Global Constructions Of Multicultural Education

Theories and Realities 1st edition By Carl

Grant, Joy Lei ISBN 0415955766 9780805835984
download
https://ebookball.com/product/global-constructions-of-
multicultural-education-theories-and-realities-1st-edition-by-
carl-grant-joy-lei-isbn-0415955766-9780805835984-23506/

Instantly Access and Download Textbook at https://ebookball.com

 Get Your Digital Files Instantly: PDF, ePub, MOBI and More
Quick Digital Downloads: PDF, ePub, MOBI and Other Formats

Critical Multiculturalism Rethinking Multicultural and Antiracist

Education 1st edition by Stephen May ISBN 0750707674 978-0750707671

https://ebookball.com/product/critical-multiculturalism-
rethinking-multicultural-and-antiracist-education-1st-edition-by-
stephen-may-isbn-0750707674-978-0750707671-23494/

(Ebook PDF) Teaching Social Foundations of Education Contexts,

Theories & Issues

https://ebookball.com/product/ebook-pdf-teaching-social-
foundations-of-education-contexts-theories-issues-23286/

Foundations of Education Research Understanding Theoretical Components

1st edition by Joy Egbert, Sherry Sanden 9780429841279 0429841272

https://ebookball.com/product/foundations-of-education-research-
understanding-theoretical-components-1st-edition-by-joy-egbert-
sherry-sanden-9780429841279-0429841272-18634/

(Ebook PDF) Foundations of Education Research 1st edition by Joy

Egbert, Sherry Sanden 0429841272 9780429841279 full chapters

https://ebookball.com/product/ebook-pdf-foundations-of-education-
research-1st-edition-by-joy-egbert-sherry-
sanden-0429841272-9780429841279-full-chapters-23122/
Infection Control in the Dental Office A Global Perspective 1st
Edition by Louis DePaola, Leslie Grant ISBN 3030300854 9783030300852

https://ebookball.com/product/infection-control-in-the-dental-
office-a-global-perspective-1st-edition-by-louis-depaola-leslie-
grant-isbn-3030300854-9783030300852-5260/

(Ebook PDF) Multicultural Education A Source Book 2nd edition by

Patricia Ramsey, Leslie R. Williams, Edwina Vold 1135582203
9781135582203 full chapters

https://ebookball.com/product/ebook-pdf-multicultural-education-
a-source-book-2nd-edition-by-patricia-ramsey-leslie-r-williams-
edwina-vold-1135582203-9781135582203-full-chapters-23048/

Qualitative Research for Education An Introduction to Theories and

Methods 5th Edition by Robert Bogdan, Sari Knopp Biklen ISBN
0205482937 9780205482931

https://ebookball.com/product/qualitative-research-for-education-
an-introduction-to-theories-and-methods-5th-edition-by-robert-
bogdan-sari-knopp-biklen-isbn-0205482937-9780205482931-17438/

Myths and Realities of Cyber Warfare Conflict in the Digital Realm 1st
edition by Nicholas Michael Sambaluk 9798216120964

https://ebookball.com/product/myths-and-realities-of-cyber-
warfare-conflict-in-the-digital-realm-1st-edition-by-nicholas-
michael-sambaluk-9798216120964-20126/

