Running head: KNOWING PAPER



Running head: KNOWING PAPER

Sara Mills

Critical Multicultural Inquiry: A new way of knowing

George Mason University

EDUC 800

Spring 2008

American society is not a society of equals. It never has been. Throughout our nation’s history, the values, beliefs and customs of the white, Eurocentric majority have dominated societal laws and institutions. Since the mid-20th century, this “American culture” has spread around the globe. Despite our status as a nation of immigrants, and despite our changing demographics, the traditional common culture in the US remains Eurocentric. Critical multicultural inquiry as a way of knowing seeks to emancipate marginalized groups in our society by giving voice to the knowledge and experiences of those groups. Because the language of academics is the language of the dominant culture, critical inquiry endeavors to allow knowledge and meaning to emerge from the words of those not included in our society’s traditional knowledge base. Critical inquiry goes further by putting forth a plan for change to emancipate the oppressed.

Historical Perspective

Multiculturalism and the movement toward critical inquiry as a way of knowing are relatively recent phenomena, in the United States. Multiculturalism has its roots in the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s (Jay, 2002). Critical inquiry, which seeks to advocate for groups marginalized in our society, is an even more recent trend in ways of knowing, emerging as recently as the 1990s (Creswell, 2008, p. 478).

Concepts of “Culture”

The concept of “culture” in the United States was introduced by Franz Boas at the beginning of the 20th century. At that time, differences between people were explained by the evolutionary view that some races were more evolved than others. Based on his extensive studies of Native American Indian groups, Boas refuted the notion that culture was biologically based. Rather, he argued for the historical comparative method that emphasized tradition and the process of human reason. This was an enormous paradigm shift that made culture, not race, the organizing concept of anthropology (Gonzalez, Moll & Amanti, 2005, p. 30-32).

From 1940 to 1980, culture in this country was conceptualized as a neat package of traditions and beliefs that determined behavior of individuals within the cultural group. Culture was the same for all in the group – it was static, unchanging. Many different views of culture emerged at this time, including the “interpretive” view. The interpretive school of thought held that “meanings are not ‘in people’s head’, but shared between social actors” (Gonzalez, Moll & Amanti, 2005, p. 34).

In late 1970s, the static view of culture began to change. Anthropologists began to understand that people were not “passive receptacles of immutable culture” (Gonzalez, Moll & Amanti, 2005, p. 36). Instead, individuals manipulate and adjust cultural elements based on their personal histories and circumstances.

Multicultural Movements

The concern for cultural diversity in America is rooted in the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s. Cultural diversity has continued to be a salient issue in the United States due to a variety of factors, including: (a) the post-colonial era that came about because of the decline of Western powers; (b) the effects of Brown vs. the Board of Education, which changed the face of classrooms in America; and (c) the increased immigration of non-Western groups from places like Mexico, Latin America, and Asia (Jay, 2002, para. 3).

By the 1980s, multiculturalism was widely used in the context of public school curriculum. Proponents of multiculturalism argued that subject-matter content in schools was Eurocentric, excluding women and minorities. This singular perspective was seen as reinforcing unhealthy, even racist, attitudes. Similar questions began to be raised about other institutions in society such as government, corporations, and private clubs (Jay, 2002).

Identity politics also became more popular after the 1960s (Jay, 2002). That is, people began to identify themselves in terms of a group to which they belonged, rather than identifying with the common culture. This was a result of individuals feeling that the common, Eurocentric culture did not represent them and, in fact, oppressed them. Identity politics can readily be seen today in the hyphenated categories individuals use to describe themselves (e.g., Native-Americans, African-Americans, Gay-Americans).

Recently, proponents of multiculturalism have looked at multiculturalism at the individual, rather than group level (Jay, 2002). This view acknowledges that individuals belong to many different groups, and must continually move between them. The terms “borderlands” and “border lives” describe this hybridity of cultural practices, this interaction individuals have in and between the groups of which they are members (Gonzalez, Moll & Amanti, 2005).

Globalization has played a large role in current conceptions of multiculturalism. The border lives described by Gonzalez, Moll and Amanti (2005), which are detailed later in this paper, are a direct result of economic globalization along the US-Mexican border. Similarly, new information technologies that connect individuals around the globe without interference from government control have played a role in changing conceptions of multiculturalism. Some argue that the recent resurgence of identity politics, and the accompanying racist violence around the world, is a result of these new information dynamics (San Juan, 2000, para. 8).

Underlying Assumptions

There is no one definition or one way of thinking about multiculturalism in anthropology, education or politics today. Some notions of multiculturalism focus on a common culture shared by all in American society. This traditional, “melting pot” point of view is inherently a deficit model of culture. It holds that some groups are stuck in poverty or lack opportunities because they do not share the dominant cultural background (San Juan, 2000). The well-known work of E. D. Hirsch in the field of education is an example of this thinking.

