Becoming Multicultural

Personal and Social Construction Through Critical Teaching

Terry Ford, Joe Kincheloe, Shirley R. Steinberg

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2014
• Print ISBN: 9780815321996
• eBook ISBN: 9781135605292
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

This book argues that becoming multicultural is a process of recursive cycles that must involve confrontational dialogue for change. Multicultural education texts often describe multiculturalism as a process where a person develops competencies of perceiving, evaluating, believing, and doing in multiple ways. However, the dynamic, fluid and changing qualities central to the process of interpersonal interaction often results in mastery of a product, focusing on lists of static features of generalized groups rather than on the individuals who make up those groups. Rather than listing and describing objectified features of cultural groups from a theoretical view, this book details the interactions of 21 ethnically diverse individuals through one classroom experience. First, the personal histories and meanings constructed from lived experience are detailed and analyzed to reveal the ways in which personal identity constructions influence learning events in a singular classroom context. Second, from this analysis, the author develops a conceptual model for the process of becoming multicultural. Then the author applies the model to herself and describes specific ways in which interaction with these individuals has influenced her present teaching strategies for expecting and facilitating confrontational dialogue toward developing education that is multicultural. Specifically the book addresses the questions: 1) What does it mean to become multicultural? 2) What does it mean to be culturally sensitive? 3) How can the process of multiculturalism be facilitated in a classroom setting? 4) What is the teacher's role in the multicultural classroom? 5) What are some expected/predictable outcomes of a multicultural classroom? Includes bibliography and index.

1 Defining Perspectives

DOI: 10.4324/9781315050485-1

When a subject is highly controversial… one cannot hope to tell the truth. One can only show how one came to hold whatever opinion one does hold. One can only give one's audience the chance of drawing their own conclusions as they observe the limitations, the prejudices, the idiosyncrasies of the speaker.

—Woolf (1929, p.4)

This book details the interactions of twenty-one ethnically diverse undergraduates through one eight week classroom experience titled “Opening Doors: The World of Graduate Study for Minority Students in Education” (referred to as Opening Doors or OD throughout the book). Through the analysis of classroom experiences, dialogue journals, and interviews, I attempt to answer the question, What does it mean to become multicultural?

Proponents of multicultural education focus on the process whereby a person becomes multicultural or develops competencies of perceiving, evaluating, believing, and doing in multiple ways. However, when practically applied, the dynamic, fluid, and changing qualities central to the process are often translated into mastery of a product, focusing on static features of generalized groups rather than on the individuals who make up those groups. Therefore, to clarify the actual process of developing a multicultural perspective, this book is an interpretive ethnography of the Opening Doors program.

The book has two primary purposes. First, it identifies crucial elements, influences, and interactions that enable students to develop the complex multi faceted understanding of diverse cultures that is necessary for true multicultural education. Second, the book develops an explanatory model of the process of becoming multicultural to be applied across educational settings. As the interactions of the Opening Doors participants will illustrate, being multicultural is a much more complex process than simply being born a person of color. Being African American, Asian American, Latino, or Native American guarantees the individual has a perspective, but it does not guarantee a multicultural perspective.

MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION RHETORIC

In order to truly recognize, accept, and affirm cultural diversity and individual differences, it is essential that we adopt an overriding educational philosophy that respects the cultural and individual differences of all people, regardless of their racial, ethnic, cultural or religious backgrounds, or physical differences. The belief that all people must be accorded respect is undergirded by a fundamental acceptance of the premise that all people have intrinsic worth. It should thus be the goal of society's socializing institutions—especially our schools—to recognize the worth of all people and to instill and maintain the importance of equal respect for all.

— Grant (1977, p. 65)

Definitions of multicultural education have focused on the dynamic, fluid and changing individual, a process whereby a person becomes multicultural or develops competencies of perceiving, evaluating, believing, and doing in multiple ways (Banks, 1981; Bennett, 1990; Klasen & Gollnick, 1977; Nieto, 1992). Defined as a process of “becoming,” multiculturalism is then a perspective or a shared frame of reference from which reality is perceived (Shibutani, 1955). Being multicultural is a way of being, perceiving, thinking, and acting in the world in ways that symbolize the equal respect of all humanity regardless of the racial, ethnic, or cultural differences. Multiculturalism is a way of viewing the world in general.