Realities of Canadian Nursing 4th Edition by McDonald Carol,Marjorie

McIntyre 160913687X 9781609136871

https://ebookball.com/product/realities-of-canadian-nursing-4th-
edition-by-mcdonald-carol-marjorie-
mcintyre-160913687x-9781609136871-922/
Global Constructions Of
Multicultural Education
Theories and Realities
 Sociocultural, Political, and Historical Studies in Education
Joel Spring, Editor
Spring • The Cultural Transformation of a Native American Family and Its Tribe, 1763–
1995
Reagan • Non-Western Educational Traditions: Alternative Approaches to Educational
Thought and Practice
Peshkin • Places of Memory: Whiteman’s Schools and Native American Communities
Spring • Political Agendas for Education: From the Christian Coalition to the Green Party
Nespor • Tangled Up in School: Politics, Space, Bodies, and Signs in the Educational
Process
Weinberg • Asian American Education: Historical Background and Current Realities
Books, Ed. • Invisible Children in the Society and Its Schools
Shapiro/Purpel, Eds. • Critical Social Issues in American Education: Transformation in a
Postmodern World, Second Edition
Lipka/Mohatt/The Ciulistet Group • Transforming the Culture of Schools: Yu’pik Eskimo
Examples
Benham/Heck • Culture and Educational Policy in Hawaii: The Silencing of Native Voices
Spring • Education and the Rise of the Global Economy
Pugach • On the Border of Opportunity: Education, Community, and Language at the U.S.-
Mexico Line
Hones/Cha • Educating New Americans: Immigrant Lives and Learning
Gabbard, Ed. • Knowledge and Power in the Global Economy: Politics and the Rhetoric of
School Reform
Glander • Origins of Mass Communications Research During the American Cold War:
Educational Effects and Contemporary Implications
Nieto, Ed. • Puerto Rican Students in U.S. Schools
Benham/Cooper, Eds. • Indigenous Educational Models for Contemporary Practice: In
Our Mother’s Voice
Spring • The Universal Right to Education: Justification, Definition, and Guidelines
Reagan • Non-Western Educational Traditions: Alternative Approaches to Educational
Thought and Practice, Second Edition
Peshkin • Permissible Advantage?: The Moral Consequences of Elite Schooling
DeCarvalho • Rethinking Family-School Relations: A Critique of Parental Involvement in
Schooling
Borman/Stringfield/Slavin, Eds. • Title I: Compensatory Education at the Crossroads
Roberts • Remaining and Becoming: Cultural Crosscurrents in an Hispano School
Meyer/Boyd, Eds. • Education Between State, Markets, and Civil Society: Comparative
Perspectives
Luke • Globalization and Women in Academics: North/West-South/East
Grant/Lei, Eds. • Global Constructions of Multicultural Education: Theories and Realities
Spring • Globalization and Educational Rights: An Intercivilizational Analysis
McCarty • A Place to Be Navajo: Rough Rock and the Struggle for S elf-Determination in
Indigenous Schooling
Global Constructions
Of Multicultural Education
Theories and Realities

Edited by

Carl A.Grant
University of Wisconsin—Madison

Joy L.Lei
Vassar College

LAWRENCE ERLBAUM ASSOCIATES, PUBLISHERS

Mahwah, New Jersey London
The camera ready copy for this book was supplied by the editors.

This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2008.

“To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s
collection of thousands of eBooks please go to http://www.ebookstore.tandf.co.uk/.”

Copyright © 2001 by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

All rights reserved. No part of the book may be reproduced in
any form, by photostat, microform, retrieval system, or any other
means, without the prior written permission of the publisher.
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers
10 Industrial Avenue
Mahwah, New Jersey 07430

Cover design by Kathryn Houghtaling Lacey

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Global constructions of multicultural education: theories and realities/edited by Carl

A. Grant, Joy L.Lei.
p. cm.—(Sociocultural, political, and historical studies in education)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0-8058-3597-0 (cloth: alk. paper)—ISBN 0-8058-3598-9 (pbk.: alk. paper)
1. Multicultural education—Cross-cultural studies—Congresses. I. Grant, Carl
A. II. Lei, Joy L. III. Series.

LC1099 .G56 2001

370.117—dc21 2001031516

ISBN 1-4106-0375-X Master e-book ISBN

This book is dedicated to Joy’s parents,
with love and appreciation.
 Contents

Foreword ix
Joel Spring
xi
Preface

1. Sociocultural and Linguistic Diversity, Educational Theory, 1

and the Consequences for Teacher Education: A Comparative
Perspective
Cristina Allemann-Ghionda
2. The Rise and Fall of Multicultural Education in the Australian 27
Schooling System
Desmond Cahill
3. Multicultural Education in India 59
Sveta Davé Chakravarty
4. What Can Multiculturalism Tell Us about Difference? The 91
Reception of Multicultural Discourses in France and
Argentina
Inés Dussel
5. Fashion or Compensation: The Developments of Multicultural 113
Education in Taiwan
Chuen-Min Huang
6. Language, Culture, and Identity in the Schools of Northern 131
Scandinavia
Leena Huss
7. Multiracial Reality, White Data: The Hidden Relations of the 153
Racial Democracy and Education in Brazil
Álvaro Moreira Hypolito
8. Multiculturalism, Diversity, and Education in the Canadian 169
Context: The Search for an Inclusive Pedagogy
Carl E.James
9. Multicultural Education in the United States: A Case of 201
Paradoxical Equality
Joy L.Lei and Carl A.Grant

vii
viii Contents

10. Intercultural Education in the European Union: The Spanish 235

Case
Miguel A.Santos-Rego and Servando Pérez-Domínguez
11. Post-Apartheid Education in South Africa: Toward 269
Multiculturalism or Anti-Racism
Jeremy Sarkin
12. Color Me Black, Color Me White: Teacher Education in the 287
Aftermath of the Apartheid Era—In Search of a Critical
Multicultural Perspective among a Complexity of
Contradictions
Patti Swarts and Lars O.Dahlström
13. International Perspectives on Education: The Response of the 313
Mother Country
Harry Tomlinson
14. Education, Social Class, and Dual Citizenship: The Travails 331
of Multiculturalism in Latin America
Carlos Alberto Torres
15. Addressing Equity and Social Justice Concerns in Chile’s 349
Formal and Informal Education: An Historical and
Contemporary Analysis
Guillermo Williamson C. and Carmen Montecinos
373
Contributors
379
Author Index
387
Subject Index
 Foreword
Joel Spring, Series Editor
New School University, U.S.A.

