https://doi.org/10.53656/str2021-4-5-multi

2021/4, стр. 402 - 410

PREMISES FOR A MULTICULTURAL APPROACH TO EDUCATION

Резюме: The goal of education at the present stage is development of a person able to participate in intercultural communication in modern multicultural conditions. Based on this goal, modern education should be based on the principles of a multicultural approach to education that can serve as a response to the challenges of ethnic diversity. In order to more fully disclose the value of a multicultural approach to education, we need to examine its premises. In the article, the premises for a multicultural approach to education are analyzed. It is revealed that there are some pedagogical, philosophical, and psychological premises for it.

Ключови думи: multicultural approach to education; multiculturalism; culture

Introduction

The processes of integration and globalization taking place in the modern world pose complex tasks for modern education to create conditions for preparing young people for cooperation and interaction, for life in an open multicultural society. World pedagogical thought develops an appropriate educational strategy, taking into account the above sociocultural realities. The task of preparing young people for life in a multicultural world is named among the priorities in the documents of the UN, UNESCO and the Council of Europe. The UNESCO report on global strategies for the development of education in the XXI century notes the following: education should help people understand their roots and instill in them respect for other cultures. One of the main goals of education is to teach people to live together, to help them transform the interdependence of states and ethnic groups into conscious solidarity (UNESCO 2014).

According to this idea, the aim of education based on a multicultural approach is acquaintance with different cultures and tolerance towards them; developing a tolerant consciousness that helps to positively and constructively interact with people and cultures of different countries.

In order to more fully disclose the value of such education, we need to examine its premises. In this paper, we seek to intensify attention to this problem.

Literature review

Researchers have proposed numerous definitions of multicultural education. This is reflected in various concepts of it.

Some definitions by foreign authors are based on cultural characteristics of different groups, while others emphasize social problems, political power or redistribution of economic resources (Hill 2007; Joshe&Johnson 2005; Ladson-Billings 2004).

Let’s consider the most important factors of multicultural education. Among them:

– the idea of an educational movement of reforms and processes aimed at restructuring of educational institutions (Banks 2020);

– a philosophy that emphasizes importance, legitimacy and vitality of ethnic and cultural diversity in the formation of the life of people and groups (Banks 2019);

– a philosophy of cultural pluralism in the education system, based on the principles of equality, mutual respect, recognition, and understanding (Baptiste, 2020);

– a humanistic concept based on the power of the diversity of human rights, social justice and alternative lifestyles for all people (Sleeter & Grant 2009);

– an approach to teaching promoting cultural pluralism, developing curricula that build understanding of ethnic groups (Ladson-Billings 2004);

– the type of education associated with different groups in societies discriminated because of their unique cultural characteristics (Banks 2017).

A number of researchers limit it to the framework of ethnic, racial culture and sees its goal in the development of cultural knowledge, in fostering a tolerant attitude towards other cultures and in understanding the differences and similarities between them (Leeman&Reid 2006; Portera 2011).

In this regard, it can be argued that there is a fairly solid scientific basis for considering the problem of multicultural education.

However, it should be noted that the issue of premises for a multicultural approach to education is insufficiently developed, which dictated the need for this study.

Pedagogical, philosophical, and psychological premises for a multicultural approach to education

Indeed, in the era of globalization, a new system of values and goals of education has emerged. Such concepts as “multicultural approach”, “multicultural environment”, and “multicultural education” have entered the scientific lexicon. The problem of the coexistence of many different cultures in the modern world is due to the concept of multiculturalism. It defines the mechanism of coexistence of cultures in the world as a desire for dialogue, mutual understanding.

The multicultural approach in the educational sphere as an independent pedagogical direction began to stand out in the late XX century due to its pedagogical, philosophical, and psychological premises.

Considering the premises for the emergence of a multicultural approach to education, we have turned to the pedagogical concepts of various systems of training and education and made sure that the ideas of a multicultural approach to education were presented in the history of pedagogical thought of various socio-economic formations.

The emergence of elements of multiculturalism in education is associated with the development of pedagogical theory in Ancient Greece. Within the framework of our research, big interest is aroused by the phenomenon of “paideia” - education and upbringing of an ancient Greek. It is conditioned by an inseparable and unified system that unites philosophy, pedagogy and culture. Jaeger (2013) believes that the antique period is the period of the birth of “humanism” as an idea of the true image of a man. In the period of antiquity, education was associated with the world of human values; it is during this period that the “paideia” of an adult person arises as an idea of upbringing without fixed time boundaries; it is with it that the cultural and guardian activity of a state is connected.

Considering the process of education and upbringing of an ancient Greek, we notice that among the primary requirements was the requirement “respect a stranger”, and that the highest meaning of a state is paideia, ie. systematic organization of life in accordance with certain principles that subordinate all individuals to an absolute norm (Jaeger 2013). Thus, certain guidelines and orientations were put forward as the starting point of state education.

