In: Race Equality Teaching; v21 n3 p36-41 Sum 2002

HIDDEN DANGERS IN MULTICULTURAL DISCOURSE

Dr. Zvi Bekerman
School of Education
Melton Center
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
E-Mail: mszviman@mscc.huji.ac.il

ABSTRACT
The discourse of multiculturalism may be conceived as one that enables us to confront the
paradoxes of a world gone global, touching primarily on the possible meaning of the concept
of culture in the forums of democratic nations, particularly with respect to relationships
among cultural variations, government policies, and education. At present, the nature of these
relationships is under attack from a variety of ethnic, religious, cultural, and national
minorities that accuse nation-states of insensitivity to their particular needs and expectations
and failure to accord them sufficient recognition. The challenges posed by these minorities
call for immediate attention, as democratic states are at least rhetorically committed to the
principle of equal representation for all citizens.
This paper presents a critique of the multicultural discourse of policymakers and educators in
the context of modern democracies from an anthropological perspective, underscoring the
dangers of the reified conceptualization and use of the term culture with its concomitant
racial undertones. Throughout, we follow the historical development of the notion of culture
and suggest possible ways to overcome its present limitations.

***

Hidden Dangers in Multicultural Discourse

page 2 of 10

For several years, multicultural issues have constituted a key component of social, political
and educational discourse (Banks, 1995) in all that concerns attempts to address the
ethnic/cultural/religious variation typical of many western countries today.
This multicultural discourse is primarily the lot of enlightened groups that seek to alert us to
existing cultural multiplicity and richness, seeking to alleviate the suffering of groups that
ostensibly found themselves on the periphery of societys power centers because of their
different cultural characteristics. In their point of view, the principles of the multicultural
approach are capable of shaping a better world.
This study warns of the dangers inherent in the multicultural approach, adopting a critical
view rooted in anthropology and motivated by apprehension concerning uncontrolled
application of multicultural discourse concepts without sufficiently paying attention to the
dangers inherent in meanings so ascribed to the term culture.
In calling for appreciation and recognition of cultural variety, multiculturalism adopts an
essentialist approach to culture. However, although it aims at improving society, it misses the
mark by assuming that each group has a defined number of participants that become similar to
one another and different from other groups by virtue of the circumstances of their birth or
early processes of socialization. In its most extreme formula, multiculturalism perceives
culture as actively shaping human beings and thereby reconstructing the race discourse
(Hannaford, 1996) to which we had become accustomed in the not too distant past.
This study examines the development of the concept of culture and the historical processes
that led to its reification, proposing an alternative approach to its comprehension.
The boundaries of possible meaning for the expression multiculturalism are not sufficiently
clear. Gates (Gates, 1993) noted that since the beginning of the 1960s, the concept
multicultural had been applied to describe a perplexing situation originating in recognition
of the existence of worldwide cultural variation. As such, it may be interpreted as a demand
for greater awareness of the increase in intercultural contexts among various countries or the
existence of various cultural identities in one country.
The popularity and widespread application of this concept are closely linked with
twentieth-century historical events. The two World Wars (1914-1918 and 1939-1945)
constitute appropriate background for understanding the concepts dissemination. The new
political order that developed following these wars, along with significant changes in
economic organization and technological developments, led to a situation in which the world
was slowly exposed to the multiplicity of groups inhabiting it whose needs or wishes rendered
them more mobile than ever before.
Some reservations are in order regarding this chronology: There is nothing new about
numerous groups living in proximity to one another or under one regime, nor about the
migration of individuals or whole populations from one place to another. To a certain extent,
what changed over the past century was the pace and scope of human and intellectual
passages demanded and enabled by globalization processes in economics and technological
development (Beck, 2000). These frequent mass fluctuations essentially compelled Western
democratic countries to reconsider the romantic national conceptions on which they were
founded. The cultural and political unity that stood at the foundation of the romantic national
myth shaping the European nation-state and colonialism also helped consolidate a sizable

