I. Introduction

        The paper is divided into three parts. In the first part, I discuss the meaning of multiculturalism. In the second, I use the theory of "radical perspectivism" to embrace the whole universe of our multicultural possibilities, instead of merely human-centered perspectives(2). Human-centered perspectives are not formally different from other ethnocentric perspectives that use only a limited number of assumptions to understand the world. Having established the epistemological context of multiculturalism, in the third part of the paper I examine what multiculturalism should not be, such as, including under the rubric "multiculturalism" certain extreme ethnocentric beliefs that have little or nothing in common with multiculturalism, if not represent its philosophical antithesis.

Table of Contents

II. Meaning of Multiculturalism

       Multiculturalism is the ideological ocean that several theorists in the United States concerned with a wide range of issues may eventually have to cross, from immigration policy, conflict resolution, and international law; to archaeological research and educational policy. Multiculturalism waives the flag of intercultural exchange and understanding. As the term "multiculturalism" implies, a variety of cultures are allowed to co-exist, if not form the sine qua non of what it means to exist as a human being(3).

        In a seemingly paradoxical but in fact quite rational order, multiculturalism becomes the long sought after golden fleece of our sometimes elusive balance between the rights of the majority, and those of minorities. Once acknowledged as a movement in its own right, multiculturalism offers a parallel bridge for diverse groups of people to live under a democratic regime without falling in the cataclysmic river of absolutist rule below.

        In the United States, multiculturalism is couched inside legal, political and psychological "protective shields" that make it more than just a theory of social existence. Thus based on legal decisions handed down by the United States Supreme Court, which are in turn based on the court's interpretations of the Federal Constitution, minority ethnic or cultural groups may not be unreasonably discriminated against(4). This legal protection gives such groups the opportunity to coexist with all their rights intact even if a real or hypothetical "majority" were to prefer that they do not.

        Our attitudes toward multiculturalism have been shaped by a multitude of court cases, and legislation, passed by Congress in response to the civil rights movement. Several of these cases and laws have also shaped educational policy, such as those that led to desegregation (protection extended to racial minorities), bilingual education (linguistic minorities), mainstreaming (students with disabilities), and Title IX (gender protection)(5). Cultural minorities that were once discriminated against may no longer be denied the opportunity to compete on the basis of their relevant skills or qualifications. Our recent political reality has increasingly become multicultural. Multiculturalism transcends the cultural imperatives of any one group, but attempts, instead, to embrace them all. As a result, multiculturalism has become a psychologically cathartic antidote used by previously oppressed minorities against possibly humiliating ideas concerning their alleged "inferiority." Multiculturalism offers the opportunity to oppressed cultural minorities to "educate" those who were earlier almost immune to their achievements or concerns, let alone offer them an equal voice(6).

        Historically, what may have always been at least in theory a movement in this country to respect the cultural background of diverse groups of people, was superseded by a larger movement to "assimilate" everyone into a common pot(7). Nevertheless through such upheavals as the civil rights movement, multiculturalism now gained its long awaited social recognition. As the ultimate expression of human fraternity, equality, and understanding, multiculturalism became the rightful heir to constitutional ideals that have legally defined this country ever since it became independent.

        As with almost all social paradigms at least ever since Plato wrote The Republic, multiculturalism is not without certain problems. For example, one of the component cultures may refuse to subscribe to a common set of rules for peaceful coexistence. A fair example of such "culture" may be the political subculture of the Nazis, or similar racial supremacists. In these cases, one group may advocate its own supremacy over others without their consent, and therefore may feel compelled to rule over them over their objections, if not in extreme cases even attempt to destroy them. Although one group may advocate its own supremacy over others, to survive in the context of a legally sanctioned multicultural society it may have to abide by laws that require it to respect the rights of other groups. At the same time, such group may be allowed to express publicly its anti-multicultural ideology. Ironically, it is precisely the underlying multicultural ideology that such groups attack that allows them to co-exist with other groups, or even attack such ideology, in the first place.

