Education Cultural Diversity

Convergence and Divergence Volume 1

James Lynch, Celia Modgil, Sohan Modgil

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• eBook ISBN: 9781136616372
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

First published in 1992. In this volume, the first of this series, many of these themes and issues are rehearsed, although the major focus is on the diversity of approaches to social and narrower educational policy and practice in culturally diverse societies. Authors have been invited to review, critically discuss and seek to extend the theoretical and ideological assumptions underlying policy and practice in their chosen field.

Part One: Integration, Cultural Diversity or Separation?

1. Social Assimilation or Cultural Mosaic?^*

YEHUDA AMIR

This chapter deals with the topic under four major headings. First, there is consideration of social assimilation and cultural mosaic as basic social orientations between which a society has to choose. Then the topic is presented in terms of its relevance to schools, including why its relevance there is relatively limited, and what should be taken into account if schools are to advance a society’s efforts in this area. Next, the relevance of this topic for the schools and their involvement with it is exemplified by three major intergroup conflicts in Israel. Finally, there is a brief state-of-the-art review of techniques and intervention approaches available and necessary for schools to promote a society’s goal to further either social assimilation or cultural mosaic.

SOCIAL ORIENTATION

It is not the purpose of this chapter to analyze the reasons and the prerequisites for a society to choose social assimilation or cultural mosaic as its ideal or cultural preference. Still, a brief mention of factors involved in such a choice is appropriate, as are examples of these choices from societies which have singled out different alternatives to live by.

The following factors may have affected a society’s preference for one or the other direction. This list is not intended to be conclusive or comprehensive. Its sole purpose is to indicate possible influences on the evolution of such a cultural choice.

1 The presence or absence of a cultural, traditional, religious or ideological commitment for the unification and blending of different subcultures into one cultural or national entity. A ‘positive’ example of the influence of such a factor is Israel, into which Jews from many different backgrounds and origin gathered with the aim of producing a new ‘oneness’ of a Jewish-Israeli culture. This striving has its basis in the centuries-long cultural-religious striving of the different Jewish subcultures around the world again to become one nation.

2 Language may become a divergent as well as a convergent factor, dependent on whether the different subgroups have or have not one common language. In this respect Anglo-French Canada exemplifies a divergent tendency, while New Zealand’s cultural groups of European and of native Maori backgrounds (but all English-speaking) serve as an example of a convergent trend.
This category, namely similarity or difference in language between the different ethnic or cultural subgroups, could be extended to other aspects as well. Any human characteristic to which importance is attributed by society is relevant here, and it is of major significance whether on these characteristics the involved groups are similar or dissimilar. One cannot make a definite list of such characteristics because they may vary from one society to another, even from one age group to another, and/or according to sex, social status, etc. Still, aspects of intelligence, social standing, physical attractiveness, beliefs (especially religious), certain social-behavioural attributes — all these may be of major importance in this respect.

3 Status similarity or difference may produce effects in one or the other direction. As with the previous factor (e.g., language), similarity of status components should in general facilitate intergroup attraction; but if such similarity in status produces a threat to one of the groups (especially to the majority or more powerful), an opposite trend may emerge. Status differences, especially if they relate to a high-status majority and a low-status minority group, will increase social distance, thus furthering divergent tendencies. At the turn of this century German and Scandinavian immigrants to some of the US mid-Western northern states were in line with the equal-status, non-threat phenomenon; present-day immigration of well-to-do East-Asian groups to western Canada may prove to exemplify the threat situation. Status differences between ethnic groups are typical of many immigrant situations, including many of the European countries and their ‘Gastarbeiter’, the USA and others.

4 Survival factors, which may include an outside military force threatening the very existence of a society comprising different ethnic subgroups (e.g., present-day Israel) or outside economic pressures or threats (e.g., pre-Hitler Germany). Under this heading one may also include countries where European male ‘immigrants’ had to marry native females because they were the only ones available (e.g., in some of the Latin American territories some centuries ago), or groups that had to cooperate across ethnic, racial or tribal boundaries because otherwise they could not survive (exemplified by the relations between Israeli Jews from Western and Middle-Eastern backgrounds). In all these cases the tendency of the subgroups within the threatened society will be in the convergent direction.