Contrary to the rhetoric that calls for an inclusive, process-oriented perspective that supports every child's learning and development, the practical application of multiculturalism in the classroom has been product-oriented packaged sets of isolated skills. For instance, in her text Comprehensive Multicultural Education, Christine Bennett (1990) provides model lesson plans for implementing the multicultural curriculum model discussed throughout that text. In one lesson, historical facts about the contributions of Dr. Daniel Hale Williams (an African American male) in performing the first open-heart surgery are added to a lesson identifying the causes, care and treatment, and components of a heart attack. The evaluation strategy, written by the contributing teacher, reveals the additive nature of the multicultural component: “A short multiple-choice test will be given to test the student's achievement on each of the four segments in the strategy section. In addition, a brief report on the contributions of Dr. Daniel Hale Williams will be required” (pp. 326–327). This strategy is more an afterthought than an integration of the physician and his brilliantly conceived treatment. Other lessons include having students listen to Black blues music and write their own blues compositions; perform German and Israeli folk dances and then write reports about folk dancing; read and perform the play Indians written by Arthur Kopit; and compare the phonetics of Spanish and English (pp. 328–346). These “model” lesson plans illustrate how the process of becoming multicultural has been implemented as mastery of a product. This product focuses on static features of generalized groups of people rather than on the people themselves.

Democratic education assumes that all individuals are diverse and learn best when topics, issues, material, and methods grow out of student concerns, and that in order for education to serve society's needs, it must first meet the needs of the individual. However, educators have responded with product-oriented, object-centered curricula that fail to meet the needs of diverse learners. These objectifications of differences do not begin with understanding the qualities and/or traits of real human beings but with stereotyped and static descriptions of the generalized other. What does it mean to develop a perspective that respects and values the needs of individuals rather than identifying objects? What teaching strategies facilitate a process-oriented view of the individual?

Not understanding what it means to become multicultural causes attempted solutions to become part of the problem. First, there has been a misunderstanding of the relationship between the individual and the curriculum in the creation of product-oriented curricula. Second, there has been a misunderstanding about the nature of learning, or meaning making. Learning has been conceived as a matter of transmitting knowledge to students rather than constructing knowledge with students.

Product-Oriented Curricula

Global Approach

One example of a product-oriented application of multiculturalism is the global approach to social studies curricula. Kniep's (1989) work in social studies curricula stresses the interdependence and global connectedness of society as a whole. The global approach to social studies curricula intends to provide an avenue for a process of under-standing, in valuing and appreciating human differences, including those from other nations, ethnicities, races, and cultures (Kronowitz, 1987; Metzger, 1988). However, the outcome of this curricular approach is to identify and label artifacts from specific cultures rather than explore the lived experiences of the individuals for whom these same artifacts hold meaning.

The global approach to social studies curricula seeks an appreciation of individual differences and cultural diversity by having students identify and label the objective content of various cultures (food, dance, dress, and other commodities) across curriculum areas. Simply identifying the objects of differing cultures ignores the historical, social, and political ways in which the cultural meaning of these objects is constructed by its people. By centering curriculum content on the objects of the culture rather than on the actions, intentions, and achievements of individuals from the culture, the individual human beings who construct the culture also become objects.

For instance, identifying Mexican culture with tacos, rice and beans, piñatas, Spanish language, Cinco de Mayo, sombreros, and siestas, allows no possibility for interpersonal understanding. There is no “person” in the picture with which to interact. The person is just another object on the list of cultural artifacts. There is no room for individual differences to be recognized. What of the U.S. born Mexican who has never been to Mexico or may not even speak Spanish? What of the Mexican who has never been out of his or her country? What of the Mexican immigrant farm worker who crosses the border into the United States to seek economic employment to support his family left behind in Mexico? What of the Latina from El Salvador who is mistakenly categorized as a Mexican because she speaks Spanish? Would the cultural artifacts have the same meaning for each of these individuals? Would one even think to ask the question of individual interpretation if individuality is not considered when lists of cultural features are constructed?