        One wonders how influential public expressions of anti-multiculturalism may be in a society where there is an overwhelming support for multiculturalism, if not legal sanctions against extreme forms of racial, ethnic, or other types of intolerance. Groups espousing non-multicultural ideologies may "speak" a different "game" than they dare practice. For example, when it comes to actually applying their anti-multicultural ideology, such groups may conform to the multicultural reality that surrounds them, such as, requesting permission for a peaceful march, or else risk imprisonment if they decide to act illegally. The question may be raised, how effective will their non-multicultural ideology be on a public that may not only disagree with such group's ideology, to start with; but is also witness to the group's own compromising behavior?

        In theory, a society as a whole may consist of groups whose common principle is precisely the lack of such, which may lead almost by definition to constant intercultural conflicts. Of course such society is highly unlikely, especially given not only most humans' desire for non-paradoxical realities, but also on a more practical level their desire for prolonged survival. It doesn't take the application of complicated mathematical formulas to appreciate the significance of commonly established rules that make peaceful coexistence possible. For example, if no one were to obey traffic signals, then one might expect huge traffic jams at intersections where traffic signals are not obeyed. If everyone tries to be first to cross over to the other side without regard to the traffic light, then hardly anyone will be able to do so in an orderly manner. Instead of traffic flowing smoothly, one may get an uncoordinated mass seemingly going nowhere due to cars getting in the way of each other, even while the road ahead is empty(8). Likewise, if we had no commonly established rules, let alone obey them, then either the lack of such, or our "disobedience" may return to haunt us in the form of ultimately self-inflicted crime, pollution, disease, or poverty. I wrote "ultimately self-inflicted" because through our own example of "disrespect" for social rules, we may incite others to disobey, also, and thus one day to cause us the same harm that we caused others through our self-serving "disobedience." This may happen not only literally at the crossroads of traffic, where someone else equally disrespectful of the traffic signal may be faster than us, and therefore may cut right in front of us; but anywhere in "social space" where one may expect to encounter similar conflicts.

        Examples of self-serving disobedience of social rules, or just plain lack of rules, abound. For example, we may pay for littering with our own yard being littered by others, or having property values in our neighborhood decrease dramatically, thus possibly costing us a large part of our investment; or, more dramatically, we may pay for stealing from others by having our hard-earned money being stolen, in turn. Hence we have rules against stealing, littering, or disobeying traffic signals. In a sense, multiculturalism follows a similar logic: by respecting the rights of others, we can expect in the majority of cases others to respect our own rights. This mutual respect is not only ethical, in the sense of expecting to be treated as we treat others, but makes living together "livable." By this mean I mean everyone is allowed enough space to live creatively or productively without necessarily harming others.

        The theory of the "categorical imperative" aside(9), in popular speech this fundamental truth regarding social rules has been crystallized over the centuries in some well known sayings. For example, in English we say that if you "live by the sword, you die by the sword." Or more plainly "what goes around, comes around." This doesn't mean that disobedience is always undesirable, as it may not be where social rules do not protect everyone fairly. Of course like almost anything else which people think about, which includes just about everything, so is "fairness" to a certain extent in the "beholder's eye." For example, some people may perceive certain forms of social stratification as more fair, than a strictly horizontal form of social organization. In some cultures there may exist a hierarchy of class privilege which all the classes may consider fair, as was the case for different periods in many places around the world. For example, during the Middle Ages some people were perceived as deserving of more privileges than the rest of the population. This idea of "fairness" culminated in the policy of government by "divine right." Until such hierarchical psychology changes, for example, as a result of the impact of non-hierarchical or democratic ideologies, one may be able to argue that in certain historically hierarchical societies few people might consider it unfair that opportunities for wealth or power are unequally distributed.

        On a more personal basis, someone may find multiculturalism "unfair" because under such paradigm he or she may no longer be able to enjoy the same social privileges as before, but must now compete for such privileges with people who were earlier denied the same opportunity to compete. Clearly in this case, such person redefined fairness for strictly self-serving purposes, instead of seeing fairness more abstractly as a social principle that should apply equally to everyone, as in "equality of opportunity."

        If for no other reason, people's mathematical ability may act as their "natural" buffer against unfair practices. This is so because everyone who can count can see the difference between the number of opportunities that different people have for education, success, or other "privileges" that society may have to offer. To paraphrase the Pythagoreans, who read mathematics into the whole universe(10), fairness is based on a mathematically verifiable ethic of equality of opportunity for all people. Likewise, multiculturalism is fair to the extent that it affords all cultural groups, or, more broadly, all people, the same social opportunities for self-expression, communication, status, and success.

