Full Preface to the Second Edition of Toward Multiculturalism.
Toward a More Contextual Multiculturalism
Preface to the Second Edition of Toward Multiculturalism
Jaime S. Wurzel
When the first edition of this book was published in 1989, the title Toward Multiculturalism was chosen to convey the potential of positive interaction among all cultures and, perhaps more importantly, to put forth the idea that multiculturalism can be seen as a state of mind. Multiculturalism was described as a continuous movement towards reflection, self-knowledge, awareness of our common humanity, and understanding of our differences. During the last eleven years, however, the word multiculturalism has achieved meanings never conceived of in 1989. This has been particularly true in the academic world. When the title came up in conversations with colleagues or in public presentations, the meaning I had given multiculturalism was often lost in endless debates and lengthy intellectual propositions. Some saw multiculturalism as a challenge to the traditions of Western civilization; others perceived it as a call to the disintegration of national identity, or worse yet, as a summons to moral relativism: If all conduct is justified by culture, everything goes; right and wrong are no longer discernible. I watched and listened in amazement. Multiculturalism had suddenly become the source of all our ills; from being the cause of our inner-city problems to challenging our fundamental truths.
Nevertheless, I am still committed to the meaning of the original title. Moving toward multiculturalism remains the final objective. In light of the controversy surrounding the idea, however, it is important to understand why it conjured so many reactions. I intend, therefore, to suggest an explanation and in the process offer the possibility of a more contextual way of defining and analyzing the phenomenon of multiculturalism. In some ways the debates in academia have been helpful, for they contributed to uncovering hidden but powerful assumptions about contemporary education. Like everyone else, academics wear lenses that color or shape what they see. We inevitably carry professional perspectives formed by years of training and study. However, our ideological and methodological traditions have sometimes prevented us from sharing ideas and moving forward. Consequently, in the spirit of true dialogue and reflection, it is important to examine the perspectives we use when we evaluate multiculturalism. The purpose is not to propose that we cast off our lenses, but that we become more aware of them so as to be able to assess and counteract whatever distortion they project upon the world we inhabit.
From the many reactions to the title of the first edition there is one in particular that I would like to relate. It took place with a colleague, a professor of philosophy, who was always looking for a good argument. He entered my office one day, with a copy of the first edition of this book in hand and sat on a chair across from my desk. Without wasting words, he asked a simple question. "Where do you stand on the issue of all-black, male schools?" I was surprised that he brought up the topic with me. I had not written on the subject, nor had I spoken publicly about it. Soon, however, I realized he was referring to a story that had recently appeared in several national newspapers. The intensity of his voice let me know that he had already formed an opinion and that he was ready for battle. Perhaps in response to my surprised silence, he elaborated: "I'm concerned that multiculturalism is setting us back. We fought for so long to desegregate schools, now some blacks are choosing segregation. What is your position?" I took a deep breath and answered in the only way I could at the time. "I understand their pain. It's a response to suffering and oppression." Now my colleague stared at me in amazement. He expected an argument, instead I gave him what he perceived to be a vague and general statement. Our interaction was immediately over. Neither one of us knew how to continue. "You understand the pain?" he asked disappointedly. He stood up, shrugged his shoulders, and left the room.
This exchange left me puzzled until some time later, when I understood what had really happened. I had violated a subtle but long-standing academic tradition. Instead of reason and evidence, I interjected the non-measurable. My colleague might have enjoyed an argument that explained the problem empirically. He might have been willing to be persuaded if I had justified the existence of all black, male schools as a solution to particular problems of the times. Many educators felt the need to pay special attention to African American males, given the grim statistics of the early nineties. Perhaps I should have told him that 50 percent of black families were headed by single women, 25 percent of African Americans were born to teenage mothers, 55 percent of black children were born out of wedlock, and 46 percent of 8.8 million working age black men in the U.S were unemployed. African American young men died nightly in the inner cities. Black males consistently scored lower than equivalent populations of whites on standardized tests. All these facts are relevant to black schooling and black identity. However, I did not answer it this way. He wanted science and I offered him emotion.