Many educators are not aware of the worldwide significance of multicultural

problems. In the United States multicultural and multilingual policies and
problems are directly related to the international migration of populations
resulting from colonialism and the current global economy. Global
Constructions of Multicultural Education: Theories and Realities confirms
the global importance of multicultural issues. Contrary to attempts by
nationalistic 19th century European historians to portray nations as
monocultural, most nations, including European nations, are multilingual and
multicultural. Government leaders, educators, and others need to be aware of
the interrelatedriess of cultural and language problems around the world. This
volume contains international examples that can be used in developing
policies and educational methods for resolving multicultural and multilingual
issues.
In their Preface, the editors recall that their interest in creating this volume
was sparked while traveling in Taiwan. Taiwan is a good example of how
global events have created multicultural and multilingual societies. Over the
course of centuries, Taiwan has experienced Chinese, European, and Japanese
colonialism. The result is a society divided by language and culture. Today,
the Taiwanese government is attempting to maintain the languages and
cultures of nine indigenous tribes. The survivors of this indigenous holocaust
are demanding bilingual and bicultural education. In addition, older citizens,
who experienced Japanese colonialism up to the end of World War II,
remember being forced to learn Japanese. On call-in radio programs there are
raging debates over the language of schools. “Why can’t the schools use
Taiwanese dialect in the classroom?” is a frequently asked question because
of the imposition of Mandarin by the fleeing remnants of Chiang Kai-Shek’s
army in the late 1940s. In keeping with the growth of English as the global
language and the domination of Mandarin, a new bilingual Mandarin and
English elementary school has recently opened in Taipei. Political parties
continue to be divided by language and culture.
Taiwan is only one example of the effect of colonialism and population
movement in creating multilingual and multicultural societies. European
colonialism sparked the diaspora of African and Indian populations to
countries around the world. Adding to the complexities of these diasporas are

ix
x Spring

the clashes of cultures that exist in Africa and India. In recent years, European
nations have received many members of the African and Indian diaspora
along with “foreign workers,” particularly from Turkey. European nations
must now formulate educational, cultural, and citizenship policies to meet the
needs of these new immigrant populations. The Peoples Republic of China
continues to wrestle with problems faced by their linguistic and cultural
minorities.
The essays in this volume provide the reader with a comparative
understanding of the global range of multicultural issues and the many
approaches to resolving multicultural and multilingual issues. These essays
will heighten the reader’s awareness of the importance of developing sound
multicultural policies for resolving internal and external national conflicts.
 Preface

HOW AND WHY THIS BOOK PROJECT

The seed for this book was planted on a winding road in Taiwan. In 1997,
several scholars of multicultural education, from four countries including the
host country, were invited to participate in the “International Symposium on
Multicultural Education: Theories and Practices” at the National Taiwan
Normal University. The purpose of this symposium was to present to a mainly
Taiwanese audience (educators, policymakers, community leaders)
perspectives on the theories and practices of multicultural education,
including problems and issues confronting the field. This 5-day symposium
(May 29–June 2) also afforded the opportunity for the international group of
scholars presenting papers to both have time to listen (and hear) one another,
and to raise questions about the nature of multicultural education, including
the conditions of multicultural education in countries not represented at the
symposium.
Throughout the days these scholars spent together, it was often
acknowledged that the discussions were richly informative, in part because
they illuminated the fact that multicultural education, in some simple or
complex form, was underway in many different countries, and in part because
it became obvious that there was a great need for scholars of multicultural
education to know and understand the conditions of multicultural education in
a global context. It was during one of these discussions, particularly the one
that took place on a bus traveling on a very windy road to visit some of
Taiwan’s schools and cultural sites, that the idea was proposed to continue
these discussions the following year at the 1998 American Educational
Research Association’s (AERA) Annual Meeting in San Diego, California. It
was also proposed that these discussions be enriched and expanded by
including scholars on multicultural education from additional countries.
Christine Sleeter, who had accepted the position as Program Chair of the 1998
AERA Annual Meeting and one of the scholars on the bus, embraced the idea
and said, “Send me a proposal!”
“Conceptualizing How ‘Multicultural Education’ Is Being Played Out
Globally: The Beginning of a Dialogue” was the title of the 1998 AERA
symposium co-chaired by Carl Grant and Joy Lei. Quotation marks were
purposely placed around multicultural education to acknowledge that it is a
term widely used in some countries, but not the term of preference in other