Hidden Dangers in Multicultural Discourse

page 3 of 10

share of the liberation movements in those colonies. Constant movement from the colonial
periphery to the center challenged the cultural unity posited at the foundation of national
romanticism and imposed constant pressure on hegemonic forces in liberal nation-states,
demanding recognition of the migrating (willfully or otherwise) groups not only as citizens
but also as owners of unique cultural lifestyles. With some irony, Eagleton (Eagelton, 2000)
claims that multiculturalism is another, later round of European nationalistic ideology.
Multicultural discourse may be defined, therefore, as a response to the paradoxes typical of a
geopolitically shrinking world, primarily concerning the space of legitimate meanings for the
term culture allowed in the fora of democratic countries, i.e. in their systems of government
and education. These systems are constantly under attack by numerous and varied minority
groups (ethnic, national, gender and religious) for not being sensitive to, considerate or
cognizant of the cultural ethos particular to each respective group. This challenge demands
attention in such countries, as they are committed, at least declaratively, to the principles of
equal representation for all citizens (Gutmann, 1992). The key question is whether it is indeed
possible to grant such equal representation solely on an individual civil basis, i.e. by
detaching citizens from all ideological, religious, ethnic or national affiliation other than that
pertaining to the sovereign state authority (Mendus, 1989).
At the end of this brief study, we note the possibly mandatory correlation between
multicultural and post-modern discourses. In this context, it suffices to note the key points of
contact concerning the criticism leveled by post-modern thinkers (Harvey, 1990; Lyotard,
1984) towards any attempt at creating a developmental metanarrative oriented towards
redemption. To some extent, elements of multicultural discourse identify the roots of the
problem as universal claims (the metanarrative) characteristic of liberal democratic countries.
This last concern brings us closer to the more popular, spoken-language meaning of
multiculturalism that developed primarily in the United States surrounding the educational
discourse of the 1970s. Hirsch et al.s (Kett, Hirsh, & Trefil, 1993) Dictionary of Cultural
Literacy defines multiculturalism as: The view that the various cultures in a society merit
equal respect and scholarly interest This definition accords legitimacy to the above
demands for inclusion of previously rejected voices in the prevailing cultural choir that
ostensibly belong to cultures denied representation because they were distant from economic,
political and social power centers, or as Simonson and Walker (Simonson & Walker, 1988)
indicate, because they do not reflect the white, male, academic, North American/European
bias at the foundation of hegemonic North American culture.
In this context, multiculturalism now appears to be enjoying its heyday, as mighty efforts are
invested in education and other areas of public life to rectify aberrations putatively caused by
aspirations towards a melting pot purported to yield a United States of America that was
indeed united and therefore egalitarian. This golden age is not without its critics: Outstanding
personalities in the academic and intellectual establishment warn of the dangers of
multiculturalism. Harold Bloom (Bloom, 1987) published The Closing of the American Mind,
in which he laments the loss of interest in formulation of a universal theory that will
contribute to human progress. Instead, he maintains, students are adopting a relative attitude
towards truth. DSouzas (D'Souza, 1992) in Illiberal Education cautioned against of the
ideological influence of cultural asset choice in curriculum planning. Perhaps best known
among all such critical remarks is Saul Bellows comment: I will read the Zulus when they
have produced a Tolstoy.