        Multiculturalism gains particular significance in the United States, where even in spite of the multicultural dynamic embedded in certain principles of the American Constitution regarding equality and freedom of speech, in practice there were severe cases of arbitrary discrimination, racism, ethnocentrism, and nativism, all of which are opposed to multiculturalism. Nevertheless, given the democratic dynamic embedded in the Federal Constitution, an argument may be made that eventually the United States would either have to resolve this dichotomy between constitutional principle, and actual practice, or cease to exist as the type of nation that our Constitution dictates we should have. In fact, one may even postulate that the "true" American citizen should be multicultural almost by definition. By "true" here I mean the type of citizenship that conforms closely to the political ideals embedded in the American Constitution.

        By protecting individual rights, such as, through the "Bill of Rights," our Constitution makes it necessary that we respect the rights of all people in the United States, and therefore also of our cultural minorities. Of course given the birth rate within certain minority populations today, in the future it is not unlikely that there will be no one group that could claim an absolute majority(11). In fact, one of the groups today that is considered "minority" might become the "majority" in the future.

        It is doubtful whether the term "majority" today refers merely to numbers, as contrasted to also certain privileges that the present majority has historically enjoyed. Thus although a majority might have more numbers in democratic elections, because of its historically privileged status in the nation's culture, if not popular imagination, it may not lose such status even if it becomes literally a "minority." The issue for the multiculturalists thus becomes how to allow democratic elections based strictly on numbers of people voting for certain candidates without making any majorities that may emerge gain an aura of superiority that remains even after they are no longer a majority. For example, due to their long enjoyed status as the majority of people in this country, "whites," or, more correctly, Anglos, gained an aura of superiority, or even of who counts as a "true" American, over non-whites, such as people of African or Asian descent(12).

        One need only watch old movies where whites were given in the majority of cases more elevated roles than non-whites to appreciate the hold that "whiteness" had on popular culture. The degree to which such status was cultivated over a period of centuries may also be witnessed from such cold-blooded realities as slavery and Jim Crow laws that obviously denigrated African Americans, and widespread discrimination against non-whites as a whole.

         In the past, discrimination was so intense that even non-English whites were discriminated against. Usually, such discrimination diminished when such "whites" assimilated into a larger "Anglo" identity, beginning with such European groups as Germans and Irish, and extending later to nativist discrimination against southeastern Europeans(13). Interestingly, some of these non-English groups were originally not even defined as "white," particularly in the South(14). This may betray the need by the original English colonists to feel superior even at the cost of making color distinctions where essentially none existed.

        Where color ultimately failed to separate certain European groups from expanding the multicultural fabric to include them in the American mainstream, the spectre of racial differences was raised to separate "native" Anglo groups, from foreign "Celtic" or "Teutonic" barbarians(15). Eventually, the inner logic of constitutional democracy relegated such claims to interesting, but futile attempts to reverse democratic processes.

       Any nation that upholds certain principles to be true, and claims to be governed by them, is bound by such principles to act according to the ideas that make such principles, rather than specifically the tribal, racial, or ethnic composition of its members. For example, no matter how closely one's ethnic background may be aligned to that of the original colonists, or of the Fathers of the Constitution itself, our "Americanism" is technically determined more by our constitutional principles, than the blood in our veins. If one accepts the premise that legally all American citizens must at a minimum abide by the Constitution to be considered "good" or "true" citizens, as immigrants must when they are naturalized, then a recently naturalized citizen that swore allegiance by, and truly believes in the American Constitution is a "true" citizen, while someone else who does not believe may not be, even if he can trace his genealogy back to the Mayflower. Likewise, one may argue that a person with a multicultural belief system may be more American, than someone else who would rather exclude or suppress the cultural contributions of other groups. This is so because by respecting the rights of others, or by willing to offer all others the same social opportunities, he or she is more closely aligned with the ideals of the Constitution regarding equality of opportunity, than someone else whose family may have lived here a long time, but neither espouses, not practices such equality.