xi
xii Grant and Lei

countries. The symposium brought together nine scholars, who addressed

multicultural education in nine different geographical regions. These invited
papers were enthusiastically received, but they also produced both feelings of
frustration and a call to action. The feelings of frustration came about because
the 2-hour symposium did not allow ample time (approximately 10 minutes
per paper) for the presentation and discussion of the papers. Nevertheless, it
did provide enough time for the audience and other presenters to know that
they wanted to learn more about multicultural education in the regions
discussed. They knew that the knowledge they were receiving about the
current conditions of multicultural education in different global regions was
not available in any published form. Material that addressed multicultural
education from multiple international perspectives was rare, and the few
publications that exist were published in the 1980s. Both presenters and
audience participants claimed that the knowledge about multicultural
education they were receiving was something that their students, as well as
other advocates of multicultural education, needed to know.
The presenters’ frustration with having an inadequate amount of time to
deliver their presentation was compounded by Carl holding up note cards at
the 5-minutes, 2-minutes, and time-is-up mark. Ultimately, this frustration did
serve a positive purpose of leading a call to action. It motivated the presenters
to accept the invitation to prepare their paper for publication. To prepare the
papers for publication, the presenters agreed to read each other’s paper. Each
presenter sent his or her paper to the other presenters in order for them to
offer feedback. The presenters thus served as referees. They pointed out areas
in the papers that needed additional work, for example, underdeveloped
theoretical frameworks or clarification of language that would make the
writing more user friendly to an international audience. This process of
reading other presenters’ papers also offered the author/reader ideas for his or
her own chapter. The plan worked well—the authors provided each other with
excellent feedback. Two of the chapter authors, however, were unable to
continue to work on their paper due to other obligations and therefore decided
to drop out of the project.
We (Carl and Joy) assumed the editorship of the book project, including
finding a publisher and coordinating the review process. While waiting for the
papers to be reviewed and for the authors to respond to the feedback, we
identified additional authors in other global regions to contribute to the book.
Originally, the hope was to have at least one chapter from a country within
each of the continents. This goal, although not achieved because of time
constraints, did allow us to discover from our discussions with potential
authors that the ideals and realities of multicultural education exist in many
countries throughout the world.
 Preface xiii

WHAT DO THESE CHAPTERS TELL US?

The chapters in this volume tell us about how various global regions are
dealing with three major areas of concern within the field of multicultural
education: (a) the conceptualization and realization of “difference” and
“diversity,” (b) the inclusion and exclusion of social groups within a
definition of multicultural education, and (c) the effects of power on relations
between and among groups identified under the multicultural education
umbrella.
The chapters are informative of how different regions have been or are
presently dealing with issues of “difference” and “diversity” in their
educational system. Because each region has a different sociohistorical
context, the chapters point to the different terminology used in varying
regions in discussing the same concepts or ideals. They also tell how the
various regions are approaching difference and diversity from distinct cultural
and ideological perspectives, or if difference and diversity are receiving any
attention at all. Additionally, these chapters tell us whether or not the various
regions define difference and diversity in the same ways.
Which social groups are included under the multicultural education
umbrella in particular global regions? Do all or most regions include, for
example, gender and class when discussing or practicing multicultural
education? Or is multicultural education exclusively about race and ethnic
culture? In other words, does it mainly address anti-racist education? From
reading the chapters we not only learn about the inclusiveness of the
multicultural education umbrella in the different regions, we also discover in
which countries these marginalized groups receive equal or fair support to
achieve equality and equity. In other words, the chapter authors have not
particularized multicultural education so that it focuses on only one dimension
of diversity and/or “otherness.”
Also, some critics of multicultural education have argued that discussions
on the effects of power within the multicultural education discourse are absent
or muted. The chapter authors in this book directly address how power
relations between dominant and subordinate/marginalized/oppressed groups
based on socially constructed markers significantly affect and differentiate the
educational experiences of students.
Whereas the chapter authors do pay attention to the themes we just noted,
they also bring their particular interest and perspective to the book. The
chapters address issues such as linguistic, racial, ethnic, and religious
diversity, class, educational inequalities, teacher education, conceptualizations
of citizenship, and issues of identity construction. In addition, the authors
offer both historical and social contexts for their analytical discussion on the
ideals and practices of multicultural education in a particular region.
xiv Grant and Lei

In summary, Global Constructions of Multicultural Education: Theories

and Realities is not a book that tells us about multicultural education with an
international “twist;” it provides readers with different ways to think, talk, and
research about issues of “diversity,” “difference,” and the effects of power as
they relate to education.

