Introduction
Multiculturalism and multicultural education as sociological ideas still matter both in domestic and international contexts (Gereluk and Race 2007; Eade et al. 2008; Boyle and Charles 2011; Shin 2014). Evidence used in this chapter will demonstrate that the concept of multiculturalism and its practical applications are very much alive rather than dead (Joppke 2017). Moreover, within this context, the chapter sheds light onto the Australian case of multicultural education policy and uses this rather unexplored example to argue that Australia’s policy of acknowledging its cultural diversity offers some positive lessons for education policy. Furthermore, the chapter will discuss how Australia has its national values formalised in citizenship policy. This is in contrast to England which gives mere advice on what values should be taught in schools (DSS 2011; DfE 2011, 2014). Australian multiculturalism derives from its cultural diversity with 25% of the population born overseas in the 2011 Census (DIPB 2014). The country has maintained multicultural policies placing a strong emphasis on multicultural education (Watkins and Noble 2013). Although Australia has not been the first country to apply a multicultural policy, in the wake of the Sydney siege of December 2014 and the death of two captives in a coffee shop, one should appreciate that Australia has been developing and evolving multicultural policies for over 50 years (Markus et al. 2009; Mackay 2011; BBC 2014). In this respect, the Australian case study is appropriate to apply within multicultural education.
The chapter relies on two main sources that give important contextual depth to the Australian case study and this analytical discussion. First, it will use Soutphommasane’s (2009, 2013) idea and who currently serves as Australia’ Race Discrimination Commissioner. Secondly, the chapter will use the empirical data collected by the Rethinking Multiculturalism/Reassessing Multicultural Education (RMRME) project on multiculturalism and multicultural education, a three-year Australian Research Council project conducted jointly by the Institute for Culture and Society at the University of Western Sydney, the New South Wales (NSW) Department of Education and Communities and the NSW Institute of Teachers. Each one of the sources above reveals the intricacies of Australian education policy and allows us to reach informed conclusions about whether such a prescriptive multicultural education policy can be applied to English and other international contexts. They also show the deep interest that the Australian case study has and justifies its standing as one of the forefront countries in the world on implementing multicultural perspectives and policy.
In order to position Australian politics, theory and education research into the wider multicultural discourse and dialogues, this chapter begins with an examination of the work of three key multicultural authors. Kymlicka’s (2012) theories on multiculturalism bring a greater understanding to the potential of multiculturalism and multicultural citizenship. Parekh’s work (2011) discusses the ‘multi’ over ‘mono’ culture within the British educational context, whereas Banks (2009) examines and advocates multicultural education practice from an American perspective with international applications. The chapter will then focus on the Australian context. It will discuss Gillard’s (2012) multiculturalism statement as a former Australian prime minister, and juxtapose it with political speeches by European leaders that touched upon aspects of multiculturalism in Europe (Race, in Race and Lander 2016). It will then move to Soutphommasane’s (2009, 2012) idea of a ‘cultural literate dialogue’ and use it as a foundation to discuss further specific political contexts and practical solutions that enable both an Australian list of values and Australia’s increasing cultural diversity to be taught through the subject of citizenship (DoIC 2012). Australia’s increasing diversity has also been factually underlined in the Census statistics of 2011 (DIPB 2014). Using the sources above, this chapter will highlight a positive picture of both advancing Australian multiculturalism and multicultural education and will suggest lessons concerning multicultural dialogues for the wider international and global community.
Kymlicka, Parekh and Banks: Advancing Multiculturalism and Multicultural Education
Multiculturalism, for Kymlicka, is ‘… first and foremost about developing new models of democratic citizenship, grounded in human rights ideas, to replace earlier uncivil and undemocratic relations of hierarchy and exclusion …’. Multiculturalism essentially is about constructing new and relevant civic and political relations to overcome social and cultural inequalities. In this way, Kymlicka (1995) recognised that cultural diversity within a state involves the co-existence of different ethnicities and therefore different diverse cultures which involve many national minorities rather than one nation. Kymlicka (1995: 11) defines nation as ‘a historical community, more or less institutionally complete, occupying a given territory or homeland, sharing a distinct language and culture. A “nation” in this sociological sense is closely related to the idea of a “people” or a “culture”—indeed, these concepts are often defined in terms of each other’. This notion is important in the Australian context as national values are being taught together with cultural diversity.
Unfortunately, as I have argued before, the concept of immigration has always been seen as political and has been used to promote political interests rather than to acknowledge the cultural, social, economic as well as educational influences of minority groups (Race 2015; Race, in Race and Lander 2016). However, within a multicultural framework, cultural pluralism is essential; a nation exhibits cultural pluralism if
What I would suggest needs to be continually analysed is how far the state intervenes in relation to individual and family lives and how the boundaries of cultural pluralism are affected by integrationist policy. The danger in Kymlicka’s (2012: 15) eyes is ‘… the proliferation of “civic integration” policies, typically in shaping the form of obligatory language and county knowledge requirements’ (Joppke 2012, 2017). These civic integration policies, that is, citizenship tests and identification cards, represent, as Lyon (2009) argues, a phase in the long-term attempts of states to find stable ways of identifying citizens. The multiculturalism-integration debate should remain within the idea of multiculturalism-as-citizenisation, as Kymlicka (2012) suggests, and the obstacles that prevent new modules of multicultural citizenship should be at the very least debated.… it accepts large numbers of individuals and families from other cultures as immigrants, and allows them to maintain some of their ethic particularity … Immigrant groups are not ‘nations’, and do not occupy homelands. Their distinctiveness is manifested primarily in their family lives and in voluntary associations, and is not inconsistent with their institutional integration … The commitment to ensuing a common language has been a constant feature of the history of immigration policy. (Kymlicka 1995: 13–14)
Kymlicka (2007: 296–98) suggests further that increasing democratic citizenship must be an international rather than a domestic project which would involve active participation by all citizens in both majority and minority communities. But this idea in itself raises major dilemmas regarding the collaboration of nation states, as well as non-state actors from different regions of the world. Is a multicultural citizenship possible within a globalised world in the twenty-first century (Joppke 2017)? I would suggest that multicultural citizenship can be politically controlled through specific policy which has long-term consequences for individual rights. Kymlicka’s (2012) theories relate to this and the control of cultural rights because cultural membership in the state culture involves individual and group choice. Who has the right to choose in relation to assimilation, integration and multicultural existences is a significant issue. Some citizens have more choices than others and some have their right to choose recognised by the state; when thinking of Bourdieu’s (2005, 2010; Bourdieu and Passeron 1990) ideas, educated ‘middle class’ citizens have more cultural capital than others to make social choices (Ball 2003), such as the option of choosing home education rather than school education (Race, in Race and Lander 2016). A possible forum for cultural and social choices will be examined later in this chapter when we examine Soutphommasane’s (2009) idea of ‘cultural literate dialogue’ and the consequences this idea can have for promoting multicultural citizenship.
Kymlicka’s work on multicultural citizenship and his ideas on the need to move beyond recognition and tolerance to celebration are also important when considering cultural rights in multicultural education. Such ideas form the basis for supporting the need for advancing curricula based on multicultural citizenship (Race 2012). Consistent with Kymlicka’s framework, Parekh (2000: 225–26, 2008, 2011) is also a supporter of a multicultural over a monocultural society and education. The limitations of monocultural curricula are obvious for Parekh, as students’ ‘intellectual curiosity’ is dulled, students’ perspectives of their own cultures are getting narrowed, and the opportunity to study cultural difference gets limited. Parekh (2000: 226–27) concludes: ‘Monocultural education also tends to breed arrogance,...