MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION: TOWARD A HISTORICAL AND POLITICAL INQUIRY William H. Watkins Department of Educational Studies University of Utah Nary a week passes where I don't receive either a publisher's new text, workshop invitation, or notification of an upcoming conference, all on the topic of the education of diverse students. In this post "civil rights" era of enlightenment, gender equity, and political correctness, l, like many others, have seldom raised substantive questions about the multicultural education explosion, resting assured that its time had come. In fact, I have even been persuaded by my department to familiarize myself with the literature and teach both undergraduate and graduate courses on multicultural education. Now acquainted with such theoretical propositions as "reaming styles," "cultural discontinuities, " "participant structures," "prejudice reduction, " and "the tossed salad," I am curious about the genealogy and rationale for this rapidly expanding body of interest and research. As one interested in the political history and construction of curriculum and curriculum movements, I have been less than satisfied with the discussions surrounding the multicultural "movement." Since before the Civil War, the policies and politics of colonial education have dominated the practices of educating minorities in America, so it is unsettling to note that state and local boards of education along with other powerful educational lobbies formerly committed to colonial practices are now on the multicultural bandwagon. The state where I currently reside, Utah, has a well-established and active "equity unit" contained within its State Board of Education. This unit, like others around the nation, both develops and enforces adherence to a multicultural-multiethnic curriculum. Can we attribute the rapid transformation from colonial and segregationist practices to multicultural practices solely to a new enlightenment ? How can it be that many of the same agencies who have allowed urban public education to sink to its lowest point in recent years, support the multiculturalist remedy?' Multicultural education operates under the protective canopy of egalitarianism, inclusion, and social justice. While celebrating the cause, few have taken time to examine the ideological nature of its rhetoric. Questions need to be raised about the multiculturalist remedy and the culturalist outlook on which is relies. What exactly is the culturalist conceptual framework? What is its political genesis? How does it view the nature of schools and the possibility of school reform ? What does it presume about the nature of our society, racial politics, the state, hegemony, and the dynamics of reform? What reforms does it propose? Why multiculturalism? Why now? The purpose of this essay is to inquire into the political sociology and political economy of the culturalist outlook in general and its influence on multicultural education in particular. My hope is to raise questions and issues which go beyond the appealing language of inclusion. My focus will be to explore the politics of state-sponsored multicultural education. Such an inquiry should employ a historical and sociological framework. Accordingly, the first section outlines the rationale and possibilities for a "socio-political" analysis that can probe beyond the romantic and more cursory discussions usually associated with multicultural education. I then turn to a historical summary of minority education, in order to establish some of the political and policy antecedents from which contemporary multiculturalism has evolved. Few accounts of multicultural education comment on historical context Having surveyed the political ideology and objectives historically underlying the education of colonized people, I then examine contemporary culturalist and ethnic nationalist outlooks. These cultural nationalist outlooks are at the center of state-sponsored pluralism and give shape to a multicultural education which aims primarily at tolerance and acceptance of other cultures as a societal goal. In the process, this "safe" multicultural framework either marginalizes or obfuscates the important issues of economic wealth and power underlying our society. This version of multiculturalism becomes "safe " to those wielding economic and political power because social reforms can be introduced without altering fundamental relations Of wealth and property ownership. Following upon this critique of culturalism, I then review three recently published books which exemplify the ethnic culturalist approach that is firmly embedded in the mainstream literature. The weakness of such outlooks, I will argue IS that they contribute to shortsighted and apolitical versions of social change. TOWARD A HISTORICAL AND SOCIO-POLITICAL INQUIRY Multicultural education draws significant support from the romantic notions of the democratic liberal political state. The ubiquitous language of cultural pluralism and diversity now saturates laws, policy pronouncements, and other deliberations surrounding public schooling. Cultural diversity has come to be central to the contemporary discourse on social justice. The high-minded rhetoric and righteousness of the cause has, more often than not, substituted for serious and penetrating examination of the multicultural "movement." The political sociologist is compelled to raise questions about the theoretical and ideological influences on multiculturalism. How shall we historically locate multicultural education? What are its theoretical, ideological, and practical antecedents? How is it situated in the complex world of power, ideology, and interest groups? How can multicultural education be understood with reference to race relations social change, political reform, and the state? Finally, how might multicultural education affect school and society? What is needed is an analysis of the power issues that provide the context for multicultural education. Henry Giroux, in his call for a new sociology of curriculum, asks that we examine curriculum in light of the constellation of economic, social, and political considerations which surround it. A socio-political analysis of multicultural education requires some conceptual scaffolding. We must draw upon our accumulated knowledge of curriculum movements to help uncover the complexities and dynamics of this movement. Beneath the emotive and public language of "inclusion," "our children," and "the common good" often reside the open sores of partisanship, vested interests, privilege, and racism in deliberations about the curriculum. Herbert Kliebard suggests that contestation between varying social and intellectual ideas has characterized the unfolding of curriculum. Of relevance here, it may be argued that the multicultural movement is a product of recent history: of the civil rights era and the subsequent