stage is equality of participation, followed by the equality of outcome and, finally, the end of the continuum would be equality of condition. In criticizing ‘equality of opportunity for all’ that is based on the politics of equal dignity, she maintains that in this: … liberal model, personal character and individual attributes, rather than public institutions or structures, become accountable for success or failure …. The causes of inequality are sought within the attributes themselves rather than within the structures and institutions which order the relations within and between these attribute-bearing individuals. (Lynch, 1995, pp. 20, 24) Her analysis of the inadequacy of equality of participation is that it concerns itself with enabling and encouraging participation on a voluntary and/or selective basis. It usually fails to recognize either the heterogeneity within and between marginalized groups or the heterogeneity of contexts. Initiatives undertaken in the UK to encourage under-represented groups into teaching would be a good example of equality of participation. In contrast, however, to the first two positions on the spectrum, equality of outcome represents a leap beyond the first two objectives. It attempts to interrogate the institutional and structural barriers that perpetuate inequalities, but fails to take account of the hierarchical nature of society. If realized in practice, it would, to quote Lynch: replace or supplement the existing elites within the economic, political, educational and other hierarchies with new elites from hitherto disadvantaged groups. Whilst this would represent a significant shift in the balance of power and privilege, it must be noted that privileged positions are by definition scarce and only a small number of any given group will ever enter these positions… Also, regardless of which disadvantaged group is in question, it is likely to be the relatively advantaged from within that group which will become upwardly socially mobile in any system which promotes equality of success or outcome … it is the relatively privileged who will be best positioned to take advantage of the new opportunities for participation or success. Equality of condition, Lynch maintains, is the only objective that takes account of heterogeneity and that, furthermore, would promote the real possibility of developing an egalitarian society. This equality objective is premised on the principle of equal respect that acknowledges and affirms difference. We would contend that this position, if realizable, would be crucial to the promotion of a social justice agenda in teacher education. This ambitious objective will not be realized without the development of an appropriate set of understandings to analyze and deconstruct the hierarchical systems that frame education and the embedded pedagogical practices that sustain them. It requires the cultivation of dialogical relationships and the realization for the need to strive towards a synthesis of action and reflection—a Freirean praxis whereby theory and practice can be unified. Such an approach has been tried and the difficulties encountered in the process cannot be minimized. However, the process itself is of enormous value and empowers those involved to a degree that could not have been achieved through an orthodox curriculum, however radical this might be in content (Clay et al., 1991). Clay & George (1993) argued for the adoption of an emancipatory (anti-oppression) curriculum in teacher education that was dialogic, as a means of promoting equality of condition.

Conclusion

We have explored the common ground that already exists with respect to the education and training of teachers across Europe. The political climate in which Initial Teacher Education and Continuing Professional Development is changing is possibly more conducive to the adoption of a radical set of principles that promote social justice. The role of the Association for Teacher Education in Europe in setting the agenda for teacher education has never been more propitious. We would argue that those of us who are committed to the promotion of Intercultural Education must be prepared to take a new lead at the beginning of a new century or risk the opportunity of seeing education play a transformative role in society possibly lost for a very long time. With respect to racism in Europe, Coulby & Jones (1995) state: School and university knowledge are vital elements in the reproduction of ethnocentrism. … It is possible that they could be just as powerful elements in its reversal and ultimate elimination. (p. 108)

Finally, the principles we have put forward in this paper are based on the premise that the development of a Code of Practice must equip student teachers and those already in the workforce to recognize oppression. Such an understanding will be necessary in developing positive and constructive strategies that challenge inequalities and promotes justice and equality for plural and democratic societies.

John Clay & Rosalin George

(European Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 23, No. 2, 2000)

 

 

Glossary

 

Assimilation - the acceptance of a minority group by a majority population, in which the group takes on the values and norms of the dominant culture.

 

Bias - an inclination of temperament or outlook to present or hold a partial perspective and a refusal to even consider the possible merits of alternative points of view. People may be biased toward or against an individual, a race, a religion, a social class, or a political party. Biased means one-sided, lacking a neutral viewpoint, not having an open mind. Bias can come in many forms and is often considered to be synonymous with prejudice and bigotry.

 

Bigotry - the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats or views other people with fear, distrust, hatred, contempt, or intolerance on the basis of a person's opinion, ethnicity, race, religion, national origin,gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status or other characteristics.

