Language Diversity in the Classroom - ymerleksi - home

Multiculturalism and Multicultural Education 225development of a concept and sense of self-worth, the development of aconcept of society [?], and the understanding of such concepts as prejudiceand stereotyping’ (Wright & LaBar, 1984: 118). Putting aside the clumsyand unfocused expression here, in what possible way could theseeducational thrusts not relate to all good classroom practice? If thedisinterested underpinning remains undeveloped, then it seems to methat educationalists and theorists can carry on as much as they like aboutequity, xenophobia, linguicism and all the rest: nothing substantial willhappen, nothing will really transfer beyond the immediate confines of theclassroom, because the necessary scaffolding will be absent. 5 If, on thecontrary, teachers succeed in presenting information to students that bothdevelops into knowledge and gradually hones the general critical faculties,then those matters of particular interest to ‘multiculturalists’ can beassumed to develop, too. A rising tide floats all boats.An early critical investigation, one inappropriately neglected in a fieldalways in need of careful scrutiny, is Bullivant’s (1981) treatment ofpluralism in education. While some of the particulars of his half-dozencontexts (Australia, Hawaii, Fiji, the UK, Canada and the USA) have nowaltered, his general observations remain important. This is simply becausethe animating tensions of multiculturalism-in-education are very much asthey have always been. Bullivant’s strongest contention is that multiculturaleducation, a confused and confusing amalgam of methods andobjectives, is just another form of dominant-group ‘hegemony’. ‘Multiculturalism’,he suggests, ‘may be a subtle way of appearing to givemembers of ethnocultural groups what they want in education while inreality giving them little that will enhance their life chances’ (Bullivant,1981: ix). We have already seen that there have been minority-groupsuspicions about multicultural education, as well as the argument thatmulticulturalism-as-policy represents a politically opportunistic responseto ‘ethnic’ populations, particularly if they have voting power. Bullivant’ssecond pivotal argument has to do with what he calls the ‘pluralistdilemma’: while a democratic concern for all citizens can theoretically bereflected in particularized educational approaches, these may contribute to‘weakening the cohesion of the nation-state [sic] by interfering with theenculturation imperative the need to have enough of a common culturepassed on to each generation of children’ (Bullivant, 1981: 14). The tensionhere is between what Bullivant (citing an earlier author: see Butts et al.,1977) calls ‘civism’ and ‘pluralism’, which is yet another restatement of theunity-diversity dynamic (see also Higham, 1974, 1975).Bullivant’s third major argument is that very roughly speaking schools should concern themselves with the ‘civism’ side of the coin, and