        Equality of opportunity doesn't mean that all people should enjoy the same privileges irrespective of their skills or productivity, but only that they should be given a fair chance to compete for jobs, admission to colleges, and the like. Likewise under the multicultural paradigm, all cultures are given an equal chance to be examined by everyone, such as, through a multicultural curriculum in schools, instead of examining only certain cultures, or, worse, glorifying one at the expense of another. Students should be free to make up their own minds regarding which culture, if any, they would prefer to investigate further, or even adopt for themselves.

        Facilitating this dynamic of mutual respect, is our ability to empathize with our fellow citizens without expecting them necessarily to conform to our own values, with the exception, perhaps, of conforming to the overarching ethic of multiculturalism itself. In fact, if one draws our constitutional principles to their logical conclusion, one may even argue that the less we expect people to conform to any one specific subculture within the United States, the more likely it is that we can actually practice multiculturalism without fear of losing our American identity.

Table of Contents

III. Multicultural Identity

        Multiple group membership may be seen as the best possible expression of the freedom in American society to shape one's destiny, or, for that matter, one's own identity. Multiculturalism is not the aggregate of so many ethnocentric groups, each one of which coalesces around its particular island of cultural values, but on the contrary a tightly interwoven network of cultural centers that every citizen feels free to learn from. By "cultural center" I mean any center with cultural focus in the broadest sense of the word, inside or outside the traditional family. A Greek-American could join an African-American cultural center. Such person may become culturally "assimilated" to at least some of the center's values in the process. An African-American could join a Greek-American cultural center, and likewise become acculturated in that center's values. A Philippine-American may convert to Irish-American values by learning about Irish-Americans, practice certain of their traditional customs, or join certain Irish-American associations, thus in effect "becoming" Irish-American. The reverse is also true regarding Irish-Americans wishing to learn about, or even "become" or acquire Philippine-American cultural characteristics. Alternatively, an American citizen may decide to live as a "cultural eclecticist," by which I mean share in the values of a variety of other groups, some of which may not be at all like the ethnic group as that individual may be descended from, or not even "ethnic," but religious, political, or educational in nature, or of some other type.

Multiduninous Human

       Eventually, the logic of multiculturalism points to the rise of the "multitudinous human" capable of identifying with other people's ideas, rather than feeling "stuck" with one's physical appearance, or cultural or ethnic background. This doesn't mean that one must necessarily divest or reject his or her particular background to become multicultural, but only that even where one keeps her background, as is presently likely with probably a majority of humans, she cannot do so at the expense of the ideals of multiculturalism, such as, by denigrating others, or by not allowing them to become members of her cultural group. This gives new meaning to the familiar term "secondary group membership," since in the end such membership, assuming it becomes inclusive rather than exclusive, may be seen as the bedrock of multiculturalism.

Table of Contents

IV. The Social Psychology of Multiculturalism

        Multiculturalism may be seen as the weaning out of their ethnic territory of citizens of a many-cultured democracy. In true Platonic fashion, multiculturalism may reflect at the social level the psychological changes within individual members of a democratic society that happens to embrace many cultures. Beginning with their family, individuals later identify with their specific ethnic or racial group, only later to widen their circle of understandings to encompass all others in the society, including those who may be very different in physical appearance, or in some of their cultural beliefs. By contrast to the ideals espoused by multiculturalism, ethnocentrists remain glued to their particular racial or ethnic group, especially if they do so as a reaction to some earlier ethnic trauma that became either the reason for their fixation, or the catalyst for a retreat from multiculturalism.

        It is not unlikely that as a result of the humiliations experienced as a member of a specific racial or ethnic group one may plunge gladly into the multicultural ocean in order precisely to avoid being perceived as a member of the "traumatized" group. This phenomenon of escape from the traumatized self is well documented in ethnic and assimilation studies, where it shown that when people were expected to disavow their native culture in favor of the dominant Anglo culture they went to great lengths to do so, or at best lead seemingly non-conflicting "double lives." (16) Such people may long one day to return to their original ethnic group, if for no other reason to understand it better. Instinctively, they may also long to expunge once and for all traces of their own self-doubts, if not even self-hatred. This may explain the seemingly unexplainable resurgence recently in ethnic or racial pride, as in the "Black is Beautiful" movement, or the resurgence in ethnic pride among third generation "hyphenated" Americans(17).

