Intercultural Education in the European Context

Theories, Experiences, Challenges

Marco Catarci, Massimiliano Fiorucci

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• eBook ISBN: 9781317114666
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

This book offers a comparative analysis of the intercultural theories and practices developed in the European context. Bringing together work on the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Greece, The Netherlands and Sweden, it examines specific approaches to intercultural education. Structured around a series of core questions concerning the main features of diverse groups of migrants present within a country and within schools, the major issues raised by scientific research on the presence of migrant students, and the adoption of relevant educational policies and practices to address these issues - together with examples of best practice in each case - Intercultural Education in the European Context explores the strengths and weaknesses of the intercultural education approach adopted in each context. Offering a broad framework for the study of intercultural education as adopted in European settings, the book highlights the contribution of education to the development of a fair, democratic and pluralistic Europe. As such, it will appeal to scholars and policy makers in the field of sociology, migration, education and intercultural relations.

Chapter 1
Interculturalism in Education across Europe

Marco Catarci

Ideas, cultures, and histories cannot seriously be understood or studied without their force, or more precisely their configurations of power, also being studied.

(Said, 1978: 5)

Interculturalism and its many implications for the education system is among the important issues that will decisively shape the dynamics and features of oncoming European society. In particular, the question of an education system able to assure equal opportunities to all students regardless of their social or cultural background and to develop intercultural awareness and skills on behalf of the entire school population will be a fundamental testing ground for an increasingly multicultural Europe. This will require a strong capacity of ensuring high-quality education for all its members, minimising disparities and avoiding polarisation in outcomes.

Indeed education, in the several forms of its study, analysis and application, is strictly related to the project of a society that will be built through such engagement. Highlighting the importance of taking this into account, Freire explained:

The pedagogy which we defend, conceived in a significant area of the Third World, is itself a utopian pedagogy. By this very fact it is full of hope, for to be utopian is not to be merely idealistic or impractical but rather to engage in denunciation and annunciation. Our pedagogy cannot do without a vision of man and of the world. It formulates a scientific humanist conception which finds its expression in a dialogical praxis in which the teachers and learners together, in the act of analyzing a dehumanizing reality, denounce it while announcing its transformation in the name of the liberation of man. (Freire, 1970: 20)

Throughout the world, national education systems are currently facing several major challenges:

• adjust learning processes, curriculum content and school management to learner’s backgrounds;

• stress democratic citizenship and respect for human rights and address issues related to discrimination and exclusion;

• emphasise sustainable development as the desired social outcome of education;

• plan special measures to reach vulnerable and marginalised groups; and

• improve school and educational environments (UNESCO, 2009: 98–100).

In this sense, Cushner, McClelland and Safford suggest that ‘it is worth thinking about our changing circumstances and the impact these changes are having on the way we live, work, play, govern ourselves, worship, and learn’ (Cushner et al., 2012: 7). Indeed, processes like international integration of the world, demographic and migration trends, technology and changing attitudes among generations provide on the whole a rationale for better cross-cultural awareness.

Without doubt, although a source of difficulties and problems, the multicultural dimension of current society represents first of all a hard fact that calls for urgent reflection at the political, social and educational levels to address the numerous challenges derived from it.

Multiculturalism and Interculturalism

Two major terms have been at the centre of the scientific debate on how to manage cultural diversity in the education system and in society in the last 50 years: ‘multiculturalism’ and ‘interculturalism’. It must be observed that a semantic analysis of these expressions does not highlight merely formal considerations, as these terms carry implicit theories and settings in formal and non-formal education systems in national contexts, or even different approaches within the same national context. For both expressions – multiculturalism and interculturalism – different definitions provided by the scientific literature will be examined, along with their cruces and their current developments.

The first term, multiculturalism, first appeared in the 1960s and 1970s in Canada and in Australia, and then in Britain and the USA. It came to be associated with diversity and how the state dealt with different religious and cultural groups in order to provide equal opportunity, individual freedom and group recognition (Barn, 2012: 103).

Specifically, in 1971 Canada was the first country to adopt multiculturalism as an official policy, affirming the value and dignity of all citizens regardless of their cultural origins, language or religious affiliation; confirming the status of Canada’s two official languages; and highlighting that cross-cultural understanding and mutual respect can develop common attitudes.

Banks has defined ‘multicultural education’ as ‘a movement designed to change schools, colleges, and universities so that students from diverse racial, ethnic, cultural, language, social, class, and religious groups will experience equal educational opportunity’ (Banks, 2008b: 393). Furthermore, it also supports students from all groups to develop democratic attitudes needed to function effectively in culturally diverse communities (Banks, 2008b: 393).

Ultimately, a multicultural approach is also aimed at changing the structure of educational institutions to assure equal chances to achieve academically in school (Banks, 1993: 4). In this sense, Banks traces this perspective back to the civil rights movement of the 1960s in the United States, remembering that in that period African American people started an unprecedented quest for their rights, and highlighting a strong connection between multicultural education and the major goals of promoting equity in educational outcomes across diverse populations of students and educational equality for all students.