Hidden Dangers in Multicultural Discourse

page 4 of 10

We too warn of the dangers inherent in the multicultural approach. Unlike Bloom, DSouza or
Bellow, however, our approach is based primarily on an anthropological point of view and
originates in apprehension that multicultural discourse is conducted without sufficiently
paying attention to the meanings implied by the term culture and the dangers inherent in its
use thereof.
In calling for appreciation and recognition of cultural variety, multiculturalism adopts an
essentialist approach to culture. However, although it aims at improving society, it misses the
mark by assuming that each group has a defined number of participants that become similar to
one another and different from other groups by virtue of the circumstances of their birth or
early processes of socialization (a Jew is a Jew and not a Christian; Chinese are Chinese and
not French). In its most extreme formula, multiculturalism assumes that each person has one
legitimate and authentic culture whose legitimacy is acquired by biological heredity and from
whence the demand for and right to ownership is derived by its heirs.
These conceptions are rooted in the positivistic approach that has characterized traditional
Western scientific approaches over the past few centuries. Culture in this paradigmatic
perspective, like other objects of research (e.g. identity), is viewed as a kind of substance that
is ideal, objective, autonomous, fixed and stable lacking dynamic and developing historical
contexts which different from identity, exists outside the self (Bekerman, 1999; McDermott,
1993). At times, culture is accomplished so autonomously in the eyes of theoreticians that it is
perceived as acting on humanity.
It is surprising to note that according to these theoretical developments, interpretation of the
term culture contradicts its etymological development of the term. The English word
culture is derived from Latin cult and cultura-ae (Williams, 1961), meaning work, as in
agriculture working the field as well as words in various languages referring to Divine
worship. From the outset, it is evident that culture is not an object but an infrastructure for
growth, action and perpetual human activity. Historically, culture is not an entity but a
process. A continuous examination of historical processes that led to reification of this
meaning may shed light on the dangers inherent in non-critical application of the term, even
in fundamentally positive movements such as multiculturalism.
In Culture and Society, Williams notes that towards the end of the eighteenth century, five
well-known terms acquired a new and important meaning. In their new format, these terms,
industry, democracy, class, art and culture, react to and shape the social, economic and
political changes that affect our world to this day. At that time, the word culture was
accorded a distinct and abstract meaning, addressing two processes taking place in the
developing national sovereign community: On the one hand, it reflects the Christian
differentiation between moral and intellectual pursuits and the manufacture of goods and
products in a world of industrial development and on the other it sets itself up as a human
court that transcends practical human judgment. This historical context accords significance
to the definition of culture posited by British educator and philosopher Matthew Arnold: The
best which has been thought and said in the world, the best we have to learn and teach
(according to Kant, however, the best, i.e. good, necessarily lack purpose). This view
allows for ruthless differentiation between high and popular culture, a distinction that
largely blocks penetration of alien (i.e. non-hegemonic) cultural aspects into the pantheon of
the ruling culture that the putative multiculturalism seeks to change. Proponents of
multiculturalism may not always be aware of these meanings. It is doubtful whether their call

Hidden Dangers in Multicultural Discourse

page 5 of 10

for a change in the situation is even possible without intensive examination of the relevant
epistemological processes and proposal of practical measures to address them.
As the above analysis is still inadequate for complete comprehension of the dangers of
uncritical multiculturalism, we allow the plot to thicken somewhat. Culture and its reification
are linked closely with the development of the nation-state. Elias (Elias, 1998) and Williams
(Williams, 1961) shed light on the reciprocal relations between these two phenomena, a
process that includes transition from expression and representation of culture as open and
constantly growing, through interpersonal and group encounters, to its conception and
presentation as an organized, well-formed, closed and fixed system of cultural items or
objects, such as ideas, values, norms, texts and ceremonies, complete and autonomous in
themselves. These objects may be used to foster unity among inhabitants of a given nationstates territory, thereby neutralizing local-regional and linguistic variations/subcommunities
said to belong to the national group. Furthermore, direct, unmediated contact may be
promoted between members of this group and the state. Citizens devoid of any affiliation with
ethnic, national and religious groups (and to whatever extent possible also professional
associations and the like) will be entitled to prima facie political equality (Mendus, 1989).
However, changes in awareness of the meaning of words do not suffice to introduce the
mechanisms that ultimately justify inception of multiculturalism. The new and radical patterns
represented by the nation-state also require an operative apparatus for application, supervision
and regulation that accords its owners active, effective and exclusive control over the means
of violence in society (Giddens, 1991; Smith & Bond, 1998). The educational system
provides the application system. Gellner (Gellner, 1983) perceives the nation-state as a
political and socioeconomic phenomenon that develops in a modern Western background and
is associated with related processes of industrialization and mass education. By establishing a
culture that is simultaneously homogeneous, anonymous and universally literate, the nationstate aspires to control all populations living within it. All the populations that live in a
country, irrespective of their affiliation to the culture of their initial group, are obliged to
reinforce and uphold the national culture. The cultural literacy that the state demands of its
citizens is determined by the political/cultural elites that founded the state and are interested
in perpetuating it. These elites, however, represent such literacy as though it were not
particularistic but rather universal and lofty: Only one type of cultural literacy its own is
considered legitimate and acceptable by each such elite.
If this is indeed the current situation in political spaces giving rise to multicultural discourse
and if this situation reflects only a hegemonic, abstract culture in a universal disguise we are
led to inquire how the demands of multiculturalism will expand the variety of legitimate
cultures. Even if these demands are accepted, how can cultural multiplicity constitute a cure
for the illnesses of rejection and inequality that the nation-state has engendered?
Our key question is: How will the multiculturalism demanded accord equality to citizens? The
answer is indecisive at best. Considering the above observations, it appears that cultural
discourse rewrites and reshapes the race discourse that prevailed following the development
of philosophy and science in the nineteenth century and at the beginning of the twentieth
(Haraway, 1991). The context of cultural rhetoric may mellow racism somewhat, but the
outcome, like that of race theory, assigns people to a static birthplace category from which
there is no escape. As such, multicultural discourse does not provide any innovative solution
to inequality but rather offers an alternative space in which tolerance of the cultures of others
is suggested as a replacement for equality and even as a justification for its non-existence. Just