ARRANGEMENT OF CHAPTERS

The chapters in the book are arranged alphabetically, according to the

authors’ surname. By using this arrangement, we suggest that there is not one
recommended order for reading the chapters. Instead, our recommendation is
that the reader take a region (or author) that he or she knows pretty well and
one that he or she does not know well, and compare and contrast the
conditions of multicultural education in the two regions. Or, allow your
scholarly interest to direct your choice.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

There are several individuals whom we wish to thank for their efforts in
bringing this project to successful fruition. Christine E.Sleeter, as Program
Chair of the 1998 AERA Annual Meeting, strongly endorsed the idea of a
symposium on multicultural education in global contexts and saw to it that
such a symposium became a part of the program. Jim Banks, as the President
of AERA at the time, supported Christy’s decision and noted that the
symposium was in keeping with the Annual Meeting’s theme, “Diversity and
Citizenship in Multicultural Societies.” Wenjing (Peter) Shan and Jason
Chang at the National Taiwan Normal University coordinated the
“International Symposium on Multicultural Education: Theories and
Practices” in Taiwan, where the idea originated, and gave us four great days
to discuss multicultural education and to enjoy Taiwan’s hospitality. Naomi
Silverman of Lawrence Erlbaum Associates and Joel Spring, editor of the
Sociocultural, Political, and Historical Studies in Education series, both
deserve a big thanks for their enormous support, including shepherding the
idea for this book though the publication process. We also thank Lori Hawver
and Sondra Guideman at Lawrence Erlbaum Associates for their guidance
during our preparation of the book manuscript. Much appreciation goes to
Jennifer Austin, who did the countless little but important tasks to help bring
about the publication of this book, and Corrin Rausenberger, who carefully
completed the tedious task of the Author and Subject Indexes. Finally, and
most importantly, we thank the contributors to Global Constructions of
 Preface xv

Multicultural Education: Theories and Realities for their intelligent and

insightful chapters, their wonderful collegiality, and their patience and
diligence throughout the publication process.
—Carl A.Grant and Joy L.Lei
 Chapter 1
Sociocultural and Linguistic
Diversity, Educational Theory, and
the Consequences for Teacher
Education: A Comparative
Perspective
Cristina Allemann-Ghionda
University of Cologne, Germany

The dimension of cultural and linguistic diversity and its significance for
education have been discussed in Europe especially after the Second World
War, but much more intensely from the mid-1970s on, when migration
became visible as a stable fact in many immigration countries. The role of
international organizations such as UNESCO, the Council of Europe, OECD,
and the European Commission was and is influential in this field, promoting
both discussion and international cooperation on policies, theory building, and
research on implementation (CDCC, 1986; Commission of the European
Community, 1994; OECD, 1991; Sténou, 1997; Wagner, 1997). Many
universities in immigration countries boast scholarship on migration studies
and, particularly, on the relationships between migration, multicultural
society, the importance of culture for the development of individuals,
bilingualism, multilingualism, and the aims and contents of education.
This chapter focuses, in its first section, on the latest developments of the
continental Western European theoretical discussion on intercultural
approaches to education. To do so, the author had to select a part of the
literature available and therefore concentrates on texts by German- and
French-speaking scholars, thus providing examples from three countries with
a long and rich experience with immigration and its effects on education, an
experience starting from the late 1950s: Germany, France, and the French-
speaking part of Switzerland. The discussion developed in Italy and the
Italian-speaking part of Switzerland is also considered. The school systems of
these regions had to react to a foreign-speaking immigration only from the
late 1980s on. The kind of “intercultural education” conceptualized in this
area of Europe reflects a time and experience gap, but also different
determinants: in the migrant population, in the structures of the education
systems, and in the tradition of social research as well as of pedagogical

1
2 Allemann-Ghionda

research and development. The conceptions resulting from these different

backgrounds are briefly outlined. Some arguments used in the criticism of
intercultural education are also discussed in this section.
In the second section, it is argued that the intercultural approach is to be
conceptualized as a core issue in general education. It is maintained that the
cultural dimension of education is to be included in such a conceptualization,
but in the framework of a broad and complex net of factors. A definition of an
education respectful of sociocultural and linguistic diversity is given, and the
aims and elements of such an education are outlined. In these two sections,
the author’s data and literature background is mainly supported by her own
comparative, empirical, and qualitative research into the strategies developed
in six school systems located in six regions of the four countries already
mentioned: Germany, France, Italy, Switzerland,1 as well as studies of the
theoretical conceptions developed in the same area and beyond (Allemann-
Ghionda, 1997a, 1997b; Dasen, 1997).
Finally, in the third section some conclusions are drawn as to the
consequences that a concept of general education thus reshaped (i.e.,
including the dimension of sociocultural and linguistic diversity) has for the
aims and contents of basic teacher education. Elements for a reformed
curriculum (primary and junior high school teachers) are presented.