Focusing on objective artifacts of the culture rather than relating to the actual human beings who create culture makes the subject an object. Critics stress that objectifying the subject in this way leads to further marginalization and alienation of those people the dominant culture intends to understand (Brown, 1988; hooks, 1990). By focusing on the artifacts of a culture rather than encountering and understanding individual people, stereotypes are strengthened rather than lessened. Students objectify the content knowledge, keeping cultural diversity at arm's length so it remains something out there, different, and therefore strange and unfamiliar. No interpersonal connection between human beings is established. No sense of bonding or shared emotions that comes with human relations can be realized. Because there is no human connection, there is no human understanding. Cultural differences remain distant, pertaining to people who live “over there” whom we will never meet, not to the individual sitting in the seat next to us.

Learning Styles

A second product-oriented application of multiculturalism capitalizes on the notion of individual differences and diversity by neatly packaging these ideals into learning styles inventories and strategies (Dunn & Dunn, 1978; Myers & Briggs, 1976). Teachers across the nation are encouraged to buy ready-made materials and attend inservice workshops to assess and match their teaching styles with the individual learning styles of students in their classrooms. Longstreet (1978) has developed a scheme specifically for identifying ethnicity in the classroom. He identifies five aspects of ethnicity that serve as guidelines for pinpointing potential sources of misunderstanding in the classroom_ (1) verbal communication (grammar, semantics, phonology, discourse modes); (2) nonverbal communication (kinesthetics, proxemics, haptics, signs and symbols); (3) orientation modes (body positions, spatial architectural patterns, attention modes, time modes); (4) social value patterns (ideal models of conduct such as cleanliness, hardwork, promptness); and (5) intellectual modes (preferred ways of learning, knowledge valued most, skills emphasized). The assumption underlying a learning styles approach is that if teachers have the knowledge to identify the ways in which individual learners respond in the classroom (e.g., Longstreet's guidelines) then that knowledge can be applied to adjust teaching styles to accommodate learner differences.

Objectifying Learning Styles

Though potentially an avenue for developing human understanding of complex cultural issues, application of cultural diversity knowledge may further objectify the differences people intend to understand. With this approach, the curriculum promotes an objectified, product-oriented view of differences in four ways.

First, teachers may overgeneralize cultural characteristics, which leads to further stereotyping of students and their cultures. The perceived images “Native Americans won't look you in the eye,” or “male Hispanic students will have problems with female teachers because women aren't valued as authority in their culture,” or “Asians are quiet and good at math and science” are examples of these overgeneralizations. The conceptualization of stereotyping alone marginalizes individuals. The individual becomes one of “those”—a nameless, faceless, objectified entity. Rather than be José, a boy with a particular name, a particular family, with hopes, dreams, and goals in life, the boy in the front row becomes the “Hispanic” in the class.

Second, stereotyped overgeneralizations can also lead to a selffulfilling prophecy in which teachers perceive differences where there may in fact be none. For instance, assuming a student is Hispanic, and therefore an immigrant with language difficulties, may keep a teacher from finding out that in fact the student has lived in the United States all his or her life and English is the first language. Prejudging, presorting, and precategorizing students based on assumed social and cultural characteristics furthers stereotypical images and minimizes the personal understanding process between individuals.

Third, such prescriptive interpretation of cultural differences can hinder rather than facilitate communication. If the teacher believes he or she already knows why a student behaves in a particular manner, there is no need to speak with or question the individual. Both teacher and student continue to make assumptions about what the other thinks and no attempt is made to verify these interpretations. Interpersonal connection is again avoided rather than encouraged.

Fourth, ethnographic studies illustrate how differences are often interpreted as deficiencies. When students exhibit behaviors different from the European mainstream behaviors valued and practiced in the school system, these differences are targeted for change. For instance, Gilmore (1985) focused on how definitions of attitude and what constitutes good and bad behavior determine access to academically tracked classes. Steps and stylized sulking, both cultural aspects of Black communicative behavior and reflective of a particular ethnic style and socioeconomic class, were isolated events of the study. Because these behaviors did not match the expectations of the European mid...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• List of Figures and Tables
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• Chapter 1 Defining Perspectives
• Chapter 2 Being and Becoming Multicultural
• Chapter 3 Constructing a Critical Context
• Chapter 4 Constructing Self as Object: Salient Autobiographical Experiences
• Chapter 5 Deconstructing Self as Object
• Chapter 6 (Re)Presenting Self as Subject
• Chapter 7 Lived Truth and Distorted Honesty
• Chapter 8 Implications for Critical Teaching
• References
• Index