By András T. Hegedus and Katalin Forrai
Source: Cigány gyermekek szocializációja [The Socialisation
of Gypsy Children], Aula, Budapest, 1998
I ntercultural education has been criticised since its first introduction. Generally speaking, the criticism does not centre on its basic principle but - quite naturally - on its implementation and results. There seem to have been no astounding results that could prove that intercultural education in the past one quarter of a century has significantly contributed to the enhancement of the school results or integration skills of the target groups, i.e. immigrants and other minorities of bad socio-cultural situation. In fact, the studies that we have examined do not describe any empirical results of this kind. (In defence of the Hungarian researchers we admit that the first such initiatives can only be traced back to a couple of years ago.) It is not only due to the fact that - as Allemann-Ghionda (1995) suggests - the national educational policies of the different countries do not urge the spreading of such initiatives. Obviously, it is also a fact that the data indicating results cannot unambiguously be interpreted as indicators of school progress. And also, research and the daily practice of schools have still not found suitable ways of co-operation. And above all, something that would be worth contemplating is what this attitude provides society with - as this is the most important use of schooling, after all.
Still, the questions about the results and the efficiency can also be formulated in such a way that what we ask is what we can choose between. These are theoretical questions of principles that indicate the advantages and disadvantages of the two extremities for the society. The debate over the intercultural vs. multicultural paradigm has recently been presented as a compulsion to choose between particularism and universalism. In this context the support of different cultures strengthens particularity while the declaration of the unity of culture represents universalism. The danger of the former one is that it may take the form of agnosticism or indifference originating in provincialism and ethical relativism. Universalism, on the other hand, may lead to ethnocentrism, nationalism, moral absolutism or religious fanaticism. A systematic survey can clearly demonstrate that a universalistic educational policy (favouring assimilation) may lead to ethnocentrism and fanaticism similarly to cultural pluralism and the educational policy emphasising the protecting of cultures (Allemann-Ghionda, 1995).
EDUCATIONAL POLICY BASED ON ASSIMILATION
its advantages:
non-existent its dangers
- the disadvantageous situation of minorities
- it does not question the monolingual routine of education
- the strengthening of interethnic conflicts
its advantages
- The rejection of the central role of "culture" and "ethnicity"
- The neglect of the effects of the "community", a greater attention
to class and power structures
- The emphasis on the principle of equal opportunities its dangers
- the strengthening of the monolingual and monocultural quality of schooling
- educational policy favours assimilation (see above)
- the declaring of the values of the receiving country to be universal values:
ethnic absolutism
its advantages
- The strengthening of minorities
- "majority" and "minority" appear as alternatives
- the rejection of xenophobia and racism
- the rejection of monocultural and monolingual education its dangers
- "hyper culturalisation", trivial multiculturalism
- the neglect of the socio-cultural factors
- the neglect of equal opportunities
- particularism becomes a dogmatic principle
- the strengthening of interethnic conflicts
- the strengthening of nationalism
- the ignoring of potential conflicts between intercultural tolerance and "universal"
principles
- moral relativism
its advantages
- the recognition of the role of cultural and socio-cultural factors
- the interpretation of the cultural dimension as a factor of being different
- being different is "normal" its dangers
non-existent
We can see that the two extremities of the scale of advantages and dangers are non-existent: we do not know of any advantages of an educational policy based on assimilation or any disadvantages of teaching someone to be different. Obviously, it can be implied that the advantages of educational policy based on assimilation were proved in the last century (as most progress assessments show). Still, one has to bear in mind that the failure of the multitude of minorities of disadvantageous situations in the educational system - and consequently in society - can also be interpreted as the complete failure of the educational policy based on assimilation. Although the educational policy based on assimilation can be regarded as a success for the majority from the point of view of education as it is narrowly defined, it does not have any advantages from the point of view of social coexistence while its disadvantages are so much the more well-known. Focussing on the ethnic viewpoint is also a source of great potential danger, not least because it neglects the economic and political viewpoints and can lead to growing ethnic tension.
Pedagogically, it may be a forward step if ethnicity stops being defined as the only identity, isolated from the several possible identities of an individual or a group (by the school or educational system) and is not regarded as an issue of prior importance. Education should encourage the development of a sense of identity as complex as possible and support the assumption that being different is normal. This obviously cannot mean that cultural differences should be regarded as non-existent: they constitute the basis of one (in certain cases maybe the most important) possible identity of a person. This obviously cannot mean that ethnicity should be regarded as a kind of "deviance" similar to drug addiction, homosexuality and crime. It can only mean that we wish to raise awareness to make people accept the fact that all societies are complex and have intricate structures, and people, even though they accept their identities, may belong to different social dimensions at the same time.
The next step seems to be the following: the concept of intercultural education should be superseded by the pedagogy of teaching people how to be different. This means that cultural diversity should not be overemphasised (due to the dangers of hyper-culturalisation for example). Instead, the education concerning it should be integrated into the curriculum together with education concerning other forms of differences (such as linguistic, religious, social and sexual differences).
Lastly, we would like to refer back to the thoughts connected to "bicultural socialisation". Intercultural education should not by any means lead to disputing anybody's right to double or multiple identities. Even if it is much easier in one's own case than in that of other people, we need to consider it to be a natural fact that people belong to several groups, cultures and sub-cultures at the same time.