Hidden Dangers in Multicultural Discourse

page 6 of 10

as race theory explains the inferior economic and social class of marginal groups in
society according to their racial affiliation, multicultural conceptions explain it according to
cultural affiliation. In the latter case, however, these differences are not used as a sword with
which to impale these groups but a reason for celebration of human variety, without
distinguishing between rich and poor or between strong and weak. Most important of all, it
provides an appropriate rationalization for inequality (Malik, 1996; Verenne & McDermott,
1998).
It also appears paradoxical that multicultural rhetoric serves the repressive and liberating
powers alike, both of which are recruited willy-nilly to preserve the status quo. Cultural
discourse serves the hegemonic powers by explaining existing gaps and the need to institute
some kind of order (replication) to rectify it, while the liberals, for humane reasons, seek to
allow every culture its natural development and thereby ensure continuation of inferiority.
As Malik and others have claimed (Bhabha, 1990; Gunew, 1990), liberals, too, have forgotten
that the cultural authenticity they seek to defend is not a remnant from the ancient past but the
creation of none other than the Colonial Era.
No group possesses primordial elements. Whatever elements they do manifest, if any, are the
product of human efforts invested constantly within their respective historical contexts. As
culture is a human creation in a given context, the defensive position taken by liberal forces is
not mandated by what they consider authentic about culture but rather by the partners to the
context in which it is created.
It thus appears that the theoretical assumptions underlying multiculturalism are not powerful
enough to yield the proffered salvation. Moreover, the absence of a critical attitude towards
these assumptions may indeed prove harmful. To identify the possible alternatives to this type
of cultural awareness, we examine the traditional contribution of anthropology to cultural
research.
As early as 1940, Franz Boas (Boas, 1940) strove to divest cultural considerations from any
attention to race whatsoever, arguing against the prevailing conception of culture as a kind of
separate and unique monad. As all cultures are shown to be interconnected and active in a
reciprocally self-nourishing system, the excellence of any particular culture cannot be
attributed to its associated nation. Said culture cannot be examined in isolation. Culture
cannot be approached in the language of the individual but only in that of the many. No
culture can be studied on its own; any approach to an understanding of culture must begin
with examination of numerous cultures in a given historical/social fabric that underscores
their reciprocal links (Wolf, 1994).
Anthropologists like Margaret Mead (Mead, 1942), who emphasized the importance of
acculturation, noted that a newborn can become a member of any group irrespective of its
biological cultural heritage or the extent of variance between target and source group. Claude
Levi-Strauss (Levi-Strauss, 1955) went even farther, claiming that all personality types can
exist in all cultures, if only because all human beings are capable of rejecting the dictates of
the culture into which they were born. People may not have a choice of birthplace or its
culture, yet they remain capable in principle of rejecting any cultural element they choose.
Affiliation with a group is not a matter of identity but of identification (Carbaugh, ; Varenne
& McDermott, 1998) that develops along with human activity and is shaped and reinterpreted
as a kind of cultural activity conducted together with ones partners and neighbors. In