While the empirical world of statistics can concretely convey the existence of a problem, it can also hide a powerful emotional context. This perspective is often neglected in conversations about the meaning of multiculturalism. The culture of academia, especially in the United States, holds strongly to the assumption that scholars and practitioners are also problem solvers. Intellectual discourse and research should be geared to find the best possible solution to the most complex problem. Cause-and-effect relationships, tangible in the natural and physical sciences, are often applied to human relations. While this methodology has proven effective in abstract philosophical discourse and in the sciences, it becomes quickly superfluous when applied to human conflicts. Rational empiricism demands that concepts be operational or reduced to their constituent parts for the purpose of analysis, measurement, and evaluation. Therefore, culture must be defined explicitly, in terms of particular behaviors or measurable traits. Consequently characteristics of deep or hidden culture, the paradigms or frames that presumably exist buried out of awareness in the minds of members of a group or culture, are generally seen as interesting theoretical phenomena, but belonging outside the realm of empirical evidence. In the name of reason and evidence the profound complexities of human relations are simplified either for the purpose of measurement or to suit the needs of logical reasoning. This approach leaves out, among other things, the powerful role long-lived emotions play in how contemporary cultural groups interpret experience.
The misconceptions about multiculturalism are thus in part based on the difficulty of measuring the concept of culture. Theories of culture have been historically undermined by Western scientific assumptions that emphasize reason and evidence in the analysis of human conduct. This dominant orientation towards inquiry holds that the individual's mind is innately rational and scientific. It also holds that reason has the capacity to transcend time, place, culture, race, and even human desires. In short, the workings of reason and evidence are seen as universal standards to explain, evaluate, and understand human behavior. This outlook reached its peak during the Enlightenment. Reason and evidence became the tools to free people from the oppression of institutional and religious dogma. Given this purpose, it is important to understand the value of a rational approach. However, we must also understand its constraints.
The universal application of logic and rationalism tends to undermine the study of cultural variation and contributes to polarizing our thinking. Therefore, we are constantly differentiating between form over meaning, objectivity over subjectivity, and reason over emotion. Consequently all inquiry about human behavior which does not uphold the standards of reason and evidence may be seen as lacking validity. Unfortunately, this traditional emphasis, in its extreme forms, has undermined our ability to appreciate aspects of human behavior which may not be totally understood by logic, science, or statistics.
The raging debates about the meaning of multiculturalism often take place within the framework of rational empiricism. Multiculturalism is seen as an external concept subject to the rules of reason and evidence. The traditional tenets of rationalism continue to resist legitimizing the possibility that individuals can frame their own reality, construct their own paradigms, or create their own worldview. Even the notion that historical "pain" could influence contemporary behavior defies the rules of scientific inquiry. The study of culture emphasizes the understanding of particular meanings rather than attainment of a universal normative view of human behavior. It stresses the study of symbolic and below the surface meaning, and it understands the close relationship between emotional context and manifest behavior. These orientations, however, often collide with dominant assumptions of Western scientific inquiry.
My philosopher colleague, along with many other scholars and writers, treats multiculturalism as a rational concept embedded in historical, political and social constructs without considering the powerful emotional context that surrounds it. The study of history and its political and sociological consequences is essential. However, history without memory has not meaning. Memory is the emotional context which people carry with them from generation to generation and which influences the way they perceive the world. Memory is the pain that surrounds a historical event. The historical meaning of slavery becomes irrelevant without understanding how pain can transcend time. Perhaps the creation of allmale, black schools was a way to deal with the burden of memory. Perhaps the acknowledgement of historical pain may contribute to a more meaningful understanding of intercultural relations.
Multiculturalism as a state of mind calls for a process of understanding how the lenses we wear affect our vision. This does not mean that we need to discard them; on the contrary, it entails expanding our vision by learning how to remove them from time to time. To totally discard reason and evidence is dangerous, but the exclusion of the emotional context can render analysis incomplete.
When the first edition of this book was published in 1989, the title Toward Multiculturalism was chosen to convey the potential of positive interaction among all cultures and, perhaps more importantly, to put forth the idea that multiculturalism can be seen as a state of mind. As in the first edition the purpose of this text is not only to convey information about teaching in a multicultural context. Perhaps more importantly the selected readings aim to identify and teach enduring human condition concepts and themes. The goal of the selected readings is not only to inform, but to convey a methodology that allows for a contextual understanding of a concept or theme. The articles, old classics and new ones, have been chosen for how clearly they communicate the essential ideas in each. I hope this approach can lead to an informed and competent dialogue between academics and, perhaps more important, between cultures.