5 The strength of tendencies to preserve or not preserve the cultural heritage of the ethnic subgroups. This may depend on a number of factors, including those mentioned earlier, such as similarities and differences between the groups, common or contradictory goals and interests for the different groups, social acceptance or rejection of one group by the other one, etc. In general, it seems that when a cultural — majority or minority — group wants to preserve its ethnic self-identity or heritage, divergent forces (i.e., pluralism) will emerge. When cultural uniqueness is not salient, the tendency (especially of a minority group, if accepted by the majority group) will be towards a convergent solution (i.e., assimilation). Canadian minority groups, as well as the cultural mosaic of Switzerland, are examples of the former case. Some of the Western minorities in the USA, the Indonesian immigrants to the Netherlands, and the Middle-Eastern Jewish group (vis-á-vis the Western one) in Israel exemplify the latter case.

With regard to all these factors, when referring to majority-minority relations, one should take into account their meaning and importance for both groups. However, it stands to reason that the path society chooses in this respect (i.e., assimilation or cultural mosaic) will to a large extent depend on the needs, beliefs, attitudes and behaviour of the majority or socially stronger group. This group has at its disposal the power and ability to control and direct society according to its own preferences. The possibilities of the minority group are more limited, though in many cases its needs and preferences cannot be ignored.

As a result of the above-mentioned factors, and probably others as well, societies have chosen one or another avenue of policy or cultural ideology with regard to ethnic intergroup coexistence. As Van Oudenhoven and Willemsen (1989) have recently stated, ‘Assimilation and pluralism form the two poles of a dimension reflecting the degree to which a minority group is supposed to adapt to the majority’ (p. 247). They argue:

Assimilation and pluralism are not only theoretical terms but, most importantly constitute an ideological issue as well. For a long time assimilation has been the predominant ideology, particularly in the United States: the melting ideology, a fusion of various elements into a new homogenized whole. In practice this has to a major extent resulted in an adaption of all other groups to the predominant Anglo-Saxon culture.… Similar tendencies to assimilate minority members can be observed in most Western countries where new ethnic minorities have been arriving during the last decades. [On the other hand:] In most countries with ethnic minority groups, however, there exist firm social barriers between the various groups; in many cases the minority members are reluctant to give up their cultural identity and do not wish to assimilate into the larger society (p. 24)

— or are not accepted into the dominant society. A possible result in such cases is a cultural mosaic (i.e., ethnic pluralism).

National examples of these different solutions can easily be provided. Switzerland is an extreme example of ethnic pluralism. There a number of ethnic groups differentiated on religious, cultural, linguistic and to some extent historical bases live side by side with a high degree of own-group liberty and self-expression, as well as of intergroup tranquillity and mutual respect, under a very general umbrella of national institutions and unity. At the other extreme (i.e., assimilation or melting-pot policy) could be categorized some of the South American countries with their Spanish, Indian and sometimes Black ancestors, the USA, and many European countries — at least with regard to their official cultural proclamation though not always in line with the practical behaviour of individual members of the majority group.

Canada is an intermediary example; there ‘multiculturalism’ (which is actually a synonym for cultural mosaic) is the official national policy which, to a large extent, is also accepted by most Canadians as a social norm. Nevertheless, following a recent intensive study tour in Canada, this author’s impression was that the policy of multiculturalism is a result — maybe a lip-service or to some extent a rational compromise initiated by the Anglo-oriented majority group — of a political necessity. On the one hand, multiculturalism proclaims the cultural equality of the different ethnic groups; on the other hand, many majority group members and leaders prefer the country and its society to continue to be Anglo-culturally oriented and believe that in the long (but not too long) run it will indeed be so.

An interesting and complex example is Israel. There ethnic integration (or assimilation) is a clear-cut national policy and accepted social norm regarding the ethnic Jewish groups originating from Western (primarily European) and Middle-Eastern (primarily Moslem) countries. On the other hand, for the Israeli Jews and Arabs the policy is pluralism, and this is totally accepted by both Jewish and Arab groups. For a third social cleavage, i.e., between religious and secular Jews, the ideology and social striving to a large extent favour cultural unity and convergence, while the practice indicates divergence, resulting in social, physical, ideological and institutional separateness (Amir and Ben-Ari, 1988, 1989).

