Language Diversity in the Classroom - ymerleksi - home

216 Language Diversity in the Classroommulticultural societies. A strength of his book is the demonstration thatissues of multiculturalism, racism, prejudice, language, the eurocentriccanon, political correctness and perceived assaults on an anglocentricmainstream are all intermeshed. What underpins this interpenetration arestill deeper matters of group voice, of social inclusion and exclusion, ofunity and diversity. A weakness of the book, however, is Schlesinger’soverly blunt defence of an American conservative status quo; whileconcessions are made to the civilizing value of cross-cultural sensitivity,the existing pattern is seen as essentially sound. It is entirely reasonable,of course, for Schlesinger to argue for quite specific positions. As well,I would not argue with the need for a defence against some sociopoliticalassaults nor, indeed, would I want to hold on some a priori basis thatexisting patterns are unsound or untenable. My criticism is that somepoints are inaccurately or incompletely stated, and a work by an importantscholar in a highly sensitive area is insufficiently nuanced.One might think the same of the book by Robert Hughes since, in hisintroductory remarks, he acknowledges a debt to Schlesinger, ‘whoseown recent book... says much of what I say but said it earlier and better’(Hughes, 1993: xiii). Nonetheless, unlike the historian, the journalistHughes excoriates both left and right in an attempt to defend a middleground. This is his way of dealing with contemporary tensions and, onthe surface at least, there is much to recommend it. In this sense,Hughes’s argument is broadly reminiscent of Taylor’s plea for a similarsort of position and, in fact, his book could be seen as a popularizedversion of Taylor’s more scholarly discussion. We find Hughes to besupportive of a ‘generous and tolerant’ multiculturalism, but stronglyopposed to what multiculturalism has become in a fragmented culture:a marker of pernicious separatist sentiments. Since the polyphonicmessage of multiculturalism is something that Americans, of all people,might most benefit from, Hughes finds it ironic (but sadly predictable)that multiculturalism in the United States is not so much about aproliferation of voices as it is a shouting contest. What he refers to as‘radical multiculturalism’ is a guise for Europe-bashing; one might saythat while lip-service is given to diversity, a genuine pluralism is far fromthe minds of most multiculturalists. Radical multiculturalism is alsocritical of much historical interpretation: Columbus the hero is now theblackest of villains (if one can still use that form of expression). LikeSchlesinger before him, Hughes decries the corruption of knowledge inthe service of some group’s ‘self-esteem’ (neither author, however, isunaware of the social construction of knowledge).