period of post civil-rights cultural pluralism. The post-colonial, post-World War 11, worldwide movement for national liberation and ethnic recognition was particularly intense in the United States. An argument could be made that as the premier world power, the movement in the United States substantially influenced the world. Antiquated laws, policies, and practices of institutional segregation, discrimination, and exclusion fueled protest and continuing civil disobedience. The political state was compelled to respond in the interests of stability. As is often the case, the political state's response combined authoritarianism with concession. Hence, both the firehose and the court order were employed. As the political state, most often influenced by powerful and hegemonic forces, moves to maintain or restore social order it frequently strikes agreements or settlements with disgruntled groups. Changes in public schooling, and especially in the curriculum, have increasingly been employed by the political state in the late twentieth century in the service of social policy. Multicultural education should be viewed alongside a broad battery of reform initiatives—including housing policy, affirmative job hiring, and protected group ordinances— designed to redress minority complaints. Dennis Carlson presents a penetrating analysis of the politics of multicultural education as state reform.4 He argues that the state must construct "accords" or settlements with marginalized groups. These accords are aimed at containing resistance and facilitating societal stability. Drawing from the work of Michael Omi and Howard Winant, Carlson posits that the political state employs the tactics of absorption and insulation. Absorption calls for institutionalizing the demands of marginalized groups without threatening existing economic and political arrangements. insulation is where the state confines demands of marginalized groups to terrains which are symbolic. He further argues that school has increasingly become an actor in enacting social policy. The political state has engaged schools and the curriculum to negotiate with marginalized groups. It is worth noting that both marginalized groups and the state alike recognize the modem school as a site of contestation. Thus, we now have the multicultural movement, supported and sometimes initiated by the state. Two hurdles must be overcome to deepen our understanding of the culturalist outlook. First we must de-romanticize multiculturalism. While no liberal dares question the societal objectives of racial equality, social justice, or gender equality, that cannot excuse the uncritical support of certain culturalist outlooks. These perspectives must be examined in terms of whose interests are served and what kinds of reforms are offered. Questions, most often absent from the dialogue, cannot be ignored. What are the ideological and social objectives of multicultural education? Is it liberatory? How? How does it promise to affect school and society? Second, state-sponsored multiculturalism must be interrogated in light of today's socio-political and economic realities. What does the culturalist outlook mean in this post-civil-rights era? What does the culturalist outlook mean in this era of late capitalism? What exactly is an objective for multicultural reform? How can we understand the culturalists' referent given America's ethnic history? How can an analysis of power be employed to understand the sponsored culturalist approach? Although these questions appear broad, perhaps even global, a socio-political or power analysis raises interesting questions about the ideological nature of multicultural curriculum. Michael Apple asks that we explore the social, political and economic interests served by a curriculum ,6 What structural issues and forces are involved? Since multiculturalism is associated with the politics of inclusion, we night ask what the politics of inclusion means at this historical juncture? The literature generally presents diversity as a goal of multicultural education and the multicultural curriculum. Diversity has apparently become an end in itself. Yet, the political sociologist cannot help but raise questions about what "diversity" might mean in capitalist America. What does it mean in a society rigidly stratified by economic division? Does ethnic diversity challenge the economic arrangements of society? What does the culturalist dialogue have to sayabout economic class? Why do many "mainstream" multiculturalists ignore the role of market economics in ethnic and racial politics? Does the labor theory of value have any relevance in this dialogue A brief review of colonial education, which existed well into the twentieth century suggests that the education of minorities has always been driven by political motives. Never has acceptable minority education challenged the economic strucure. Themes of political social reconstructionism have never been supported by educational hegemonists. COLONIAL EDUCATION: A LOOK AT POLITICAL FOUNDATIONS Educational and curricular policies aimed at ethnic minorities have a long and not-so-glorious legacy. Such policies were conditioned by imperial expansion, slavery, and segregationist labor, and found expression in the racial, social, and intellectual attitudes of nearly two centuries. Colonial educational practices enjoyed widespread support from corporate industrialists, the public school community, and racial theorists" alike. It may be useful to review briefly the long-standing notions of ethnic minority education which preceded the current multiculturalist outlook. Prior to the Civil War and the Thirteenth Amendment, the education of African and Native Americans was largely an informal and often risky undertaking. Underground education provided by benevolent whites, Christian altruists, and abolitionists was mostly scattered. Black self-help efforts were sincere but lacked resources and state support. Following the Civil War, heightened by the politics of Reconstruction, minority education began to receive attention. In addition to the establishment of Black colleges, limited elementary and secondary education programs began to expand. Funded and frequently supervised by missionary societies, corporate philanthropies —notably Rockefeller's General Education Board—the education of minorities, especially Blacks, was shaped by partisan racial and ideological agendas. By the turn of the twentieth century the politics of the corporate-industrialists were joined by the "theories" of racial sociologists and "scientific racists" to give rise to accommodationist education, in which minorities were instructed and encouraged to accept their political, racial, and social subservience. The victory of the Northern industrialists in the Civil War signaled the death of the Southem planters but not of racial subservience. The rise and expansion of privately