INTERCULTURAL EDUCATION: A PEDAGOGICAL

UTOPIA IN AN INSTITUTIONAL VACUUM

The policies on the issue of multiculturalism in society and school in the

different countries involved in this chapter cannot be presented here and are
not the primary subject. This would be the topic of another paper, if not of
several books (Todd, 1994; Wicker, 1997). However, it may be helpful to
give some basic information in order to locate correctly the meaning and the
possibilities of implementation of the pedagogical change intended by the
scholars who promote “intercultural education.”
To put it bluntly: None of the four European countries considered here has
a governmental, official program to foster multiculturalism in society or in
education. Of the four countries, France is the one most clearly against
multicultural policies. Its official philosophy is that of integration and
absorption of cultural differences. The latter are tolerated, but their
reproduction is not encouraged (Haut Conseil, 1991). According to the policy
of the 1990s, one of the aims of education is to promote a dominant role of
French culture and language, as stated in the curricula (Ministère de

1
For detailed descriptions of the case studies and for the cross-case analysis, see the
author’s publications mentioned in the References.
 Sociocultural and Linguistic Diversity 3

l’Education Nationale, 1994). France is the only country that gives citizenship
on the grounds of ius soli2 much like in the United States, although with a
somewhat more restrictive rule. This is a fundamental detail, for a reason that
is explained later. The other three countries, Germany, Italy, and Switzerland,
do not have a state policy for multiculturalism. However, in laws and
recommendations they claim to favor integration and to respect the right of
minorities to keep contacts with their cultures and languages of origin, much
more strongly than France does. These two principles are also stated in
recommendations concerning “intercultural education” as well as in the
curricula of many school systems,3 in which teachers are encouraged to
appreciate the variety of the cultures and languages represented by migrant
children or, more generally, to develop a pluralist, in some cases even a
relativist understanding of cultures and of history, and sometimes also of
religion (detailed analysis in Allemann-Ghionda, 1999). Each of these three
countries has a more or less restrictive way of granting citizenship to
immigrants, their laws being more and less based on ius sanguinis: Italy
undertook a reform in 1991 in order to make the procedure to obtain the
citizenship easier for citizens of the European Union and harder for extra-
Europeans (Caritas di Roma, 1997, p. 173). The difference in treatment on the
issue of citizenship is crucial in order to understand the meaning of concepts
like “migrant,” “foreigner,” and “cultural minority” in each of the countries
discussed here. If a country allows and encourages migrants to become its
citizens, integration occurs as a natural consequence of an institutional act,
and the question of keeping one’s original cultural identity alive is regarded as
secondary even by the former migrants themselves; or a t least, this is the case
in the European countries discussed here. In these countries, as soon as a
migrant becomes a citizen of the immigration country, the topic of defending
his or her cultural identity becomes almost irrelevant. The cultural identity of
migrants is no major political issue, and no powerful movement of cultural or
ethnic recognition of migrants or former migrants who became citizens of the
immigration country is known in these countries. The quest for having a space
recognized for cultures and languages of migrants has been put forward by
few single associations representing some of the better organized ethnic
groups, while the majority of the migrants remain isolated and silent in this
respect. Yet the effectiveness of the few organized groups has never become

2
his soli means literally “right of soil” or “law of soil”—that is, a country gives
citizenship to any child that is born on its soil. The opposite concept is ius sanguinis,
“right of blood,” which means that a person inherits citizenship from his or her
parents. Germany recently (2000) modernized its law on the acquisition of citizenship,
introducing a mixture of ius soli and ius sanguinis.
3
The plural is used because Germany and Switzerland, both federal states, have
respectively 16 and 26 different school systems.
4 Allemann-Ghionda