Table of Contents

V. Cultural Conversion

        Multiculturalism may represent the latest stage toward the abstract conceptualization of our social identity, including not only who counts as a true citizen, but also whether, when, or how often one may decide to convert to another culture. As I indicated earlier, multiculturalism allows us to choose our cultural membership, instead of having it ascribed to us on the basis of our birth, previous group affiliation, or physical characteristics. It is in that sense that people under multiculturalism are free to "convert" to another culture. This doesn't mean that anyone can choose to belong in any group, or work anywhere, but only that there is equality of opportunity for anyone to join assuming he or she meets certain reasonably "acquirable" characteristics that are neither strictly racial nor ethnic. For example, in theory anyone in our society may choose to work as a professor assuming he or she first obtains the prerequisite educational qualifications.

Table of Contents

VI. Radical Perspectivism

        In line with my earlier writings on "radical perspectivism," I propose to expand our view of multiculturalism to include even non-human world parts which collectively make life on earth possible. In spite of our good faith effort to include a variety of cultural perspectives in our examination of multiculturalism, they are usually limited to human beings, instead of encompassing all of nature. As members of the same "family of being" as the rest of nature, we are no more her rightful masters, than we should be under her spell. From a larger "universal" perspective, human-centered perspectives, however well intentioned, are not formally different from other ethnocentric perspectives that use only self-centered assumptions to understand the world.

        Ultimately, the logic of multiculturalism leads us away from ourselves as humans, instead of merely as members of this or that culture. Using our imagination, we can imagine what the perspectives of other "world parts" may be, thus selflessly giving the universe a voice through our cognitive and imaginative abilities. This can be done through such long practiced techniques as role play, fictional or creative writing, and disinterested study of other world parts(18).

Table of Contents

VII. Multiculturalism versus ethnocentrism

        What are some differences between ethnocentrism and multiculturalism? To the extent that multiculturalism is inclusive, ethnocentrism is exclusive. In multiculturalism, we are enriched with multiple understandings precisely because we are expected to suppress none, or exclude anyone from participating. Ethnocentrism, on the other hand, has a totally different dynamic. In ethnocentrism, especially when practiced in its extreme forms, outsiders are not only excluded, but often denigrated, or even means are found or speculated about on how to control them. Ethnocentrism is often at the root of such historical phenomena as colonialism, imperialism, and conquest. By drawing the line so clearly between us and them, and raising this side of the tracks to a much higher status than the "people on the other side," one creates the conditions for caring only for one's own group, if not exploit others without regard to how such exploitation may make them feel. It is for these reasons that multiculturalism may be seen as the antithesis of ethnocentrism, since the former is open to all, while the later is socially and psychologically cliquish, or even chauvinistic.

        Ethnocentrism may have been practiced in the past more intensively by certain groups than by others, but that doesn't mean that an emerging group that was earlier suppressed or dominated by another group cannot also become ethnocentric. In fact, one may argue that it is precisely because such group was earlier suppressed, as were, for example, African Americans during slavery, that at least some members of such group may have a greater need to cling to some real or manufactured sense of self-importance to overcome prior or present discrimination. Nevertheless, no matter what the reasons might be for becoming ethnocentric, the fact remains that multiculturalism requires that people become "philosophical" enough to allow themselves to imagine, if not empathize, with the point of view of the "other."

Table of Contents

VIII. Confusion Between Ethnocentrism and Multiculturalism

        There seem to exist in some circles some confusion on the differences between ethnocentrism and multiculturalism. This is so because in the context of a non-multicultural experience, an ethnocentric doctrine that offers an ethnic alternative to the dominant ethnic ideal may be erroneously seen by virtue of its apparent contrast to the dominant ideal as "multicultural." In fact, since both ideals are mono-ethnic, they are both more alike than different, or, more plainly said, two sides of the same ideological coin. They are both ethnocentric, except one of them may have been politically more powerful, or at least so perceived by many within both the "oppressed" and "oppressor" groups. Given a chance for political or other types of "power," the oppressed ethnocentrists would happily replace the oppressor's ethnocentrism with their own, unless theirs is a type of "ethnocentricity" than somehow embraces multiculturalism (in which case it would not really be ethnocentric).