owned industry would favor cheap labor. The corporate-industrial reordering of society sought out political, racial, and educational solutions consistent with the new order. Samuel Armstrong and the lesser-known Thomas Jesse Jones became the architects of a curriculum and educational approach which would fulfill corporate-industrial needs. Armstrong, as leader of the Hampton Institute (in Virginia) evolved a plan of vocational training, "character building, " and Christian education for African and Native Americans. Jones, a professor and chaplain at Hampton, supplemented Armstrong's curriculmum with "The Hampton Social Studies," a social science package filled with the ideological themes of patriotism, good citizenship, market economics, anti-communism, and healthful living." The political and ideological views of Armstrong and Jones were supplemented by the racial sociology which emerged in the mid-nineteenth century. Racial sociology can be linked to the Darwinian revolution. Social scientists began to draw from evolutionary theory and natural selection to describe the dynamics of racial and ethnic development. Central to this outlook was the notion that some races had evolved farther than others. Soon the idea of a hierarchy of races was recurring in the literature. Franklin H. Giddings, professor and first chair of sociology at Columbia University, became prominent among the racial sociologists. Standing on the work of Herbert Spencer, Giddings developed "classifications" and hierarchies for ethnic and racial groups. This "scientific" racialism came to be linked with the "heat belt theory," the eugenics movement, and the broader social forces supporting accommodationist and colonial education. A glimpse of colonial education, often called industrial education, informs us that the education of ethnic minorities reflects economic and social interests and ideology. Educating people of color has always been a political proposition. Most often the goal has been to maintain a semi-literate force of cheap labor, beyond that containment and control have been persistent political goals. Colonial education was thus a product of a broader colonial social policy, driven by both political and market forces. The desire to maintain racial subservience within twentieth century American democracy meant providing a continuous supply of cheap labor for the seemingly limitless growth of industry. American apartheid meant uninterrupted accumulations of wealth resulting from unpaid or underpaid labor. Thus, social policy toward minorities for most of the twentieth century can best be described by containment, control, gradualism, and the management of conflict. Consistent with hegemonic ideological aims, the Eurocentric curriculum has been a cornerstone of colonial education. Greek and Roman society have been portrayed as the foundation of civilization. The emergence of Europe after the Renaissance was generally viewed as the beginning of civilized human interaction. The art, music, literature, painting, and poetry of the Westem world have been presented as though there were no other. Such a curriculum has undervalued any claims people of color have as participants in the modem industrial world. If indeed education is inextricably linked to economics and politics, deep cutting educational reform would entail fundamental social restructuring. The monopolization of wealth and power by the few would be called into question. Unwilling to entertain notions of economic egalitarianism, hegemonists and other state policymakers have sought out and supported reform ideologies that do not tamper with or call attention to the division of wealth and power. ETHNIC NATIONALISM AND ANTHROPOLOGY: TOWARDS A CULTURALIST OUTLOOK Today's sponsored multiculturalist outlook draws on a particular notion of ethnic nationalism, notably cultural nationalism. Cultural nationalist views have combined with certain anthropological constructs to provide a culturalist outlook around which a "safe" multiculturalism could develop. Let us examine the nationalist discourse and its joining to cultural anthropology. Two centuries of literature on Black Nationalist thought provides an example. Black Nationalism in America is generally traced to the beginning of the nineteenth century. Early Black Nationalists and their kindred Pan-Africanists such as Martin Delaney, James T. Holly, Henry Highland Garnett, and Edward Blyden generally supported a kind of black unification movement. Reacting to slavery, colonialism, and the debasement of Africa their hope was for people of African descent to recapture their glorious past, sustain themselves, and move toward independent capabilities. Wilson Moses explores the theoretical origins of this outlook. He points to the emergence of "macro-nationalist" theories evident in the emergence of "PanGermanism" and "Pan-Slavism, " where the objective was to unite various independent ethnic groups under the banner of collective nationalism. He suggests that North American Black Nationalist and Pan-Africanist movements have their historical antecedents in the maroon revolutions of Haiti, Jamaica, and Surinam, as well as the slave rebellions of Denmark Vesey and Nat Turner. The nineteenth and twentieth centuries increased the emergence and evolution of different strains of Black Nationalist, Pan-Africanist, and separatist thinking. Two outlooks, revolutionary-political nationalism and cultural nationalism, could be discerned. By the late twentieth century revolutionary nationalism is generally characterized by its political discourse. Revolutionary nationalists raise questions of political participation, political power, separate economies and markets, self defense, and capitalist oppression. Revolutionary nationalists, such as the Black Panther Party, view organizing around racial grievances as a means to gaining power or taking control of the African-American community away from the dominant political state. The issue of state power is central to the revolutionary nationalist discourse. The modern cultural nationalist approach is also deeply rooted in nineteenth and twentieth century separatist thought. However, disdaining the Marxian critique of capitalism and the state, cultural nationalists generally observe Black culture as a powerful unifying force. Robert Staples, who has examined these two outlooks, notes: The cultural nationalists have as their main concern the development of a Black identity. Thus they concentrate on such matters as natural hairstyles, African dress and languages, and Black drama and literature. A degree of racialism is found among this group since they view the Black liberation struggle as a Black versus White confrontation....Cultural nationalism has become a dirty word m certain circles because nationalist groups with a cultural orientation frequently eschew political analysis and activity. However, it is