Hidden Dangers in Multicultural Discourse

page 7 of 10

different historical and social contexts, the same behavioral pattern may give rise to different
kinds of group identification. According to this point of view, being, say, a Jew or Arab is not
destiny but achievement, attained with the permission of all partners in efforts carried out at a
given moment in history. Conceptions, beliefs, views and especially scenarios involving
parents, teachers and friends supporters and detractors alike are active partners in the
structuring of identification. We reiterate that this complex admixture is imparted through the
vigorous social activity occurring in a particular place. Arab and Jew are not
characteristics in peoples minds but the results of work accomplished in the contexts in
which these characteristics exist, thus Arab and Jew, if at all characteristics, are in the
world.
Multiculturalism seeks a solution to distinctions that engender problems in a modern world in
which many cultures are situated in one social space. We maintain that such distinctions are
problematic and even erroneous. Modernity did not give rise to a multiplicity of cultures but
rather to extensive cultural/social variation. The acceptance or rejection of one cultural shade
or another has never been part of an all-or-nothing package deal demanding total rejection or
total assimilation. Those who claim otherwise do not portray the historical world realistically
but rather perpetuate an ideological school that had previously served identity and culture
with the purpose of consolidating priority for the ruling authority using those same tools
(Hall, 1996; Zizek, 1997) to identify those who resemble them and incriminate all others. The
ruling groups reasoning is obvious: Accounting for otherness is preferable to accountability
for it.
The theoretical developments to which we alluded perceive culture as a whirlpool more than
as an island. Cultural identities reinforce their unity not by relying on meanings from the past
but by reconstructing and reinterpreting cultural materials accessible to all (Bauman, 1999).
Cultural development is consolidated through translation an act that from the outset does not
address the intercultural sphere alone but also accounts for all communicative activity
between human beings, even those who ostensibly belong to the same culture (Becker, 1995;
Ortega & Gasset, 1957). Consequently, the arguments propounded in this study should not be
perceived as an appeal against commitment to one community or another nor against
differentiation among groups but rather only against their conception as possessing any
exclusive character.
To achieve a situation in which culture has no exclusive value requires reevaluation of the
concepts of culture and identity as accepted in the West over the past few centuries,
examining epistemological and ontological conceptions and how they shape political and
social organizations reflected in the nation-state. Modern thought has led us to understand
culture as a kind of prison in which the self and its identity are incarcerated and to perceive
relationships among cultural identities representing different cultures as the manifestation of a
communication problem. However, the theoretical developments reviewed above point in a
different direction. Just as culture is soft, permeable and dynamic, so too is the cultural self
and its identity. This was well expressed by Bakhtin (1984) and his non-coincidence
principles concerning humanity. Zizek (1997), in turn, stresses that a persons prima facie
status as an unfinished entity in constant dialogue with the environment may well constitute a
solution to the communication issue and not necessarily the problem. Furthermore, the
difficulties encountered have nothing to do with the linguistic constraints that preclude our
understanding one cultural language or another. The impossibility of grasping the precise
meaning of a given symbol is a universal principle imprinted in all human beings. Hence the
cultural approach that undermines enlightenment is the one that posits that cultures exist

Hidden Dangers in Multicultural Discourse

page 8 of 10

within clearly-delineated boundaries that are entitled to recognition (political, social or

otherwise). Enlightenment will be achieved only through a cultural conception that
demands equality because all human beings are entitled to choose what they wish to be. Only
such conditions accord there appropriate universal meaning to support of variation.
Finally, we should recall that most of the worlds problems hunger, disease, poverty,
pollution, displacement and the like do not originate in the term culture in its axiological
or symbolic sense but rather in culture as work or human interaction. It is this aspect of
culture that ought to constitute the focus for solution.