The idea of a multicultural approach to education originated in the XVII century in the teaching of Comenius (2014). In particular, his program “Pampaedia” was aimed at developing the ability to live in peace with other people, to fulfill mutual agreements, to respect and love people (Comenius 2014). Of great interest for understanding the essence of multicultural education is the principle of cultural conformity, formulated in the first half of the XIX century by Diesterweg (2010). The outstanding German teacher believed that in the process of upbringing, it is necessary to take into account the specific features of the culture of a native country, peculiarities of social environment of a person, and the time parameters of the era.

Turning to the pedagogical heritage of the theorists, we find Gessen’s (1995) various philosophical and educational generalizations that became key to understanding the role of a multicultural approach to education. For example, he expresses the idea of cultural communication between peoples and speaks about the spiritual journey of an individual. Education for Gessen is nothing more than a spiritual creative journey “in the world of human culture”, and travel in space and time, which means “to participate in the common cultural creativity of mankind” (Gessen 1995, 139 – 142).

Within the framework of our research, the views of Sorokin (1992) on the role of the institution of a family, where the formation of personality begins, are of great interest for us. He, examining the social aspects of the formation of a person, draws attention to the fact that religion, tastes, legal concepts, beliefs and native language are laid in the family, and the influence of other social institutions is secondary. Consequently, cultural self-identification, cognition and formation of personal culture are conditioned and predetermined by the influence of the institution of a family (Sorokin 1992).

The ideas of Kapterev (2013) are also important to substantiate the importance of a multicultural approach to education. Showing the interconnection between the universal and the national, he argued that it was necessary “to turn not to one nation, but to many and to replenish the shortcomings of one’s national ideal with different valuable properties; the national must be combined with the foreign, with the national and the universal” (Kapterev 2013, 12). Kapterev believes that the interests of people, their religion, language, way of life, social and political activities and the history of a country have a national coloration, but at the same time “human nature and the basic national aspirations everywhere, around the globe, are the same” (Kapterev 2013, 12).

The formation of a multicultural approach to education was greatly influenced by the philosophical concepts of different eras. Thus, Rousseau's (2016) views and ideas about a just society, in which all citizens will find their place in life and receive happiness and freedom, echo the concept of a multicultural approach to education. The idea of the leading role of upbringing and education in leveling prejudices and social equality of people belongs to this philosopher. As to the question of the dialogue of cultures, Rousseau opposes a union of nations and peoples, since, according to him, this union will lead to the erasure of certain differences between the contacting cultures.

Speaking about the importance of preserving the identity and uniqueness of each culture, Rousseau reacts negatively on the missionary intentions of some nations. He presents culture as a phenomenon that does not unite, but separates peoples. He says that everything that promotes communication between different nations transfers to others not their dignity, but their vices and the changing morals inherent in peoples everywhere (Rousseau 2016).

Valuable for us in this respect are the ideas of Herder (2009), who considers the culture of people as one of the conditions for the development. His judgments about the obligatory exchange of achievements between cultures, about the need to master different cultures and about developing of each culture accordingly with the development of a person in this culture are of great importance for our concept of multicultural education (Herder 2009).

Kant (2018), like Herder, emphasized in his philosophical works the importance of intercultural interactions. He said that it was necessary to be in communication with people and improve culture, civilization, and morality in this communication with the help of art and science. Kant argued that it was only through interaction and interpenetration that all modern cultures were formed. Valuable for understanding the significance of the topic under consideration is his “Golden rule of morality” (Kant 2018).

Therefore, truly moral in multicultural education can be considered human behavior that is consistent with the behavior of other people, respects their dignity and takes into account their existence. Moral self-knowledge as the center of the moral choice of every person plays an important role in the process of forming moral behavior. It is known that such self-knowledge is necessary for a person for his self-improvement, for the development of his sense of moral obligation to act in accordance with humanistic morality and to improve relationships with people around him. The philosopher spoke out against the use of man as a means of achieving goals alien to him. According to Kant, the highest criterion of morality is the welfare of a person (Kant 2018).

The formation of the idea of a multicultural approach to education was also influenced by the dialogue concept of culture with its fundamental idea of the universality of dialogue as a way of being of a subject of culture and the basis of human consciousness. The idea of dialogue was proposed by Socrates as a way of communication between people and was considered by him as a method of gaining knowledge.

The study of dialogue in relation to culture first emerged in the early XX century in the works of famous researchers of the past. For example, Buber (2003) presented the existence of a person as “co-existence” with other people. Bakhtin (2010) also paid great attention to the problem of the dialogue of cultures, transferring the concept of “dialogue” from a literary genre to a philosophical category.