incorrect to assert that cultural nationalists are apolitical beings In their writings and speeches one frequently finds attacks on capitalism and political oppression, but their organizational activity is directed toward the forging of a Black Identity and they neglect the important task of politically educating the Black masses. Within ethnic movements, especially among African-Americans, debates between the revolutionary and cultural nationalists have been fierce over the last thirty years. The cultural rationalists' outlook provides a far less threatening agenda than does the more revolutionary view. Cultural nationalism in its most harmless version is easily and readily acceptable to the mainstream political and educational communities alike. To understand modern multicultural education, however, we must note that anthropology, especially cultural anthropology, has been joined to cultural nationalism. Anthropology, and its modes of inquiry, became particularly useful during the period of colonial exploration and conquest. Colonizers could come to know the alien behavior of those they were to exploit and subjugate. These Western anthropological practices have generally favored a culturalist approach. This approach highlights the similarities of people within the same cultural group. Its focus has been on group behavior and custom. Culture is thus observed as central to human interaction Today, sponsored multicultural education relies on a culturalist outlook derived from a blend of cultural nationalism and the discipline of cultural anthropology. A central problem of this blended culturalist approach is the decoupling of race from economics and politics. Race and racism become the defining and central focus Of its discourse. Multicultural education then is fixed in battle with the historical menace of racism. Sonia Nieto's recent work, for example, suggests the centrality of '-ace m multicultural education: It is easier for some educators to embrace a very inclusive and comprehensive framework of multicultural education because they have a hard time facing racism. They may prefer to deal with Issues of class, exceptionality, or religious diversity, because, for them, these factors may be easier to confront. Racism is an excruciatingly difficult issue for most of us. Given our history of exclusion and discrimination, this is not surprising. Nevertheless, I believe it is only through a thorough investigation of discrimination based on race and other differences related to it that we can understand the genesis as well as the rationale for multicultural education. A rationale for the centrality of race is thereby established. We are challenged to confront racism if we dare. Yet race and racism are seen as separated from the economic and political stratification of society. Pluralism emerges as the primary objective for the multiculturalist. THE ERA OF CULTURAL PLURALISM: SHAPING; MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION As noted, the political sociologist seeks to situate the multicultural movement within the context of history, politics, and ideology. The curriculum of multicultural education did not evolve nor does it exist in a vacuum: it is a product of social, political, economic, and intellectual interests. Drawing from this type of socio-historical analytical framework we may better understand the contemporary multicultural movement. State-sponsored multicultural education has been shaped by the ideology of pluralism. Cultural pluralism represents the joining of the aforementioned culturalist outlook to the ethnic and racial politics of pluralism—a phenomenon that goes far beyond educational policy. Cultural pluralism has been woven into the fabric of broader social and political policy. It might be argued that cultural pluralism has succeeded integration on the liberal reform agenda for the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. World War II set the stage for the era of cultural pluralism. The war involved profound ideological and ethnic issues: linked to the fight against fascism and genocide were questions of national liberation and human freedom. The outcome of the "last great war" meant an end to direct colonialism, a realignment of world power, and a national liberation movement which swept the "third world." Revolution and independence movements swept across the People's Republic of China, North Korea, North Vietnam, Algeria, Cuba, Kenya, Ghana, the old Belgian Congo, several Caribbean Islands, and many other countries. In addition, the "civil rights" movement in the United States and the "consciousness'' movement in South Africa were of monumental significance. The various "third world" and nonaligned movements meant that racial politics would never again be the same. Within the United States the 1950s and 1960s witnessed intense minority discontent. The policies of gradualism and accommodationism were met with strident protest. It bears repeating that powerful political forces recognized that reform and negotiation must be employed as violence and a new militancy were on the upswing. Conveniently deflecting attention away from the economic and political arrangements of power and inequality, the political state, represented best by the federal government, arrived at the policy of blaming "white racism" for America's problems. The Kemer Report issued in 1968 offered the quintessential policy statement. While the political state could not directly treat the malady of ``white racism," it could outlaw discrimination, support affirmative action, and acknowledge ethnic difference. The rationale for a politics of pluralism was now established. Pluralism was thus well-suited to accommodate the movement for cultural identification. While political nationalism and cultural nationalism continued to represent discernable outlooks, the cultural approach was to become the preferred approach by those favoring "safe" reform. MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION CONCEPTUAL APPROACHES AND PRACTICES Multicultural education today generally embraces the ideas of cultural pluralism. Common curricular themes include: understanding culture, appreciating the cultures of diverse groups, and preparation for living in a pluralistic society. I wish to argue that the pluralist conceptions and outlooks of the state-sponsored multicultural education movement have led to a language and practice in which racism and discrimination have been separated from the categories of power and political economy and relegated instead to problems of irrationality, ethnocentrism, and personality. Too many multiculturalists have forgotten that "racism" emerged as a justification for the colonization and plunder of the peoples of Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Rejecting the political explanation of racism, the contemporary multicultural movement has taken up the "human behavior" argument