Hidden Dangers in Multicultural Discourse

page 9 of 10

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bakhtin, M. M. (1984). Problems of Dostoevsky's poetics (C. Emerson, Trans.). Mineapolis:
University of Minessota Press.
Banks, J. A. (1995). Multicultural education; Historical development, dimensions, and
practice. In J. A. Banks & C. A. M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on
multicultural education (pp. 3-24). New York: Macmillan.
Bauman, Z. (1999). Culture as praxis. London: Sage.
Beck, U. (2000). What is globalization? Cambridge: Polity Press.
Becker, A. L. (1995). Beyond Translation Essays toward a Modern Philology. Ann Arbor:
The University of Michigan Press.
Bekerman, Z. (1999). Constructivist Perspectives on Language, Identity and Culture:
Implications for Jewish Identity and the Education of Jews. In D. zizenwine (Ed.), D
Schers. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University.
Bhabha, H. K. (1990). DissemiNation: time, narrative, and the margins of the modern nation.
In H. K. Bhabha (Ed.), Nation and narration. London: Routledge.
Bloom, A. (1987). The closing of the American mind. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Boas, F. (1940). Race, language, and culture. New York: Free Press.
Carbaugh, D. The Playful Self: Being a Fan at College Basketball Games. In D. P. Cushman
& T. J. Smith (Eds.), Situating Selves : The Communication of Social Identities in
American Scenes (pp. 39-60): SUNY.
D'Souza, D. (1992). Illiberal education: The politics of race and sex on campus. New York:
Vintage Books.
Eagelton, T. (2000). The idea of culture. Oxford: Blackwell.
Elias, N. (1998). Civilization, culture, identity: ' "Civilization" and "Culture": Nationalism
and Nation State Formation': an extract from the Germans. In J. Rundell & S. Mennell
(Eds.), Classical Readings in Culture and Civilization (pp. 225-240). New York:
Routledge.
Gates, H. L. J. (1993). Beyond the culture wars: identities in dialogue. In P. Franklin (Ed.),
Multiculturalism: The task of literary representation in the twenty-first century.
Profession 93. New York: Modern Languages Association.
Gellner, E. (1983). Nations and nationalism. Oxford: Basic Blackwell.
Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self identity. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.
Gunew, S. (Ed.). (1990). Feminist knowledge, critique and construct. New York: Routledge.
Gutmann, A. (1992). Introduction. In A. Gutmann (Ed.), Multiculturalism and "The politics of
recognition". Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Hall, S. (1996). Introduction: Who needs 'Identity'? In S. Hall & P. du Gay (Eds.), Questions
of Cultural Identity (pp. 1-18). London: Sage.
Hannaford, I. (1996). Race: The history of an idea in the West. Baltimore & Washington,
D.C.: The Woodrow Wilson Center Press & The Jhons Hopkins University Press.
Haraway, D. J. (1991). Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Revition of Nature. New York:
Routledge.
Harvey, D. (1990). The condition of postmodernity. Cambridge: Blackwell.
Kett, J. F., Hirsh, E. D. J., & Trefil, J. S. (1993).
The Dictionary of Cultural Literacy. New York: Houghton Mifflin Co.
Levi-Strauss, C. (1955). Tristes tropiques (J. Russell, Trans.). New York: Atheneum.
Lyotard, J.-F. (1984). The postmodern condition (G. Bennington & G. Massumi, Trans.).
Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis Press.
Malik, K. (1996). The meaning of race: Race, history and culture in Western society.
Houndmills: Macmillan.

Hidden Dangers in Multicultural Discourse

page 10 of 10

McDermott, R. (1993). The adquisition of a child by a learning disability. In S. Chaiklin & J.

Lave (Eds.), Understanding practice (pp. 269-306). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Mead, M. (1942). And keep your powder dry: An anthropologist looks at America. New York:
W. Morrow.
Mendus, S. (1989). Toleration and the limits of liberalism. New York: Mcmillan.
Ortega, J., & Gasset, y. (1957). What People Say: Toward a New Linguistics (W. R. Trask,
Trans.). New York: W.W. Norton and Co.
Simonson, R., & Walker, S. (1988). Introduction. In R. Simonson & S. Walker (Eds.),
Multicultural literacy. St. Paul, MN: Graywolf Press.
Smith, P. B., & Bond, M. H. (1998). Social psychology across cultures. London: Harvester
Wheatsheaf.
Varenne, H., & McDermott, R. (1998). Successful Failure: The Schools America Builds.
Colorado: Westview Press.
Verenne, H., & McDermott, R. (1998). Successful failure: The schools America builds. USA:
Westview Press.
Williams, R. (1961). Culture and society, 1780-1950. Hardmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Wolf, E. R. (1994). Perilous Ideas: Race, culture, people. Current Anthropology, 35(1), 5-12.
Zizek, S. (1997). The abyss of freedom/ Ages of the world(The Body, in Theory - Histories of
Cultural Materialism) (J. Norman, Trans.). Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.