so strong as to provoke durable legal and institutional reforms in any of the

four countries. The question of the national, regional minorities in the four
countries, their quest for recognition in society and education, and its meaning
for intercultural forms of education might and should be discussed in a similar
way (Allemann-Ghionda, 1998), but this topic cannot be dealt with here for
space reasons. However, the literature on the language rights of national
minorities usually excludes the issue of migrants’ languages (see, e.g.,
Giordan, 1992).
As there is no affirmative policy in favor of multiculturalism, in none of
the four countries is there a way to “force” school authorities and teachers to
implement intercultural education by adapting the school structures and
teaching contents, although the concept of intercultural education is
mentioned in school policy documents (except in France, where this concept
gradually disappeared from official policy documents). There is a gap
between the official educational policies and the normal school reality, which
mostly runs according to the principle of assimilation, not even integration.
Some exceptions do exist in form of experimental projects (Allemann-
Ghionda, 1995), but the duration of these innovations is mostly short. The
weak reaction of schools to the challenge of multicultural issues is just one
more example of how hard it is to change the “grammar of schooling,” as
Tyack and Tobin (1993) called the normal, routine functioning of schools.
The current trend (especially strong in German-speaking areas) to give each
school a large amount of autonomy, combined with the increasingly popular
political fashion to run schools as if they were private enterprises, with the
financial difficulties public institutions currently have to face, as well as with
the dominance of market-oriented decisions in daily school policies, makes it
even more difficult to implement any ideas expressed in policy documents,
advanced as these may be. Nor do the central, or local authorities blame
schools or the authorities at the level just below them for not carrying out
what is recommended in policy documents. Yet, statistically speaking, the
children of migrant families are subject to school failure more frequently and
more severely than the children of natives, so that the absence of affirmative
policies in favor of cultural and linguistic minority children, and the
impossibility to have local authorities, teachers, and teacher educators take
seriously any recommendations, is a major problem. The implications of this
poor degree of implementation can hardly be underestimated, if only because
of the percentages of migrant children in the schools of Switzerland (21%),
Germany (11%), France (10%) and Italy (less than 1%) (these average
percentages conceal the fact that in a single school there can be up to 90%
migrant children), not to mention other facets of the concept of “intercultural
education” beyond the ones related to migration.
Given the absence of affirmative policies to protect and foster the plurality
of cultures and languages of migrants in society and in education, the theories
 Sociocultural and Linguistic Diversity 5

of intercultural education developed in the different countries represent

attempts to change a mainstream idea of education and of pedagogy that is
historically still based on the concept of “one nation, one culture, one
language.” (In Switzerland, a country with four language regions, German,
French, Italian, and Romansh, it will be: “one region, one culture, one
language.”)
But let us get back to the history of intercultural education in Europe, in
order to see how these attempts to change a traditional, nationbased
conception of education gradually developed.
The first decades of experience with children of migrants (roughly from
1955 to 1975) were informed by the “swim-or-sink” principle. Teaching these
children the official language and aiming at their fast assimilation was the
official and currently practiced strategy. Accordingly, the first “theories”
about schooling migrant pupils essentially aimed at developing appropriate,
scientifically based methods to teach migrant children the second language,
that is, the language of the country they were presumably going to live in for a
time long enough to require language skills. Such theories and methods were
particularly developed in Germany (Apeltauer, 1987), where several
universities installed chairs in this field. In France, a scientific approach to the
teaching of French as a second language was much less developed, as the
methods for teaching French as a foreign language were considered by many
as adequate for a migrant public too (Pujol & Véronique, 1991). It eventually
appeared to some that in spite of apparently sound theory and methods, this
compensatory pedagogy did not prevent migrant children from being, on the
whole, less successful in school than natives. It was clear that their belonging
mostly to an underprivileged class was a major source of difficulty in school.
But, additionally, the idea emerged that cultural and linguistic factors might
be of importance in several respects. The practice of suppressing or simply
ignoring the language and culture of the child’s parents was more and more
criticized.
The concept of “intercultural education” was first used in the mid1970s in
Germany and France, and some years later in Switzerland, when immigration
was already a consolidated reality in these countries, and when it was evident
that a schooling strategy merely based on assimilation was not effective
(school failure) and, moreover, was contrary to the rights of minorities to have
their cultures and languages respected. The term intercultural education was
at that time associated with the presence of migrant children whose cultures
and languages of origin were no longer to be excluded from school, but on the
contrary were to be included at least by making the teachers aware of the
specific backgrounds of the pupils. The active respect of “other” cultures
passed, in this phase, through permitting and encouraging the teaching of the
mother tongues of migrants in the schools of the immigration countries. The
reason given was, at first, that in case of return to their countries of origin, the
6 Allemann-Ghionda