which locates racism in the personality. Nieto describes the conceptual framework employed by some multiculturalists: Although he does not support the hypothesis that prejudice is simply a general personality trait Allport cites extensive research that demonstrates that personality does in fact play a part in the development of prejudice. One intriguing study, for example, found a high correlation between patriotism and discrimination; that is, the more patriotic the person, the more likely that he or she would be prejudiced. This finding was explained by the fact that the person who rejects "outgroups" is more likely to have a narrowly defined idea of the "national in-group." This is the person who perceives menaces on all sides, feeling that all newcomers or those who are different from the mainstream pose a threat to an idealized and more secure past. The "prejudiced personality" is also more likely to be indiscriminate in negative attitudes and behaviors toward others; anybody perceived as "different,'' whether through race, religion, or life-style, may be the object of this person's wrath. Relegating essential racism to the domain of behavior contributes to the framing of a culturalist argument. The culturalist argument explains systematic exclusions and discrimination not in terms of political and economic subservience but rather in the language of ethnocentrism. Here is how the often-quoted multiculturalists Donna M. Gollnick and Philip C. Chin explain ethnocentrism: The cornerstone of the cultural approach rests on the definition of culture as a humanmade, malleable phenomenon capable of reconstruction. Hence, ethnocentricism and cultural conflict also become viewed as humanmade, malleable phenomena capable of reconstruction. Because only irrationality stands between them, conflicting cultures, with some reeducating and engendering of sensitivity, can co-exist harmoniously. Much of the current popular multicultural literature draws our attention to relatively narrow definitions of culture, cultural conflict, and the multicultural "solution." Among the most cited works in the multicultural literature is Brian M. Bullivant's "Culture: Its Nature and Meaning for Educators." Bullivant focuses on the behavioral notion of culture. He introduces culture as the heritage and traditions of a social group; the group design for living in a society. Culture is humanmade, adaptive, and portable. It occupies a central place in behavior. He writes that we humans engage in both instrumental and expressive behavior: instrumental behavior allows us to get things done while expressive behavior becomes manifested in our beliefs, ideas, and values. Culture as behavior may appear in social class groups, ethnic groups, racial groups, or gender groups. Culture is transmitted via the process of enculturation and it is the device by which groups negotiate and survive their environment. Gollnick and Chin continue this focus on the behavioral dimension of culture in their now-familiar definition of culture as a way of perceiving, believing, evaluating, and behaving. Culture is learned, shared, adapted, changing, and dynamic. It imposes order and meaning. Kenneth Cushner, Averil McClelland, and Phillip Safford demonstrate how the "culturalists" draw from their definitions and interpretations of culture and human interaction to examine classroom interactions. These authors view culture as a social construction or collective creation of humans in interaction with one another. They point to culture as natural, so natural that it appears to be secret. Finally, they observe culture as nurturing and contributing to community growth. Thus, multiculturalists appear to have some common conceptions of the dynamics of culture and the classroom. They view culture as the defining characteristic of human groups, and the basis of interaction among people within groups. Though defining, culture need not be divisive. Because culture is interactional, not structural, it may be crafted and refined. The culturalist relies on the natural evolution of interaction as the basis for defining social phenomena. Popular contemporary literature on multiculturalism in education reflects the cultural nationalist approach which strives for pluralist reform. Given the explosive politics of race and class, a nearly total focus on racism and ethnocentrism is quiteacceptable to those not wishing to question the economic order or broader power relations m society. As this literature helps shape classroom discourse and practice one is struck by the recurrence of the language and conceptual framework of culturalism and diversity—at the cost of omitting or underestimating class and power Issues. EXPLORING SOME RECENT LITERATURE Books on multicultural education are being rushed off the presses, confirming the massive financial commitment to this reform movement. Many, if not most, of the new works have adopted cultural pluralism as their conceptual framework, and the politics of diversity as their aim. It seems that diversity has replaced equality as the grand social objective. Much of this literature is fixed on reforming the classroom through curriculum improvement and better-equipped teachers. Teachers are enjoined to attend to the learning environment and its possible impact on diverse cultures. They are directed to understand the cognitive styles of their diverse students. New curricular formulas an pedagogical approaches are intended to create appreciation of other peoples. Herein lies much of the problem of the multicultural education literature. By accepting cultural appreciation as perhaps the central goal of both our classrooms and larger society, they fail to raise questions about prevailing political and economic arrangements. Teaching about diversity substitutes for teaching about equality politics, and the structures of oppression. Let us examine three recent books in the field, that, for the most part, represent these prevailing views. While I do not pretend to undertake an exhaustive review of each work, I do hope to highlight their culturalist approach, which I believe assumes diversity and pluralism as the central objectives of societal change. The books are Teaching Academic Subjects to Diverse Learners, edited by Mary E. Kennedy;Learning forAII I: Curricula for Diversity in Education, edited by Tony Booth et al.. and Lower Track Classrooms: A Curricular and Cultural Perspective, by Reba Newkom Page. Although not directly targeted at teaching African-American, Hispanic, and Native American youngsters, Mary Kennedy's edited work offers contributions from fourteen authors. Nine of the chapters are fairly straightforward cookbook recipes on how to teach specific subjects, such as science, mathematics, history, social studies and writing to "diverse" learners. Without singling out specific ethnic groups, the presumption is that today's urban classroom