In this perspective, students must be considered as change agents, overcoming their traditional roles of reproducing the social structure, enabling them to acquire knowledge useful for social action and change (Banks, 2001: 239–40). Among essential dimensions of multicultural education are:

• content integration, assuring the use of content from a variety of cultures in education;

• knowledge construction, deconstructing the implicit cultural assumptions in the construction of knowledge;

• an equity pedagogy, aimed at promoting educational achievement of students from diverse socio-cultural background; and

• an empowering school culture, addressed to increase political, social and educational strength of students from diverse socio-cultural background (Banks, 1993: 20–23).

According to Grant, the notion of multiculturalism is both a philosophical concept and an educational process, which assumes that ‘equality’ and ‘equity’ do not coincide, as equal access does not necessarily guarantee fairness. Therefore, providing knowledge about the history, culture and contributions of the diverse groups in society, multicultural education:

prepares all students to work actively toward structural equality in the organizations, and informs all subject areas and other aspect of the curriculum. … Like all good educational strategies, it helps students to develop positive self-concepts and to discover who they are, particularly in terms of their multiple group memberships. (Grant, 1997: 171)

In particular, Lynch proposes a definition of culture as a network of values, conceptions, methods of thinking and communicating, customs and sentiments adopted as a socio-ecological coping mechanism and as an active capital of non-material, socio-historical character by individuals, groups and nations. Within this framework, prejudice, discrimination and stereotyping are functions not only of personality but also of societal and institutional structure and power distribution (Lynch, 1983: 33).

Other definitions of multicultural education in scientific literature highlight its assumption that gender, ethnic and cultural diversity of a pluralistic society should be reflected in all of its institutionalised structures – but particularly in schools (Chu, 1997: 182); and its application in policies and practices that recognise, accept and affirm human differences and similarities related not only to culture but also to gender, disability, class and sexual preference (Armbruster and Ahn, 2003: 229).

However, in the course of time, the practice of the notion of multicultural education has also highlighted several critical issues. In particular, multiculturalism has been criticised for not offering a critical enough perspective; or, in other words, for not being more anti-racist in its analysis (Thayer-Bacon et al., 2003: 229).

Steinberg and Kincheloe remark also that – becoming more related with the politics of education, and not just as a further content area subject – such an approach needs a deep analysis of multiculturalism as a discipline unto itself, traditionally constructed adding pieces of information about ‘other’ people while primarily discussing dominant culture (Steinberg and Kincheloe, 2009: 3). Furthermore, a critical approach to multiculturalism calls for a better understanding of how social, cultural, political and economic structures shape each person and establish how that person is perceived, as ‘in an educational context, critical multiculturalism names the power wielders who contribute to the structuring of knowledge, values, and identity’ (Steinberg and Kincheloe, 2009: 5).

Finally, concerning the current developments of the notion of multiculturalism, Banks calls for an evolution of such a notion within the framework of ‘citizenship education’, not to be meant in the traditional assimilationist acceptation of educating students to reach the mythical conception of a ‘good citizen’ regardless of their cultural background, but rather to provide opportunities of maintaining aspects of their community cultures while participating effectively in the shared national culture (Banks, 2008a: 319).

Moving to the notion of interculturalism, in his professorial lecture on the right to education for all, Gundara remarks that education will always be directed to the full development of human personality; to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms; and to the promotion of understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, cultural and religious groups, for the maintenance of peace. This actually constitutes ‘a good definition for intercultural education but it remains far from a reality’ (Gundara, 2003: 2).

In this perspective, ‘intercultural’ identifies a dynamic process of positive interaction between various identity groups of a society, calling for an inherent interdependence beyond static descriptions and recognition of differences (Smith, 2003: 185). Such a notion originates from the attempt to address the issues of cultural pluralism as a counter to assimilation, and aims to promote understanding among different groups while seeking to value the contributions of minority groups in mainstream society (Woyshner, 2003: 186). In this sense, education is aimed not only at migrants to enhance their integration, but also at members of the majority culture to acquire less prejudiced behaviours (Golz, 2005: 7).

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has defined interculturalism as a ‘dynamic’ concept which ‘refers to evolving relations between cultural groups. Interculturality presupposes multiculturalism and results from intercultural exchange and dialogue on the local, regional, national or international level’ (UNESCO, 2006: 17). Three basic principles on intercultural education stem from this definition:

1. Intercultural education respects the cultural identity of the learner through the provision of culturally appropriate and responsive quality education for all.

2. Intercultural education provides every learner with the cultural knowledge, attitudes and skills necessary to achieve full participation in society.

3. Intercultural education provides all learners with cultural knowledge, attitudes and skills that enable them to contribute to respect, understanding and solidarity among individuals, ethnic, social, cultural and religious groups and nations (UNESCO, 2006: 32).