Table of Contents

IX. Afrocentrism

        One form of ethnocentrism is Afrocentrism(19). Afrocentric beliefs are often incorrectly referred to as "multicultural." I decided to discuss them here partly because of their popularity among some of my college students, and partly because of my personal interest in studying the social psychology of myth making.

        In some cases, extreme afrocentrists have re-written history without sufficient evidence to support their claims(20). They rely, instead, on innuendo, non-existing facts, self-serving claims, or little analyzed historical writings. Typical of this approach are the writings of such afrocentrist writers as George G. M. James, who wrote in his book Stolen Legacy: Greek Philosophy is Stolen Egyptian Philosophy, that the ancient Greeks stole their philosophy from the ancient Egyptians(21). Elsewhere James' book is described by another author as "fraudulent."(22) But one need not consult James' reviewers to discover that it is replete with errors so glaring, such as mistaking cities for islands, that he may wonder whether James wrote his book to really revise how we understand the history of Greek philosophy to be, or merely to serve as example of logical non-sequiturs, unsupported arguments, or circular reasoning, or just plainly incorrect descriptions of geographic places.

        There is no reason to disbelieve James's own reasons for writing his book, which were, as he pointed out in his Introduction, primarily to make his fellow African Americans at the time stop feeling inferior about themselves. One wonders, though, how much does a reading of James's book may cause his readers in the long run to raise their self-esteem, as opposed to developing as a result of finding out later that James's claims are outlandishly untrue an unhealthy distrust for all types of historical revisionisms.

        Instead of serving myth as history, as did James, shouldn't we use myth, instead, to understand humans, such as, their idealism? For example, myth may reflect the need of humans to imbue the world with meaning. By imagining fictional but "understandable" causes for a variety of events (gods, spirits, or imaginary heroes), humans read what they know best into the unknown, which may not be much compared to what they could or did find out later, but at least served a useful purpose at the time. One interpreration may be that their mythical interpretations may be a camouflaged version of their own ideal perception of themselves. From a perspectivist viewpoint, which we briefly discussed earlier in the paper, no matter how multicultural their interpretations may allegedly be, they usually reflect their human-centered understanding of the universe.

        Even if it could be shown that afrocentric education builds up our students' self-esteem, which may not be easy to show(23), low self-esteem is no excuse for dishing out to our students sloppy or unresearched scholarship. We should aim, instead, to build multicultural understanding which is unmotivated by political or other motives that unduly shape our interpretation in favor of this or that ethnic or racial group(24). Unlike ethnocentrism, which to a certain extent may be seen as a form of perhaps occasionally useful but ultimately self-centered therapy, multiculturalism requires that people empathize with other people's points of view. In fact, it may require that we improve our tolerance for views that are even opposite to ours.

         The problem with afrocentrist revisions such as James's has been that in their rush to recognition in the end Jamesian and some other "extreme"  afrocentrists may cause more harm than good, as one must have more faith than facts to believe them. Another problem with afrocentrism is that in extreme cases  by claiming adherence to post-modernist or "Khunian" relativism, afrocentrists refuse to abide by such rules as will inevitably refute their arguments, even if such rules are acceptable to almost the rest of the academic community. Such rules may include the reasonable resolution of conflict on the basis of verifiable or "scientific" evidence. By refuting these rules, such afrocentrists make dialogue almost impossible, thus requiring again that readers believe them on the basis of faith, as did ancient people myths, than strictly scientific evidence. Seen from that angle, extreme forms of afrocentrism may resemble more a religion, than disinterested historical inquiry.

Table of Contents

X. Social Psychology of Afrocentrism

        The popularity of such books as James's may be due to the need within the African American community for recognition. This is especially so in light of the long history of racism and discrimination against the African American community until recently in this country, if not tearing apart of its cultural contributions. Humans everywhere need to be loved and respected, and may even have to invent a "God" that loves them where none is readily available. Even a cursory review of ancient myths and religions may reveal the ability of humans to invent myths to allow them to imagine a higher level of existence for themselves where they are transformed into admirable heroes, as are, for that matter, so many of the fictional heroes on Hollywood versions of the past.