is an amalgam of differing backgrounds abilities, and behaviors. These "how to teach" essays combine the inclusion themes of the multicultural approach with the accumulated thinking on cognitive development. Written for practical instruction, this book informs the reader that patterns of reasoning are culture-related. Science teachers, for example, are cautioned that students from oral cultures may have trouble because prevailing Western science paradigms devalue the myth, metaphor, and storytelling patterns of oral cultures. The teacher is admonished to gain knowledge of the cultural background and societal arrangements of her classroom, students, and subject material. Among its conclusions are that far too many science teachers have failed to help both majority and minority students handle the declarative and procedural aspects of scientific thinking. Anton Lawson, in his essay, argues that because science is a hypothetical-deductive enterprise, all students learn best when their prior beliefs and conceptions are utilized as a point of departure. The history and social studies essays were of particular interest as they included a contribution from James Banks, the indefatigable proponent of multicultural education. Curiously, Banks has almost nothing to say on multiculturalism in this selection. Instead, it is Banks, the social studies scholar, urging teachers to move beyond the old citizenship transmission models of social studies toward those favoring critical and reflective thinking. Banks speaks forcefully for a liberatory, emancipatory, interdisciplinary social studies approach as opposed to traditional history teaching. The next three chapters, ten through twelve, are taken up with student learning and cognition. Though they offer little in the way of multicultural analysis, their discussions of schema theory and effective methods of learning are informative. Alonzo B. Anderson's chapter offers an interesting glimpse of how L.S. Vygotsky and his "zone of proximal development" interprets the role of culture in learning. Anderson understands culture as important to Vygotsky. Culture shapes the child's experiences and social interactions. It is the culturally elaborated skills, valued by society, which influence what a child learns. For classroom learning to occur the teacher and student must transcend their private worlds and enter a shared world, that is, the zone of proximal development. The concluding essays directly address issues of culture and teaching. Carl Grant, longtime proponent of multiculturalism, offers a discussion on the institutionalism of cultural superiority and its implications for schooling. He argues that teachers, to be effective, should not worry so much about their students' cultural backgrounds as they should their own. Struggling to understand and overcome their own biases will vastly improve their effectiveness. Other concluding essays call for teachers to understand the triangular relationship between teacher, student, and subject matter and to strive to make the academic content relevant. Throughout the book, culture and cultural skills are presented as saturating, if not dominating, the classroom. One is left with the notion that cultural literacy is the key to the learning environment. Cultural understanding is viewed as a key to effective human interaction. Booth et al., in their edited work Curricula for Diversity in Education, present thirty-two essays written by a variety of lecturers, teachers, youth workers, and free lancers mostly from throughout the United Kingdom. Much like the work of Kennedy, these essays are directed toward those interested in reaming and classroom culture. The first in a series, this work points to the heterogeneous state of the contemporary classroom. It acknowledges that today's urban metropolitan class. room contains ethnic minorities, those of varied academic ability, substance abusers, the HlV-infected, those needing special care, the disabled, and the so-called traveller children. All must be taught math, science, and literature. Utilizing the culturalist orientation which explores classroom interactions, these essays aim to describe how the curricula and the reaming environment might enable learning for those who are different, difficult, and disabled. Several essays dramatize the new, and perhaps daunting, mission of schools in this modem period. The work is divided into five parts. Susan Hart's "Collaborative Classrooms" establishes the theme for part I. It echoes the now familiar call for group or cooperative reaming. Consistent with similarly inclined proponents, Hart finds collaborative reaming natural, self-sustaining, inclusive, democratic, supportive, safe, and expedient. Hart presents an interesting discussion on the role of the teacher in the collaborative model. The teacher is the architect of the reaming environment. Her skills are summoned to shape and monitor reaming. Most important, the teacher enforces collaboration by posing problems and managing the direction of the inquiry. Other essays in this section focus on democratizing the curriculum, using practical investigations, and employing experiential teaching. Essays such as "Learning History through Talk," "An Active Approach to Mathematics Teaching," and others focus on innovative and humanistic ways to make the curriculum accessible to all. Part II, the next seven chapters, explores "supports" for reaming. Among the discussions are several essays and case studies on making reaming accessible to the learning disabled. Bilingual education, mainstreaming, teaching "traveller" children in remote agricultural regions, teaching the deaf, and employing microtechnology for the reaming disabled are all examined. Stories of triumph in providing greater access to learning are related in these essays. Part III turns our attention to the special education curriculum. It is highlighted by a polemic on conductive education. Originating in Hungary, conductive education aims to address the physically disabled student. It attempts to make the disabled physically independent without prosthetics by addressing the entire personality as opposed to merely the disability. Teachers, called conductors, instruct through a series of tasks or exercises. Proponents claim spectacular results and advocate adopting these techniques in the wider disability teaching arena. Critics, on the other hand, argue that there is no evidence that the nervous system can restructure itself. They believe that the claims of conductive education advocates are greatly exaggerated. Other essays in this section take up the special education dialogue: to mainstream or not to mainstream? Views seem to range from scorning the "asylum ethos" to questioning the practicality of resuming seriously learning-disabled people to regular instruction. Once again the objective of maximizing access seems to be shared by most contributors, Part