Cultural amalgamation issues again...part 1

I promised to report on what my class decided on the basis of cultural amalgamation, so here we are. Just to remind you, I’m taking a course called Human Rights and Schooling Issues, which is where most of these questions arise. I am also in a course called Theory, Research, and Evaluation in Education in which lots of cultural questions also come up. One might think that such a course doesn’t lend itself in syllabus to these topics, and one would be right in thinking this way; however, in the “New South Africa,” these issues confront teachers on a daily basis in the form of many different students suddenly occupying the same classroom, new “multicultural” curriculum, and changing teaching staffs. So, I am constantly surrounded by this type of cultural discussion. One might think that would give me some clarity, and in this case one would be very, very wrong! I will, however, share with you my thoughts and the thoughts of my classmates on these issues.

1. When in a multicultural society, who should assimilate?
I think that most would agree that, throughout history, the colonised cultural group has been the group expected to assimilate. This made sense in a feuding, clannish society, wherein the conquered were conquered as a people, a culture, and a land, but really makes very little sense in terms of today’s conceptions of human rights. I haven’t done this yet, but it has enveloped my life over the last three months, so I will now quote the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. You didn’t know this was inevitable, but it was all along!

“Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the world, Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the commonpeople…all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.”

This is the Declaration which both the South African and United States governments agreed to in 1948 and which continues to guide all member states of the United Nations. According to this Declaration, we are to understand that all people are born in a state of equality and dignity. Thus, expecting someone else to assimilate to one’s own culture simply because her group was captured by another is absurd sinine and indefensible.

And still, we are stuck in a society which represents many cultural groupings and beliefs, “races,” religions, and genders. How do we then reconcile these differences and live together peaceably without expecting total assimilation? Apartheid represented a period in South Africa’s history where the ruling government chose to separate these groups so as to avoid conflict, a tactic which had major flaws. People are not content to live separate but equal lives and rebel against this approach. So, we must begin by agreeing to live in the same neighbourhoods, attend the same schools, and work in the same offices. Once we make this very risky move, we will resign ourselves to the fact that we will face disagreements and misunderstandings. The example that I gave in the former post was a job interviewee who felt it respectful to sit on the floor. These issues will come up, and we must be prepared for them without knowing exactly what they will be.

Before I discuss this issue, let me choose another course for the moment. Identity is something which we all hold very dear. When someone accuses you of being someone whom you do not believe you are, there is quite the crisis, is there not? I recoil when someone calls me a Southern Belle—those who know me well know exactly why, too! I was not nor did I want to be a debutante, I am a good cook but that is not my only talent, and I haven’t for one day in my life attended a cotillion course. And yet, I do identify with this moniker. I am from the South, I like to entertain and “take care” of others, and I love sweet tea. So, I have a crisis—I am neither Southern Belle nor not Southern Belle. How is this? Because we all claim a series of identities which may even conflict with each other. A great example is the ________ song which starts out “I’m a bitch, I’m a mother, I’m a child, I’m a lover, I’m a sinner, I’m a saint.” All of these identities are true of this individual at some point, and yet none sums her up. The same is true of “race” and of “culture.”

Let me give you an example of how “race” and “culture” don’t sum up a person—and I hope that Jenna will forgive me for this—using myself and my friend Jenna. Jenna and I are often mistaken for sisters, in our sorority we were “twins,” and people will sometimes accidentally call out the other’s name when trying to get the attention of one of us walking on campus. And yet Jenna and I are very different. How is this? We were both raised in the South, we were both raised Methodist, and we are both white. Presumably, we would be almost the same person, with the same family traditions, and many of the same likes and dislikes. To some degree this is true, or we would not be best of friends, but there are ways in which this is very untrue. For example, Jenna has chosen a very different expression of her Christianity than I choose. Jenna loves “new music” and is a composer. Though a singer, I hate theory, and I have to listen very hard to find enjoyment in new music. Jenna can wear clothes that don’t match and look good—I can’t. So, though we have almost the exact same background, we are not the same. We have different identities. The same is true of any racial or cultural group—even the most similar of individuals are dissimilar in many ways.

So, the first lesson becomes that we can make no fundamental assumptions about an individual due to his or her “race,” the cultural group with which he or she identifies, or his or her religion. These things are all much more multi-faceted than we have heretofore recognized. The first step to living together peaceably must be some appreciation that we have formerly “misrecognized” each other, a term which I am stealing from C. Taylor. Misrecognition is what happens when someone assumes that since I am from the South, I must be a Southern Belle. We must steer clear of this kind of understanding of each other. Because each person chooses an identity for himself, we must acknowledge that simply because someone is an Afrikaner, this does not mean that he is a racist. Just because someone is Zulu does not mean that she will speak Zulu, or even like to speak Zulu. We must concede that there will be individual differences.

By straying from an understanding of the individual as a representative part of the whole as we may understand it (i.e. a SeSotho being the same as all BaSotho), we can stray from making value judgments about the entire group. We can no longer say that all “Africans” are one way, all “English” another, all “Indians” another, and all “Afrikaners” yet another. This is simply not an accurate recognition of the people within these groups. This “authentic recognition” (again, Taylor’s words) will allow us to be more prepared for the chosen behaviours of the individual. These behaviours can no longer be seen as the representative behaviours of the entire “race” or “culture,” but must instead be taken from the individual as genuine or ingenuine, based on that individual alone.

In the case of the interviewee who sits on the floor during an interview, it now becomes the responsibility of the interviewee and the interviewer to discuss whether or not this practice should continue. If the interviewer is uncomfortable with this behaviour, she should express that discomfort to the interviewee. If the interviewee feels that this practice is necessary and dictated by his chosen cultural practices, then he should express this feeling. In this case, no one is automatically expected to assimilate. Instead, a dialogue is developed where a monologue had formerly existed. The colonised had a view of who the coloniser was and vice versa, but these views were created without truly consulting the “other” about his or her identity. Once these misrecognitions can be put aside, we can acknowledge the possibility that each person is equally endowed with reason and dignity but expresses those endowments in different ways. The “African” is not incapable of working with the white in a “Western” organization like a bank, but neither should she be expected to work there. We should allow for the continued choice of identities.

Wow! That was a long explanation, don’t you think? All of your questions not still answered? I know what you mean completely! Since it was so long, I’ll give you a few days to think before posting the next portion of the rationale. If you have any questions, please post them, and hopefully I’ll answer them in the next section (where I’ll tackle question number 2).