Table of Contents

XI. Multiculturalism versus Nativism

        As mentioned earlier, contrasted to multiculturalism is also Nativism(25). Nativism is the idea that those born here are somehow more true Americans, than recent immigrants. Nativism became particularly pernicious in the mid-19th to early twentieth centuries in this country, when its followers associated a particular ethnic group, usually the English, or later those of European descent who assimilated into the prevalent English culture, or "Anglos," with true Americans. This implied that ethnicity, or more broadly speaking "race," are more important in determining who is a true American, than the ideals embodied in the Federal Constitution. It is in this sense that multiculturalism represents not only the logical "social outcome" of the Federal Constitution, but ultimately its final victory over more tribalistic forms of social engineering, such as, nativism.

Table of Contents

XII. Multiculturalism versus Racism

        Racism has had a long history in this country, which may explain why it took so long for the U.S. Supreme Court to finally close the gap between principle and practice. It is only for so long that any human, or group of humans can continue operating in such clearly contradictory manner. Multiculturalism may be diagnosed as a sign of the nation's health, since it may represent the recovery of its founding principles, and with it its hopefully unshakable sense of identity or purpose.

Table of Contents

XIII. Criticism of Multiculturalism

        It may be argued that knowledge of other cultures does not guarantee that one will end up appreciating, as opposed to hating them. For example, where one before may know nothing about another culture, and therefore feel neither love nor hate for that culture, he may feel so frustrated, intimidated, or "challenged" by certain beliefs in that culture when he does find out about it, that he develops an aversion toward it that even he himself may not be able to fully comprehend. This is why multicultural education alone may not suffice as a condition for the continued existence of a multicultural society, but must be supplemented by a whole series of legal and social policies that protect it. In the end, what guarantees at least the legal protection of the peaceful coexistence of divergent cultures is precisely a system of laws that proscribe overt social or legal discrimination on the basis merely of one's ethnic or racial background. The Federal Constitution in the U.S., together with its interpretation by the courts, may be seen as just such legal foundation for the protection of diverse cultural minorities, or, more abstractly, of multiculturalism.

Table of Contents

XIV. Conclusion

        Multiculturalism may be seen as the modern expression of those political principles that allow for both majority rule, and respect for the rights of minorities. These two may be seen as the counterweights that keep multicultural acrobatics in the United States on the balance beam. In closing, I would like to make the following four recommendations in designing for ourselves a multicultural identity: first, our multiculturalism should not be limited to strictly human perspectives, but include the lessons one may learn from imagining the "perspectives" of all the possible non-human "others;" second, avoid consciously or subconsciously working within assumptions that are ethnocentric even if camouflaged as "multicultural;" third, recognize the ability of human beings to learn about, join, or even convert to other cultures, all of which are not only allowed in a mutlicultural society, but should be legally protected; finally, when discussing culture, allow the chips of evidence fall where they may under conditions of careful empirical research even if the results may shatter a popular, or well-liked, belief.

Table of Contents

Endnotes

1. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Midwest Philosophy of Education Society, Loyola University-Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, November 8, 1996. Published in Proceedings of the Midwest Philosophy of Education Society, 1995-1996, ed. M. A. Oliker (Chicago, Illinois: MPES), pp. 172-186. Return to text

2. The author presented a paper on his theory of radical perspectivism during the 1992 annual conference of MPES. His paper, titled "Humans in the World: Introduction to the Educational Theory of Radical Perspectivism," was subsequently published in the Proceedings of the Midwest Philosophy of Education Society, 1991 and 1992, ed. David Owen and Ronald M. Swartz, pp. 297-310. ERIC Document No. ED 368-628.Return to text

3. Barry Kanpol and Peter McLaren, eds. Critical Multiculturalism (Westport, Conn.: Bergin and Garvey, 1995); Nicholas Appleton, Cultural Pluralism in Education (New York: Longman, 1983).Return to text

4. Howard Bahr, Bruce A. Chadwick, and Joseph H. Strauss, American Ethnicity (Lexington, Mass.: D. C. Heath, 1979); Willim J. Wilson, The Truly Disadvantaged (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987); Ilan Stavans, The Hispanic Condition (New York: Harper-Collins, 1995).Return to text