Whether schools in culturally diverse societies should educate and direct the future generation towards social convergence or divergence should not be an issue in itself. Schools are generally a reflection of societal practices and preferences (Parekh, 1986). In rare cases they may be used to implement a policy that society plans to carry out, or an ideology that it wants to live by but does not have the political strength to implement. In the latter case the belief is that social goals or ideologies that society at large was not successful in implementing for its members can be faciliated through the educational system and consequently successfully realized for the members of the next generation. For example, communist countries have taken advantage of the educational system, through both schools and extracurricular institutions, to achieve ideological aims; the USA has tried it for the achievement of ethnic desegregation; and the Kibbutz movement in Israel has conceived and instituted educational practices that should promote more cooperative living among its youth and future members. Still, it would be hard, if not impossible, to find a society in which the schools try to achieve social goals which stand in contradiction to the basic orientation and social consensus of the society, or even try to change them in new or different directions.

The question of the convergence or divergence of culturally diverse groups in the schools should be addressed first and foremost to the society at large. The question is: what style of social and cultural life does that society or country prefer? Is it in the convergent direction, such as social and cultural intermixing, a melting-pot orientation or similar trends; or is the divergent ideology predominant, emphasizing cultural or even political separation, multiculturalism, ethnic pluralism, etc.? Once a society has made its choice, schools may follow this direction, trying to implement educational programmes which will facilitate this orientation, aiming at preparing the future generation to accept the preferred social consensus and to live accordingly as adults. After all, social continuity is in practice a major aim and function of education and the schools.

The problem is that at times, especially when social changes occur, societies are not always clear, or united, with regard to their orientation on this issue. In such cases, discontinuity, disorientation and a cognitive entanglement may be the result for the next generation. The same may hold true when society practises one orientation and tries to implement or utilize another in the schools. This appears to have happened in the USA with regard to the social policy of ethnic integration in the schools. Here a social policy of equality, at the very least with regard to equal opportunity for educational inputs, was planned. This policy aimed at reducing ethnic conflict and cleavage between the interacting groups in the school, as well as promoting a positive atmosphere for social acceptance between the different ethnic groups. It seems, however, that social reality and practice in the daily life of most American subpopulations did not parallel these noble intentions planned for the schools. Thus, even when racial integration in the schools is optimally implemented, experience in the schools does not correspond with the practice and social norms prevailing outside the schools (Gerard and Miller, 1975; Schofield, 1982).

There can be little doubt that this dissonance contributed to the failure to achieve ethnic integration in the USA, at least in schools. One should, however, be aware that when a policy of cultural mosaic is practised, such double messages may have similar negative consequences.

BACK TO THE SCHOOLS

To say that the schools’ main function is to help children and youth prepare themselves to live and function adequately as adults in their respective societies is, at best, a statement of the obvious or just a repetition of a trivial cliche. Nonetheless, I would like to restate this truism! Notwithstanding its banality, this principle is generally not applied in education as related to intergroup relations and majority-minority group issues (as well as to other social issues). This is apparent by the absence of such issues from the regular curriculum. This even holds true for educational systems and pedagogical content in societies in which these issues are of major importance, where adults have to confront and adjust to them in their daily lives. This part of the chapter analyzes why this issue is largely ignored in education, what knowledge has already been accumulated to deal with it in the schools, and, consequently, what could be done and how to do it.

First, how is this topic dealt with in the curriculum or other educational programmes in the schools? The answer appears to be simple: namely: hardly, if at all. One’s impression from schools in many European, North American, Middle-Eastern and even South-East Asian and Pacific countries is that this topic is generally excluded from the curriculum and hardly covered in extracurricular activities. In other countries (e.g., USA, Israel) attempts are made to include such content in the schools, but they are sporadic, rare and generally on an experimental basis.

There are various reasons for this, three of which seem to be the most important.

1 Lack of knowledge of how to tackle the issue. This is not restricted to the schools; nor is it confined to this specific problem. The same can be observed with regard to other social issues. Society at large ‘ignores’ many social problems because it has no knowledge of ho...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contributors
• Contents
• Editors' Introduction
• Part One: Integration, Cultural Diversity or Separation?
• Part Two: Multicultural, Intercultural or Antiracist Alternative Political and Conceptual Rationales
• Part Three: Values, Morality and Cultural Diversity
• Part Four: Issues, Dilemmas and Promises
• Part Five: The Problem of judgement Examinations, Assessment and Evaluation in Culturally Diverse Societies
• Epilogue
• Author Index
• Subject Index