In our opinion, the ideas of Bakhtin on the anthropological nature of culture and on the culturological perception of human existence are important for understanding the essence of a multicultural approach. For the philosophy of Bakhtin the “other” was a key concept since only in correlation with the “other” does a person become a person and cognizes himself as such. The “other” is also a person himself/herself. There are many different cultural positions in the mind of a person. Within the consciousness of an individual, the dialogue turns out to be a dialogue of different cultures, and without this dialogue, the development of both the personality and society is impossible. Cultural pluralism in an acculturated form reflects the diversity and contradictions of social reality. And the cultural diversity of the world needs to be united, indicating the need of one culture for another. Bakhtin wrote, confirming this need for unity, that a native culture poses new questions to a foreign culture, and the foreign culture answers them, opening its new sides, and new semantic depths. With such a dialogical meeting of two cultures, they do not merge and do not mix, each retains its unity and open integrity, but they mutually enrich themselves (Bakhtin, 2010).

The philosophical and logical ideas of Bibler (1991) also contribute to the understanding of the phenomenon of the dialogue of cultures. Bibler believed that culture is “the space of many spaces”, and inside each culture is art, philosophy, morality, theory” (Bibler 1991, 284). In addition, in the conceptual definition of the dialogue of cultures, attention was paid to defining it as a form of simultaneous existence and communication of people of different cultures. It was also emphasized that “the very definition of culture implies communication of different minds, that is, communication through the abyss of complete misunderstanding to true mutual understanding” (Bibler 1991, 286). Bibler believed that only a dialogue between them can be recognized as the moral and the only reasonable way to true union of different cultures (Bibler 1991). Thus, researchers consider the dialogue as a fundamental principle of the life of cultures.

Philosophical works of Roerich (2007) also contribute to the knowledge of the essence of the multicultural approach to education as a worldview. His views on the country are very important. In them, he draws attention to the fact that Russia is not a single race, and this is its strength. Russia is a union of races, peoples, speaking one hundred and forty languages. It is free conciliarity, unity in difference, polychromy, and polyphony (Roerich 2007).

Formation of a holistic picture of the socio-cultural unity of the world in its diversity leads to understanding of the harmony of human relations and the world community in the modern period. Roerich considers culture as an objective necessity to achieve harmony in the world, believing that “the concept of Culture belongs to the indestructible synthesizing concepts”. For him, culture is cooperation, where each person brings his/ her individuality, his/her best, becoming a co-creator of culture, where “nothing is absorbed by anything”. Roerich, touching upon the problem of values, urged to get acquainted with the spiritual values of all peoples for mutual enrichment and argued that the values that were contained in the culture of the people had to be synthesized (Roerich 2007).

In addition, according to the consideration of education from the point of view of a multicultural approach, philosophical consideration of the problem of the relationship between universal and national values is very important for us.

Berdyaev (2019), for example, understands culture as concretely human, that is, national, individual-folk, and only in this quality ascending to universality.

Thus, any national culture contains universal cultural dominants and is a part of culture of all civilization.

It should be noted, referring to the psychological aspects of the problem, that research in the field of culture and psychology helps us to understand the features of mechanisms, patterns of culturally determined behavior and thinking of people.

It is known that at the beginning of the XX century a new scientific direction arose that studied the interaction of a person and his/her thoughts, feelings and actions in a cultural environment. It is called psychological anthropology. Anthropologistspsychologists began to study the features of the development of a certain type of personality that carries particular culture. Such psychological anthropology as its basis recognized the general principles of the interactionist concept of Mead (2015) and his approach to the analysis of “I”, as well as the ideas of the cultural-historical school of Vygotsky (1980). Their sense was considering various actions and certain functions of an individual. The whole essence of these interactions was associated with cultural traditions.

The psychological characteristics of the interaction of cultural and historical factors of development are laid down in the works of Vygotsky. The researcher assumed that cultural development was a process of “ingrowing” into culture, where “not only the content of cultural experience, but the techniques and forms of cultural behavior, cultural ways of thinking” were learned. The essence of cultural development, by his definition, lies in mastering the processes of one's own behavior (Vygotsky 1980).

At the beginning of the XX century, there was also a rapid development of the ethnopsychological study of cultures. Benedict (2006) laid the foundation for such scientific research. Ethno-psychologists considered, studied and theoretically substantiated the psychological difference in the behavior of representatives of different ethnic cultures. Ethno-psychology defended its key idea of the existence of a certain type of personality, which was inherent in every culture. They stated that each such type of personality was characterized by a certain pattern of behavior, as well as specific psychological traits and characteristics. Benedict, in particular, singled out the Apollo type (supremacy of a group over a person, absence of aggressive manifestations of character, tolerance, ability to cooperate and coordinate their actions with a group); the Dionysian type (supremacy of individuality, aggressiveness, use of violence); and the paranoid type (excessive suspiciousness, conflict, hostility) based on the study of traditional cultures (Benedict 2006).

