E Pluribus Pluribus: Is Multiculturalism Fragmentary to Society?

In light of our recent discussion of Gilyard's exploration of sociolinguistic theories such as eradicationalism, bidialectalism, and pluralism, I have been thinking about the implications of multiculturalism in the classroom. How do we reconcile the multiple backgrounds of students– including langauge, culture, ethnicity, political mindset, religious views, etc– with the fact that schools in our country are generally desired to promote communal understanding and harmony?



While philosophizing (see above) and pondering these mysteries, I remembered an essay I stumbled upon last semester while browsing some political blogs. In Diane Ravitch's essay "E Pluribus Pluribus," the merits and drawbacks of multiculturalism are explored. (For those who don't know Latin, or who believe that referencing Latin is an example of entrenched Eurocentrism, the title is a playful jest at the famous "E Pluribus Unum" (From many, one). Ravitch's title means "From many, many," pointing to the fragmentary effects of unchecked, exclusive multiculturalism.)

The article itself is rather long, and while I think it's an interesting read, I wouldn't hold it against you if you didn't read it. Rather, I'm going to pull out some claims and talk about how they relate to our class discussion.

1. "For many years, the public schools attempted to neutralize controversies over race, religion, and ethnicity by ignoring them." I think this is largely true. Ravitch goes on to state that during the 1960s, academics and the public began calling for schools to recognize those differences rather than ignoring them. Gilyard talks about something similar when he reminds us that student's own prior knowledge should not be ignored in the classroom– each student brings a diverse and wonderful mindset that can help other students gain a more rounded sense of their own beliefs and their own selves.

2. "The ethnic revival of the 1960's demonstrated that many groups did not want to be assimilated" as had been the predominant model of intercultural relations in the US prior to the 1960s. Rather than striving to inculcate minority students into the values of white middle-class America, we should attempt to include all values in the classroom. Personally, I think that the idea of a "white, middle-class" ideal is bogus– it is impossible to suggest that every white, middle-class American has the same values, or hopes, or goals. No, every individual has their own set of values and expectations for themselves, others, and societies, and all views should be considered.

3. In our time, multiculturalism– cultural pluralism– is believed to be "the norm of a free society; the differences between groups are a national resource rather than a problem to be solved." While I think that this claim is a bit optimistic and fails to address some of the deep-seeded racial divides that exist within our country, it does address the reality of various cultural identities in the correct light. We need to use the variety of student backgrounds that are available to us to gain deeper understanding of others, rather than attempting to force students to adhere to the norms and values of the mythic "white middle-class." Whether we are teaching literacy skills or analyzing historical texts, we should realize that every person will interpret information in a way that is consistent with their experience. We should use differing views to gain a more complete view of a topic, even if we don't necessarily agree with the conclusions of others.

4. Ravitch also makes a distinction between pluralistic multiculturalism and particularistic multiculturalism. (I think she made up the word "particularistic) Nevertheless, the distinction she raises is important and enlightening. Pluralistic multiculturalism, much like Gilyard's linguistic pluralism, is the notion that our own individual cultural experiences and identities do not have to be sacrificed in the interests of a "common" culture. Rather, our common culture is pluralism, the existence of multiple norms and values. This creates a richer common culture that is more welcoming to the vast wealth of differing cultural experiences that our country offers. Particularistic multiculturalism, on the other hand, claims that no common culture is possible, and that a common culture is certainly not desirable. While this might sound peachy on the surface, it suggests that no deep understanding can be made between members of different cultures. I think Gilyard's experiences of friendship with Marty serves as a strong rebuttal to this – though they came from very different cultures, they were still able to recognize and protect that dignity and humanity of the other. Ravitch suggests that particularist multiculturalism leads to ethnocentric curricula. Her problem with ethnocentrism is that it assumes children will only learn when presented with content that is specific to their culture. She argues that one does not need to be black to appreciate Langston Hughes' poetry, just as Gilyard did not need to be white to appreciate the poetry of Ogden Nash. Ravitch cites, in particular, Afro-centric and Mexican-centric curricula that have emerged in efforts to make content "meaningful" for ethnic minorities. While it is certainly important to recognize the achievements of people of all cultures, creating culture-specific curricula is just as dangerous as promoting a curricula that only propagates the values of white, middle-class America. Ethnocentric curricula, she argues, is deterministic, in essence telling students that the range of possible achievements they can reach is dependent on their culture or ethnicity. I think she would agree with Gilyard when he writes that education is much more of a transactional process than a deterministic one– the outcome of an educational situation is largely determined by the student taking responsibility for their own destiny.

5. "When genuine controversies exist, they should be taught and debated in the classroom." This is, I think, on of Ravitch's best points. Sadly, it's a bit of common sense that shouldn't even need to be said. Nevertheless, I rarely heard of contrasting opinions in the academic world until I entered college. Image how different the world would be if children were taught from a young age to consider multiple possibilities before reaching their own conclusions, rather than simply being taught that one indisputable truth exists. If Gilyard had the opportunity to engage in actual discussion with his classmates about desegregation of schools, rather than just writing a paper about it, some real understanding might have been reached, and the alienation and suppressed hatred that he felt for some of his classmates may have never occurred. Likewise, issues of eradicationalism, bidialectalism, and pluralism should be discussed in literacy classes– the fact that scholars fight over whether or not they should establish a standard English speaks to the awesome power of literacy, a power that students should be made aware of. Certainly, understanding the views of others is better than hating someone because of their beliefs without knowing just why it is that they hold those beliefs.

Ravitch makes many more claims, some of which I think could be supported by evidence or might need to be explored more deeply, but I think that the overall gist of her article is very much in line with what we have been talking about in class. The reality of the modern world is that many incredibly different cultural identities exist in society. Our job is to decide how we will use them. Will we embrace those of other cultures and seek to learn about their own cultural understanding and experiences in an attempt to better enrich and enlighten our common culture, or will we allow particularistic thinking to reinforce de facto racism and propagate the idea that cultures might be able to live with one another, but they will never understand each other?