5. For example, regarding desegregation see the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education (1954); regarding bilingual education, see its decision in Lau v. Nichols (1974); regarding Title IX, see the 1972 Education Amendments to the Civil Rights Act; and regarding mainstreaming, see the Education for All Handicapped Children Act passed by Congress in 1975.Return to text

6. American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE), "No One Model American: A Statement of Multicultural Education" (Washington, D.C.: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 1972).Return to text

7. "Theories of Assimilation: Anglo-Conformity," in Milton Gordon, Assimilation in American Life: The Role of Race, Religion, and National Origins (New York: Oxford University Press, 1964), pp. 84-114.Return to text

8. The author witnessed just such traffic jams in his travels abroad, in countries which shall remain nameless, where if the traffic police is not present rarely anyone obeys the traffic signals.Return to text

9. Immanuel Kant, Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1950).Return to text

10. Andreas Papamihalopoulos, "Pythagorean Influences on Metaphysics, Mathematics, and Science." In K. Boudouri, Pythagorean Philosophy (Athens, Greece: International Center of Greek Philosophy and Culture, 1992), pp. 82-6.Return to text

11. Allan C. Ornstein and Daniel U. Levine, Foundations of Education, 6th ed. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1997), p. 359.Return to text

12. See Peter Schrag, The Decline of WASP (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1973).Return to text

13. Regarding nativism in the U.S., see John Higham, Strangers in the Land: Patterns of American Nativism 1860-1925 (New York: Atheneum, 1972).Return to text

14. For example, regarding Americans of Greek descent, see Charles C. Moskos, Greek Americans: Struggle and Success (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1980). Regarding Americans of Irish descent, see Noel Ignatiev, How the Irish Became White (Routledge, 1996). Return to text

15. "Patterns in the Making," in Higham, Strangers, pp. 4-11.Return to text

16. See Saloutos' account of efforts by Greek Americans to conform to Anglo-American ideals, in Greeks in the United States (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1964), pp. 249, 251-53. Also see the chapter "Spiro T. Anagnostopoulos: Remembrance of Humiliations Past," in Michael Novak, The Rise of the Unmeltable Ethnics (New York: Macmillan, 1972), pp. 116-34.Return to text

17. Novak, Unmeltable Ethnics.Return to text

18. "Humans in the World: Introduction to the Educational Theory of Radical Perspectivism," MPES Proceedings 1991/1992; Humans in the World: Introduction to Radical Perspectivism (Chicago, Illinois, 1992).Return to text

19. See, for instance, Molefi Asante, The Afrocentric Idea (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1987).Return to text

20. Mary Lefkowitz, Not Out of Africa: How Afrocentrism Became an Excuse to Teach Myth as History (New York: A New Republic Basic Books/Harper Collins, 1996).Return to text

21. (New York: Philosophical Library, 1954; republished by The African Publication Society, 1980; reprinted by United Brothers Communicartion Systems, 1989).Return to text

22. James' book was examined in a special issue of the journal Society (March/April 1994) on the topic "Fraud in Research." See Mary Lefkowitz, "The Myth of 'Stolen Legacy'," Society, vol. 31, no. 3 (March/April 1994), pp. 27-33.Return to text

23. See Molefi Kete Asante's claim that afrocentric education raises the self esteem of African American students in "The Afrocentric Idea in Education," in James Wm. Noll, ed., Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Educational Issues (Guilford, Conn.: Dushkin/McGraw-Hill, A Division of the McGraw-Hill Companies, 1997), pp. 208-17; and Arthur M. Schlesinger's response in "The Disuniting of America," in Taking Sides, pp. 219-228.Return to text

24. A. Makedon, "Plato, Paideia, Politics and the Past: Response to Jacob H. Carruthers' Article on 'Reflections on the History of African Education'." Illinois Schools Journal (Spring, 1998): forthcoming.Return to text

25. Higham, Strangers in the Land. Return to text

--End of Article--

Return to the Top

Counter re-set with new counter software 05/13/08 Since May 13, 2008  page has been visited ... times free hit counters

Academic  Home Page    E-mail