Various psychological theories and concepts have influenced the development of the approach we are studying. These are, for example, such theories as the theory of psychology of a nation, the theory of interethnic perception, the concept of the role of ethnic identity of a person in interethnic interaction and humanistic psychology. The basis of the theory of psychology of a nation is consideration of various ethnocultural characteristics, not always clearly outwardly expressed. This is one of the main reasons for complication of mutual understanding between people.

In this regard, researchers study the works of the French philosopher and ethnographer Levy-Bruhl (2018), who was the first to formulate the concept of “ethnic archetype”. Ethnic archetypes, according to him, are expectations and value orientations of representatives of certain ethnic groups. They evoke the feelings and manner of behavior habitual for these people, manifested when reacting to the impact of phenomena and objects of the surrounding world. Levy-Bruhl believed that such an ethnic archetype was at the non-verbal conscious level of a person and was inherited from previous generations (Lévy-Bruhl 2018). All actions that a given ethnic archetype causes are, in fact, more powerful in comparison with actions caused by the influence of the environment.

The founder of the American ethnopsychological school Boas (2020) stated that, without knowing the psychology of a person, it is impossible to study his/her culture, traditions and behavior. All dynamic components of ethnic psychology are considered by ethnopsychologists as features of the manifestation of his/her ethnic culture. It is clear that these features determine the originality of the course of mental processes, as well as certain features of the relationship, interaction and communication of representatives of specific ethnic communities ( Boas, 2020).

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, we summarize the present study as follows:

The paper examined the scientific premises for a multicultural approach to education. Thus, we revealed the pedagogical, philosophical, and psychological premises for a multicultural approach to education.

– The earliest of the premises goes back to Ancient Greece, and its very origin dates back to the XVII century. The end of XX and the beginning of XXI centuries were marked mostly by the awareness of the accumulated centuries-old experience in this area of knowledge and the emergence of the term itself.

REFERENCES

Bakhtin M., 2010. The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Banks J., 2017. Citizenship Education and Global Migration: Implications for Theory, Research, and Teaching. Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research Association.

Banks, J., 2020. Diversity, Transformative Knowledge, and Civic Education: Selected Essays. London, UK: Routledge.

Banks, J., 2019. Multicultural Education: Issues and Perspectives. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Baptiste, H., 2020. Visioning Multicultural Education. London: Routledge

Benedict, R., 2006. Patterns of Culture. Boston: Mariner Books.

Berdyaev, N., 2019. Slavery and Freedom. Hamburg: Albatross Publishers.

Bibler, V., 1991. From science to the logic of culture: two philosophical introductions to the twenty-first century. Moscow: Politizdat.

Boas, F., 2020. Anthropology and Modern Life. London: Routledge.

Buber, M., 2003. Between Man and Man. London: Routledge.

Comenius, J., 2014 Pampaedia. SŠo Paulo: Editora Comenius.

Diesterwegs, A., 2010. Padagogik. Whitefish: Kessinger Publishing.

Gessen, S., 1995. Fundamentals of Pedagogy. Introduction to applied philosophy. Moscow: Shkola-Press.

Herder, J., 2009. Selected Writings on Aesthetics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Hill, I., 2007. Multicultural and International Education: Never the Twain Shall Meet? International Review of Education 53, 245 – 264.

Jaeger, W., 2013. Paideia. SŠo Paulo: WMF Martins Fontes (Filosofia edition).

Joshe, R., Johnson, L. 2005. Multicultural Education in the United States and Canada: the Importance of National Policies. International Handbook of Educational Policy (53 – 74). Great Britain: Springer.

Kant, I., 2018. Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Kapterev, P., 2013 Pedagogical Literature. Moscow: Directmedia.

Ladson-Billings, G. 2004. New directions in multicultural education. Complexities, boundaries, and critical race theory. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.

Leeman, Y. & Reid, C. 2006. Multi/intercultural education in Australia and the Netherlands. Compare. A Journal of Comparative Education 36, 57 – 72.

Lévy-Bruhl L., 2018. Revival: How Natives Think. London: Routledge.

Mead, G., 2015. Mind, Self & Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Portera, A., 2011. Intercultural and multicultural education. New York, NY: Routledge.

Roerich, N., 2007. Realm of Light. Whitefish: Kessinger Publishing.

Rousseau, J., 2016. A Discourse on Inequality. New York: Philosophical Library.

Sleeter, C. & Grant C., 2009. Making choices for multicultural education. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Sorokin, P., 1992. The Crisis of Our Age. London: Oneworld Publication.

UNESCO (2014). Global citizenship education: preparing learners for the challenges of the 21st century. Paris: UNESCO.

Vygotsky, L., 1980. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press