Another school of multicultural thought acknowledges that race is inherent in US society and, therefore, highlights the dominance and subordination of groups. That is, there are “layers of dominant, residual, and emergent cultures in varying degrees of tension with one another” (San Juan, 2000, para. 11). Critical multicultural inquiry stems from this viewpoint. The role of critical inquiry is to give voice to those who are not represented by the dominant culture.

Addressing inequities in power across cultural groups is different from academic views of culture that focus on celebrating all cultures. For instance, teaching multiculturalism in public schools usually focuses on holidays, food, clothing, and so on. This is a static view of culture that assumes all members of a particular group are inherently the same. Proponents of a critical multicultural approach argue that, by not addressing inequities of power between groups, this academic multiculturalism perpetuates the status quo (San Juan, 2000). The status quo is hegemony, when those in power maintain domination through social, cultural, ideological or economic influence rather than through force.

Another underlying assumption of critical multiculturalism is the permeability of cultural boundaries (Chicago Cultural Studies Group, 1992). As described earlier, individuals are part of many different cultural groups and must continually move between these groups. In a vivid example, Jay (2002) describes it this way:

A person may think of herself or be treated at one moment as a woman, at another moment as Asian, at another moment as upper-class, at another moment as elderly, at another moment as lesbian – each time being either helped or hindered by the identification, depending on the circumstances. . . . Multiculturalism, then, insofar as it groups individuals into categories, may overlook the practical reality that no one lives in just one box. (para. 7)

An individual’s knowledge is the product of the social interactions one has within the groups, or affiliations, of which one is a part (Chicago Cultural Studies Group, 1992). Knowledge cannot be separated from the individual or from the social context. One is born into affiliations, and some affiliations are chosen. Therefore, “the affiliation of your knowledge is less the product of a free choice than something to negotiate. . . . [P]art of the question is how you deploy the [affiliations] you’re in. That is how identity politics may be fruitfully understood now: as sites of struggle rather than as sites of ‘identity’” (Chicago Cultural Studies Group, 1992, p. 548). This brings the concept of culture to the individual level rather than the group level. In fact, some have gone so far as to stop using the term “culture” altogether. In their study of Mexican-American households, for example, Gonzalez, Moll and Amanti (2005) chose to focus on practice – “what households actually do and how they think about what they do” (p. 10) – rather than culture.

Addressing the needs and empowering the voices of those without power in society requires an approach to knowledge building that provides the opportunity to break free from dominant forms of expression. Critical inquiry questions the “view from nowhere” (Chicago Cultural Studies Group, 1992, p. 550) approach to knowledge building that is central to positivistic knowledge. Instead, critical inquiry argues that the context matters. Those pursuing critical multiculturalism acknowledge the difficulty of finding the true voice of those in marginalized groups because the view of knowledge as being separate from individuals has been embedded in every academic discipline. Given the fact that Western academic thought has permeated the globe, it is particularly challenging to let groups express themselves in their own forms (Chicago Cultural Studies Group, 1992). This self-expression is precisely what critical inquiry strives to bring forth as valuable knowledge.

Research Implications

Critical multicultural inquiry seeks to advocate or bring voice to cultures within society that have been marginalized. To that end, it presents the knowledge and experiences of those not represented in the traditional, Eurocentric knowledge base. Following are two examples of studies that employed a critical multicultural approach.

Critical Multicultural Student Research

Judith Hawkins (2006) used a critical inquiry approach with college-level students to complete a student research project. Specifically, she wanted to “examine whether an established academic procedure, the student research paper process, can effect significant change in perspective by allowing students to examine beliefs and values inculcated by prevailing communal institutions in their lives” (p. 172). The 24 participants in the study were enrolled in Hawkins’ class at a 4-year commuter college in a large, metropolitan area. Participants identified themselves ethnically as follows: 52.9% Hispanic, 26% Black, 6.7% White, 4.3% Asian or Pacific Islander, 1.5% Puerto Rican. The rest identified themselves as “Other” or Alaskan native (p. 174-175).

The research paper process began with students choosing a personal incident from their own experience to relate to a small group of their fellow students. Through conversation with their peers, students identified an underlying assumption of their experience that served as the topic for their research paper. As students read information about their chosen topic, they were instructed to use “active reading strategies that elicit reader response” (p. 173). That is, readers engaged with the text based on their prior life experiences, and wrote about their thinking. After researching their chosen topics, students evaluated their initial assumptions about their experiences.

Through this process, students’ personal experiences were validated as worthy of inquiry. Likewise, their knowledge, as brought forth through conversations with peers and through the active reading process, was shown to be equal to that of culturally dominant academic thinkers whose works they were reading as research tools. Hawkins acknowledged that it is difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of this critical multicultural inquiry approach compared to traditional research approaches. However, she did point to positive outcomes, including increased student motivation and successfully addressing communal issues through the academic process (p. 190).