IV explores issues of youth alienation and instructional practices. Among the issues addressed are "behavioral" " problems, bullying, dropouts, children in foster or residential care, teenage sex, and the possible aftermath of serious sexually transmitted diseases. In each case the authors call upon schools and especially the curriculum to take up these issues in a sensitive way. Part V finally raises questions about how the excluded can attain voice and representation in schools, the curriculum, and the research dialogue. Researchers must engage in observations, ethnographies, and interviews which will demonstrate the reaming possibilities for those other-abled. Caroline Roaf, in one of the concluding essays, argues for a language of equality where people are not labeled and grouped according to ethnicity, ability, or status. Underlying these several dozen essays is an inference that diversity and cultural competence are at the heart of democracy. While a comprehensive discussion of democracy is far outside the parameters of this inquiry, it must be noted that many social and educational thinkers embrace a strain of democracy totally separated from economics. Such a view of democracy values free participation and association as ends in themselves. Yet this kind of electoral democracy is compatible with the rigidly stratified and oppressive economic class systems. Such is the democracy of Mexico, the Philippines, or Mississippi, where one can vote even if one cannot eat. Linking diversity and multiculturalism to improved communication, association, and democracy sounds empowering but contributes to a narrow discourse where questions about property ownership, wealth, and the state never come up. In this context educating for democracy becomes a trite, meaningless construct. Reba Page's book, Lower Track Classrooms, offers an interesting ethnographic study of "additional needs" classrooms in two high schools of a mid-sized midwestern city. Hoping to depart from the ethical tone of other tracking studies, Page identifies hers as a cultural interpretive undertaking. Beyond her findings, this study, not unlike related studies, provides an articulation of the concepts, parameters, and capabilities of a culturalist inquiry. The opening chapter is devoted to explicating cultural analysis. She writes: I regard culture as the web of significance [in which] man is suspended land which] he himself has spun....A cultural analysis of schooling seeks "cultural knowledge": What people know, both explicitly and implicitly, that makes what they do sensible....Both definitions emphasize culture as a symbolic, social process....People make or "spin" signs which constitute and are constituted by a culture's particular order or "webs. " Moreover, people live "suspended" within the webs, so that culture is neither a subjective abstraction in someone's head nor an objective structure that dictates behavior. Rather, culture provides the resources with which people bring themselves and their worlds into being while, at the same time, it constrains the selves and worlds that can be made. Thus Page sees the complexities of American pluralism and differentiation demanding an approach which does not proceed from rigid theoretical constraints, but is more naturalistic. She sees American society operating within the ambivalent, sometimes contradictory, nature of different ethnic and immigrant groups, disparate social classes, the common good versus individual freedom, idealism versus naturalism, and lawfulness versus lawlessness. Culture, for Page, is not imposed nor is it structural. It is rather the playing out of interactions and relationships in a complex pluralistic society. She argues: From a cultural perspective, then, the well-documented contradictions in tracking are not inconsistencies that can be resolved with better logic or more rationality: They are signs neither of a single-minded "system's" unerring fairness (or inequity) nor of individual teachers or students' undisciplined thinking. Rather, the contradictions are local educational renditions of enduring sociocultural and political dilemmas. Culture and politics intertwine with schooling and curriculum as teachers and students negotiate definitions of of self, each other, and knowledge...in particular institutional contexts. Page offers valuable explanations regarding culturalist inquiry. Culture, whether ethnic or otherwise, is made by people. It is not deterministic, nor is it unchanging. It is the result of human constructions and as such capable of being understood and translated. Culture exists anywhere these interactions occur. Hence we may have youth culture, Hispanic culture, or the culture of a classroom. Her culturalist approach to classroom practices recognizes and appreciates the complexities of human interaction and differentiation. But while few would deny the significance of the human interactions which Page explores, she also gives little attention to the political context surrounding race and education. Do minorities continue to exist in semicolonial status as a result of market and property considerations or are cultural and human interactions abstractly shaping society? I believe that each of these three works is representative of the wave of culturalist and multiculturalist theorizing. They view ethnic and racial issues in terms of cultural exclusion rather than political economy. They tend to see racism as a product of ethnocentrism rather than historical conquest and colonialism. Their language suggests that they group and identify people by cultural behavior with little consideration to economic class. Each of these works, in varying degrees, focuses on the culturally constructed learner, teacher, and classroom. Culture, to be sure, exists, and one can hardly deny the need for multicultural understanding and sensitivity. The problem in these works is that the discourse of culture marginalizes or excludes the economic foundations on which culture is situated. Placing culture at the center of social development suggests that equality, reform, and justice are to be found in the unfettered expression of suppressed groups. The multiculturalist is led to seek solutions in free associations of cultural integration. Lost is the discussion of how social production and expropriation of wealth create structures of ethnic and class inequality. Separating culture from politics, the culturalists are left with only behavioral solutions which do not get at the fundamental arrangements of an economically and politically stratified society. Such is the nature of culturalist reforms. SOME FINAL REFLECTIONS ON MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION Certainly, no society (or political state} can ignore acrimonious ethnic relations. One has only to survey the world situation to discover the tumultuous disruption of "ethnic cleansing," apartheid, discrimination, and