Spotting some problems of intercultural education, Gundara draws attention to a current major challenge: addressing educational inequity. In fact, in a context of continuous social change, intercultural education should contribute to addressing the many forms of exclusion and marginalisation, rethinking policies such as affirmative action so that they do not exacerbate differences, and developing policies that include disadvantages from all communities (Gundara, 2003: 9).

In the European countries a broad spectrum of interculturalism has been developed, shaped by national histories, contemporary educational politics and migration experiences: former colonial experiences, guest workers, societies with growing cultural diversity, eastern countries asserting new national, political, and cultural identities (Holm and Zilliacus, 2009: 17).

Concerning the critical issues of interculturalism, it has been claimed that there is a need for an approach able to analyse the distribution of power in intercultural relations. Giroux and Shannon remark that this approach consists of an:

engage[ment] in cultural work locating politics in the in-between space of representations, audience and text, engaging also cultural politics as an experience of learning as the outcome of diverse struggles, giving importance to understanding theory as the grounded basis for intervening into context. (Giroux and Shannon, 1997: 1–2)

In this perspective, the current development of interculturalism is strictly related to its capacity of providing equity in education. Figueroa remarks that:

educational inequality is related both as cause and effect to inequality in the society at large, of which it is part and parcel. It cannot be accounted for simply in individual terms, and least of all simply in terms of real or supposed individual characteristics, perceptions, frames of reference and behaviour of the majority population. (Figueroa, 1991: 193)

Hence, the notion of ‘educational equality’ could be substituted by one of ‘educational equity’, which implies maintaining personal particularity and respecting individual abilities and ambitions, aiming at a smoother integration into society, allowing everyone to adequately develop skills and to improve chances for successful integration, and also strengthening social cohesion and connectivity (Zmas, 2010: 144–5).

A further relevant development of the intercultural perspective has been pointed out by Philipson, Rannut and Skutnabb-Kangas, which draws attention to the current question of the maintenance of linguistic and cultural diversity as well as biodiversity. Defending linguistic human rights means, at an individual level, that everyone can identify positively with their mother tongue; have that identification respected by others; and have the right to learn their mother tongue and to use it as well as to learn at least one of the official languages of one’s country of residence. As a result, bilingual teachers should be increasingly widespread (Philipson et al., 1995: 2).

Grant and Portera (2011) have widely discussed the different implications of multicultural and intercultural approaches, highlighting settings in theory and practice, and in methodological and political categories. Meanwhile Grant and Brueck remark that:

although born of different times and space, both Multicultural Education and Intercultural Education are continuing to develop as important responses to, engagements with and preparations for contemporary life. Each can assist in developing an understanding and ethical negotiations of the complex world in which we interact. (Grant and Brueck, 2011: 3)

In this regard, as far as the European context is concerned, this difference can be summarised by the words of Gundara, who suggests ‘that the term “multicultural” is better used as a descriptive term. The term “intercultural” is a more appropriate term for discussing programmes, policies and practices’ (Gundara, 2003: 5). Also, Allemann-Ghionda remarks:

In multicultural education, the prefix ‘multi’ describes the multiplicity of different cultures which live on the same territory and/or are taught in the same institution, for example in school or in higher education. In intercultural education the prefix ‘inter’ underlines the interactive aspect. (Allemann-Ghionda, 2009: 135)

In other words, with regard to the European context, the term ‘intercultural’ stresses the process of interaction, whereas ‘multicultural’ is seen as a less dynamic concept and as describing a situation related to diversity of cultures (Holm and Zilliacus, 2009: 11).

Thus, although criticised because it is often used uncritically to ‘celebrate’ cultures – and therefore unable to make understandable issues of power and oppression and historically embedded in a ‘deficit’ model – the notion of a ‘multicultural’ society appears to adapt to describe a broad range of diversity within a society from which arises the need of an ‘intercultural’ education providing students with the means to understand such a context (Gundara, 1986: 11).

In this sense, since positive qualities in terms of encouraging communication and recognising dynamic identities usually associated with interculturalism are also important features of multiculturalism, it must be remarked that the first should be considered not as an updated version of the second, but instead as complementary to it (Meer and Modood, 2011: 18).

Finally, it must be observed that, in the European context, the concept of interculturalism can now be found in several education programmes (Meer and Modood, 2011: 3), suggesting the use of ‘interculturalism’...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Figures and Tables
• Notes on Contributors
• Preface
• 1 Interculturalism in Education across Europe
• 2 Potential and Problems for Intercultural Education in the British Isles
• 3 Interculturalism, Diversity Policy and Integration in France: A Succession of Paradoxical Instructions
• 4 Intercultural Education in the German Context
• 5 The Italian Way for Intercultural Education
• 6 Intercultural Education in the Spanish Context
• 7 Intercultural Education in Europe: The Greek Experience
• 8 From Intercultural Education to Citizenship Education in the Netherlands: Enhancement of Cultural Values or Development of Critical Democratic Citizenship?
• 9 An Equitable Education System’s Achilles Heel? Intercultural Education in the Swedish Context
• Concluding Remarks
• Index