Funds of Knowledge

Norma Gonzalez, Luis Moll and Cathy Amanti (2005) used a critical multicultural approach to study “funds of knowledge” in Mexican-American households in the Southwestern United States. The purpose of their study was to improve teacher practice by building on the background knowledge students gain from their families. In particular, the researchers looked at the labor history of families to reveal “accumulated bodies of knowledge within the household” (p. 72). They were also interested in how families develop social networks (p. 73). The investigators explicitly acknowledged the power of social relationships in constructing knowledge. As they point out, telling stories allows for the social analysis at the heart of critical inquiry (p. 2).

The method of the Funds of Knowledge study involved three interrelated activities. First, investigators conducted an ethnographic analysis of household dynamics. (Ethnographic analysis is the method used by anthropologists to study groups of people. Information is gathered from observation, interviews, artifacts, and so on. Researchers look for themes and connections in the information gathered (Creswell, 2007, p. 488-490).) Second, teachers planned curriculum units around the funds of knowledge identified through interviews and observations in students’ homes. Third, teachers participated in an after-school study group to talk about what they were learning from their field experiences (Gonzalez, Moll & Amanti, 2005, p. 72). Through this approach, “lived experiences become validated as a source of knowledge” (p. 42).

The findings that emerged from the Funds of Knowledge project provide a rich example of the lives of students living in the borderland between two cultures.

[O]ne of the keys to understanding Mexican origin children lies in the historical struggle of Mexican origin households for control of their labor, resources, and for economic security. Strategies for survival are omnipresent in the everyday lives of members of these households. The need to sustain the household economically, socially, and culturally manifests itself in behaviors, activities, and customs exhibited in households such as pooling resources, sharing household chores, trading goods and services, traditional economic activities, and shopping in informal markets. (Gonzalez, Moll & Amanti, 2005, p. 123-124)

This contextualized understanding of their students’ lives allowed teachers to move away from a deficit model of culture, and allowed them to see their students as individuals rather than homogeneous products of one unchanging culture. Additionally, parents became empowered to participate in their children’s education because they were validated as legitimate sources of knowledge.

A New Way of Knowing

This study of critical multicultural inquiry is a new way of knowing for me. As a member of the dominant, Eurocentric culture, political, economic and educational institutions are built around my cultural norms. The values that were passed down to me from my family and community are in line with the values of the common culture in this country. It is challenging to imagine having to operate on a daily basis according to rules that do not match my way of knowing the world.

Learning about this new way of knowing has opened my eyes to the fact that there is not only one frame of reference by which knowledge is judged. I think it is natural to compare other cultures using the parameters of one’s own culture, and that is what I have always done. For instance, when I visited my parents while they were living in Ghana, I was struck by differences in conceptions of time, the value of children within families, and communication networks in the absence of telephones and computers. If I asked a Ghanaian to describe her culture to me, it is unlikely that she would focus on the same constructs. I focused on these aspects of daily life because they are aspects of life that are important in my Eurocentric culture. After reading the literature on multiculturalism, I may ask different questions next time I am in a culture unlike my own to see what is important from the perspective of those in that society, rather than what is important to me.

Another important learning for me has been the idea that cultures are not static. It is very common in schools to address multiculturalism by reading stories from a culture, and discussing holidays, food and clothing. Not only have I learned that this all-cultures-are-equal approach actually reinforces the domination of some cultures over others, but I have also learned that this approach does not paint an accurate view of the culture of a group. In this increasingly globalized world, proponents of multiculturalism believe that culture must be viewed at an individual level. We all live at borderlands between cultures. This makes an individual’s culture dynamic and singular.

Finally, I have come to see that useful academic knowledge can come from home as well as from school. As a teacher, I valued the home-school connection, but really viewed it as me helping the parents. I thought it was important to help parents learn to be advocates for their children in a large, bureaucratic school system. After reading Funds of Knowledge (Gonzalez, Moll & Amanti, 2005), I now see that there is much knowledge from the home that can be used as background knowledge and scaffolding for learning in the classroom. This approach makes school learning meaningful for our students. It creates an environment in which students can be successful because it is an environment partially shaped with their understandings in mind.

References

Chicago Cultural Studies Group. (1992). Critical multiculturalism. Critical Inquiry, 18(3), 530-555.

Creswell, J.W. (2008). Educational Research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

Gonzalez, N., Moll, L.C. & Amanti, C. (Eds.) (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Hawkins, J. (2006). Accessing multicultural issues through critical thinking, critical inquiry, and the student research process. Urban Education, 41(2), 169-191.

Jay, G. (2002). What is multiculturalism? Retrieved March 19, 2008, from uwm.edu/~gjay/Multicult/Multiculturalism.html

San Juan, E. (2000). The multiculturalist problematic in the age of globalized capitalism [Electronic version]. Social Justice, 27(1), 61-75.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download