exclusion. Such ethnic, racial, and national divisions show no signs of immediate resolution, yet the future of humanity resides with resolving these divisive and passionate problems. To that end, democrats, liberals, and radicals alike must support pluralism as a reform and fundamental proposition of a new order. Multiculturalism must be supported as a political ideal. On the other hand, much work is to be done in situating, understanding, and questioning the currently popular multicultural education movement. While its stated objectives are lofty, the current state-sponsored multicultural movement remains disconnected from political reform. That ideology, while feigning promise, has been influenced by a discourse of colonialism, accommodationism, and shallow social reform. Once again, hegemonists, gatekeepers, and conservative reformers have appropriated a just cause and placed it in the service of acceptable change. New accords have been reached, but as with most social reforms, many outcomes are possible. If joined to the discourse on power, property relations, and social engineering, the multicultural education movement could become part of a powerful critique and demand for fundamental structural change. On the other hand, a multicultural education program shaped only by narrow culturalism cannot have the same impact. Multicultural reformers who want substantive change have much to consider. What can multicultural education deliver? What should it deliver? Can we talk about equal cultures without equal power? What are the limitations of the culturalist approach as a remedy for discrimination and racial superiority? I have argued that a historical and socio-political inquiry offers insights into these questions in addition to hopes for an expanded dialogue. Such analysis may uncover limitations well-meaning multiculturalists have not considered. I believe this brief inquiry has pointed to four propositions deserving more consideration. First, the political economy of racism cannot be overlooked. Racism cannot be understood as simply a phenomenon of human behavior. It must be located as a socially constructed phenomenon historically operating as a function of colonial plunder, the unequal distribution of power, and the system of free market economics. Racial policy is, in the final analysis, political policy. The exclusion of minorities from public schooling has served to maintain the existence of an uneducated, unskilled, and subservient labor force capable of producing unheard-of, massive profits over the last four centuries. Colonial and accommodationist educational practices served political ends. Any explanation of racial reform in America must include, not ignore, these questions of political economy. Has the historical need for subservient cheap Black labor disappeared ? Are there indications of a major shift in political and economic power to the broad masses of African-Americans? I believe that both these questions must be answered in the negative. Without a significant realignment in larger social forces, it appears very unlikely that school reform can affect fundamental structural arrangements. Second, for the political sociologist the objectives of multicultural education are not totally clear. The language of the "tossed salad" and the "stir fry" certainly suggest notions of pluralism, but of what sort? Is it possible to have truly shared participation without shared power among ethnic and racial groups? One need only look to South Africa to see this problem clearly. What is the blueprint for a culturally pluralistic society? Have the proponents of multicultural education thought through the concepts of integration, assimilation, and separatism? For example, as I survey the literature, I am often not clear about what cultural acceptance means in practice. Are all the cultures to be accepted equally. or are some more equal than others? Multicultural education cannot and should not be carried out without considering these questions—questions with profound theoretical and practical consequences. A third issue, related to the first two, is posed by the provocative work of Jim Cummins. Cummins wants to know how we are empowering minority students. More specifically, he asks if empowerment can occur while fundamental relationships remain unaltered. Can multicultural education be effective if it does not alter the relationship between education and minority students or between schools and minority communities? More specifically, we might ask, How is multicultural education empowering? How will it change the status of dominated groups? Fourth, because of the historical significance of racial issues, a thorough discussion of multicultural education must ultimately include problems of reform and the state. What exactly is the political state and how does it affect reform? How has the state historically acted upon racial issues? It is impossible to view the state as either a neutral force or a force for dramatic progressive change. The state is always under the control of hegemonic forces such as large and powerful corporations and militarists. As such it operates to protect interests which may include facilitating protective reform. In the racial arena, the American political state has supported segregation, colonial education, and policies of gradualism. When reform has been achieved it has involved an "accord" which further preserved the existing political and economic status quo. Proponents of multicultural education must conclude that the political state takes a position in response to external pressures. Represented by state and local educational bodies, legal mandates, and a massive commitment of funds, a culturalist version of multicultural education has won support. In the end, it must be concluded that multicultural education, despite state-sponsored efforts to keep it within "safe" parameters, remains a work in progress. As is typical in reform movements, differing political forces find themselves in a battle for ideas. Much is contested and much remains to be defined. James Banks believes that there remain fundamental disagreements on the theory and practice of multicultural education. Committed progressive multiculturalists hope for curriculum and educational reform that is genuinely "reconstructionist," that is, capable of altering fundamental societal arrangements. Conversely, those who strive to have reform protect the existing arrangements hope to maintain multicultural education within safe political, racial, and ideological boundaries. Those forces see multicultural education as the continuation of colonial politics by other means. In my view, the political inquiry must intensify. Multicultural education must be examined within the context of history, racial politics, and societal reform. Multicultural education must truly become an instrument of egalitarianism and social change.