To remind the reader,
this blog is currently focusing on the polarization that has befallen the body
politic of the nation. There are various
sources feeding this situation and the last posting presented one such source: the incubation of problems the body politic
had not addressed over extended periods of time.
The
point was made that such a condition did not necessarily arise from incompetence
but can be the product of competent people doing competent things, at least as
competency is defined by a given people at a given place. This posting addresses an example of incubation. This example refers to how the nation views
and accommodates immigration or, stated another way, how Americans of different
cultural backgrounds interact with each other.
This
issue is further divisive in that it addresses the lack of accommodation among
people from different races. How
Americans see this issue has evolved and this posting seeks to take a
historical view. That is, how did the
national debate over public policies to address the disruptions caused by the
steady stream of immigrating groups whether they be groups of various nationalities,
ethnicities, and/or races, develop?
The
history of how Americans have dealt with the upheavals associated with this
amalgamation of lifestyles, language challenges, and other diverse cultural traits
is one of evolution. And reactions to
that continuing aspect of the American story has also been varied – many Hollywood
storylines have been based on those challenges.
For
example, there has been those who take a nationalist view that to varying
degrees seeks to maintain the “American way” of life that they associate with
the Anglo-Saxon base. Of course, that
base was initially established when British colonists brought over their
culture and were naturally able to establish it as dominant during the early
days of colonization.
The
nation’s culture has remained colorized by that cultural strain but has drifted
away from its purer version. But to the
extent it has maintained any dominance, those who adhere to it have been blind to
any dissention that exists among those who promote a more diverse culture. They are attracted by a singular sense to
such calls as “Make America Great Again,” again to an earlier time in which
their culture held sway.
To
varying degrees, these right of center ideologues believe in immigration
restraints and the immigration they would allow would predominantly come from
Western European nations. They also do
not recognize that minorities, be they of other nationalities, ethnicities, or
races, suffer from undue discriminatory practices. For example, the current Black Lives Matter
movement is judged to be unjustified since they do not see systemic prejudice among
the nation’s police forces.
Those
who think that way populate the right or conservative side of the polarized
divide. But there is another side and
this posting focuses on a short historical account of how the left side finds
itself where it is in terms of the current national divide. Its current development provides a revelatory
example of what the last two postings call polarization and why it exists.
The
left side of the polar landscape fought against itself between those who argued
for assimilation (centered pluralism) and those who advocated multiculturalism
(diverse or individual pluralism). This
posting and others to follow will flesh out the differences between these two
positions.
Under
the more polarized environment of today, these differences within each side
have been downplayed since the current alliances within each side call for
overlooking such fissures. Indicating that
these amalgamations exist but are currently ignored is the fact that this
writer, in his preparation for this posting, could not find a published work on
this issue – multiculturalism – of a recent date. The most recent citation is from the year,
2012.
That
citation is an article that describes what it calls critical multiculturalism –
a multiculturalism based on critical theory.
It states, in part:
In some ways
Critical multiculturalism is leaning towards the original idea of popularist
education as a tool of emancipation for the economically downtrodden, but it
goes much further, [it] is much wider in scope and is rooted in critical
theory. Critical multiculturalism is an
enabling form of education that instils in its students the ability to bring
about social change, it has been described by Neoliberal thinkers as a
“Political education” because it exposes issues relating to why students are in
the economic situation they [are] in, why streaming exists, in effect it
exposes the mechanisms of inequality to those who are themselves victims of
inequality.
Politically
critical Multiculturalism leans toward Anarchism, Marxist and Feminist
thought. It is able to expose the system
that enslaves them by looking through the lens of critical theory. Critical theory is a critique of our society
and the culture that emanates from it, this critique draws from a broad and varied
spectrum of ideas from social science and humanities. By employing critical theory students learn
how to be both critical and analytical; these tools enable the autonomy of the
student to come to fruition.[1]
Today, critical theorists
and neoliberals need each other since the opposition is not each other but the
alliance of all right-wing groups; that’s the reality of the nation’s polarized
political arena.
But as a historical case study, one that might shed light
on how incubation of a problem manifests itself among limited numbers, the
fight over multiculturalism can be helpful in understanding how things get out
of hand. How this concern over varied
cultural groups in the 1980s and 1990s, with the inability to coalesce into a
single political position, made solutions more elusive. By understanding this, one gains insight into
why polarization exists and helps one deal with it.
So, what did multiculturalists argue? A recurring theme in their literature was to
attack the dominant culture’s institutions.
These institutions are described as oppressive on various groups
including immigrant groups or people in general who do not belong to the
dominant Anglo-Saxon cultural group. One
institution of concern is that of education.
More specifically, a lot of their ire was aimed at public
schools – it should be remembered that a lot of this writing took place before “choice”
options became a serious challenge to the very existence of public schools. In those days, public schools were seen, at
least by critical theorists, as part of the overall exploiting superstructure
that held back disadvantaged groups in the population.
The next posting will pick up this topic and further
explain the makeup of this case of incubating a political problem.
[1] Michael, “Exploring Models of Education: Critical Multiculturalism, Permanent
Culture Now, May 22, 2012, accessed July 16, 2020, https://www.permanentculturenow.com/exploring-models-of-education-critical-multiculturalism/ . Apparently,
this posting is by an anarchist organization.
This article can be described as a fairly objective report. It contains British spelling.
No comments:
Post a Comment