 

Culture – a group of people who share a background because of their common language, knowledge, beliefs, views, values, and behaviours.

 

Cultural pattern – a cluster of interrelated cultural orientations; made up of cultural behaviours which are influenced by values shared by a cultural group

 

Cultural pluralism - the coexistence of several subcultures within a given society on equal terms.

 

Discrimination - activities that deny to the members of a particular group resources or rewards which can be obtained by others.

Diversity – the state of being different or of unlikeness.

Dominant culture – the one that represents the majority or the largest number of people.

 

Emigration - the movement of people out of one country in order to settle in another.

 

Ethnicity -  cultural values and norms which distinguish the members of a given group from others. An ethnic group is one whose members share a distinct awareness of a common cultural identity, separating them from other groups around them.

 

Ethnic - a term used by Anthony Smith to describe a group that shares ideas of common ancestry, a common cultural identity and a link with a specific homeland.

 

Ethnocentrism - understanding the ideas or practices of another culture in terms of those of one’s own culture. Ethnocentric judgments fail to recognize the true qualities of other cultures. An ethnocentric individual is someone who is unable, or unwilling, to look at other cultures in their own terms.

 

Genocide - the systematic, planned destruction of a racial, political or cultural group.

 

Globalization - growing interdependence between different peoples, regions and countries in the world as social and economic relationships come to stretch worldwide.

Heterogeneous society – one in which members of the society come from diverse cultural groups.

Homogeneous society – one in which the majority of the members share the same cultural beliefs, attitudes, and values.

 

Identity - the distinctive characteristics of a person’s character or the character of a group which relate to who they are and what is meaningful to them. Some of the main sources of identity include gender, sexual orientation, nationality or ethnicity, and social class.

Immigration - the movement of people into one country from another for the purpose of settlement.

 

Melting pot - the idea that ethnic differences can be combined to create new patterns of behavior drawing on diverse cultural sources.

 

Multiculturalism - the phenomenon of multiple groups of cultures existing within one society, largely due to the arrival of immigrant communities. Multiculturalism occurs naturally when a society is willing to accept the culture of immigrants (with, ideally, immigrants also willing to accept the culture of the land to which they have come).

 

Nationalism – a setof beliefs and symbols expressing identification with a given national community.

New migration – a term referring to changes in patterns of migration in Europe in the years following 1989. The ‘new migration’ has been influenced by the end of the Cold War and the fall of the Berlin Wall, the prolonged ethnic conflict in the former Yugoslavia, and the process of European integration, altering the dynamics between traditional ‘countries of origin’ and ‘countries of destination’.

 

Prejudice – the holding of preconceived ideas about an individual or group, ideas that are resistant to change even in the face of new information.

 

Racialization – the process by which understandings of race are used to classify individuals or groups of people.

 

Scapegoating – blaming an individual or group for wrongs that were not of their doing.

 

Stereotype – a fixed and inflexible characterization of a group of people.

 

Tolerance - a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.

Xenophobia - deep-rooted, irrational hatred towards foreigners.

 

References

 

1. Allwood J. Intercultural communication, Tvärkulturell kommunikation, Papers in Anthropological Linguistics 12, University of Göteborg, Dept of Linguistics.1985

2. Fiedler E., Jansen R., Norman-Risch M. America in Close-Up. Longman, 2008

3. Giddens A. Sociology. Polity Press, 2001

4. Harvey P., Jones R. Britain Explored. Longman, 2007

5. Hewitt K. Understanding Britain. Perspective Publications, 1996

6. Kroger J. Identity Development. Sage Publications, Inc., 2000

7. Levine D., Adelman M. Beyond Language. Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1982  

8. European Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 23, No. 2, 2000

9. Portraits of the USA, US Department of State, 2012

10. Петрухина М.А. Новейший англо-русский лингвострановедческий справочник. М., Астрель, 2010.

11. www.washingtontimes.com

12. sociology.about.com

13. www.bbc.co.uk

14. www.uky.edu

15. www.euronews.com                          

16. www.independent.co.uk                        

17. www.theguardian.com                             

18. www.allmovie.com

 

Учебное издание

 

 

Составители:

Малетова Марина Ивановна

 Мингазова Фарида Касимовна