students would be able to attend schools in their own mother tongues. Later,
mother-tongue teaching became an argument for better second-language
learning. Finally, the identity argument was introduced. The principle of
mother-tongue teaching found its way into official recommendations of the
single countries from the early 1970s, then the Commission of the European
Community took up the idea in its guidelines of 1977.
The conceptualization of intercultural education in Western Europe has
several sources. One of them is that some scholars previously active in the
field of second-language teaching became aware of the unsatisfactory results
of this approach in schools. The other source is of a more theoretical nature.
The emerging of the “cultural paradigm” in disciplines such as anthropology
and psychology contributed to a first paradigm shift in pedagogy: from the
paradigm of assimilation (based on a deficit hypothesis) to that of the
recognition of cultural difference (based on a difference hypothesis). The
influence of the North American discussion was considerable. As Dittrich and
Radtke (1990) pointed out, the concept of “ethnicity” (an expression of the
positive view of cultural difference), not used in Western Europe after the
World War II because of its negative political connotations based on the
persecution of ethnic minorities under the Nationalsocialist and Fascist
regimes, began to be scientifically and politically acceptable in the same
countries that had been ruled by those regimes (Germany and Italy) as well as
in other countries, after it was reimported from the United States and Canada
(and, particularly, Quebec) and was attributed a new, positive connotation
linked to the affirmative policies for ethnic minorities in these countries. One
of the first theoretical laboratories for intercultural education was the Council
of Europe, and more specifically its project Number 7 “The education and
cultural development of migrants” (CDCC, 1986), in which scholars from
many countries cooperated. The Council of Europe received the contributions
of scholarships of many countries and gave back, in turn, conceptions and
policy recommendations to the same countries. But where a country had no
political orientation and no legal basis for multiculturalism, these theoretical
frameworks and practical recommendations remained almost without
consequences: a necessary pedagogical Utopia in an institutional vacuum.
The analyses and conceptions developed in the Council of Europe were
inspiring for the scientific communities of each country involved. So in a way
intercultural education as it was conceptualized in Europe in the 1980s,
represents a European discourse in that it contains a common core of ideas.
Nevertheless, in each country the theoretical debate on intercultural education
does have particular features, and in each national scientific community one
can detect different positions, which does not simplify the task of description,
analysis, and comparison. In the following, we attempt to characterize how
intercultural education is presently conceptualized in the four countries,
 Sociocultural and Linguistic Diversity 7

noting common features and differences. The aim is not to be exhaustive, but
to show the main points as well as the most controversial issues.
To avoid a certainly long and maybe dull description, we make the
comparison along the way in which in the four countries the intercultural
dimension of education deals with two fundamental concepts: cultural
difference and multilingualism.
As mentioned previously, the concept of cultural difference became
relevant in European pedagogical discourses as a reaction to several stimuli,
one of which was the adoption of the concept of “ethnicity” as it was known
in the United States and in Canada in the 1970s and 1980s. The “old”
immigration countries Germany and Switzerland, and, some years later, the
“new” immigration country, Italy, developed conceptions of intercultural
education based on a positive view of cultural difference and on the
acceptance of ethnicity. The category of the ethnic, scientifically legitimized
after it was positively connotated thanks to affirmative policies in the United
States and in Canada, became frequently mentioned in theoretical texts, policy
documents, and even textbooks (Allemann-Ghionda, 1997c), either explicitly
using the term of ethnicity (Nieke, 1995) or enhancing in other ways the
positive value of cultural difference (Rey-von Allmen, 1996). The fascination
of cultural difference and of ethnicity appears to be very strong in Italy, a
country in which immigration from abroad came later, and it was and is an
immigration mostly from extraEuropean countries. So in the Italian discussion
we find a dominance of the topos of getting acquainted with “the Other,”
which is perceived both as a necessity and an exciting experience, as “the
Other” appears to be utterly different in his or her looks, speech, and lifestyle.
Cultural difference seems to still have an absolute and unquestioned position
in the Italian discussion (Secco et al., 1992).
In the old immigration countries, however, the cultural paradigm is not
totally unquestioned, but on the contrary, subject to criticism. This is the case
especially in France, where the research tradition is characterized by a
répugnance á I’ interethnique et an minoritaire, as De Certeau (1987, p. 191,
note 5) pointed out. The roots of this aversion against everything ethnic and
against cultural particularism are to be seen in the centralist tradition, in the
anti-republican past of autochthonous minorities, as well as in the
structuralistic Marxist orientation of the social sciences, predominating up to
the 1980s—an orientation in which the socioeconomic aspect is the main and
essential criterion to analyze society. Accordingly, some authors in France
warn against the emphasis put on cultural difference, because this would
encourage a form of cultural, neo-differentialist racism, not less dangerous
than the traditional biology-based racism (Taguieff, 1985). So in France, the
conception of intercultural education, which was included in policy
documents in the mid-1970s, was gradually thrust into the background and is
now considered obsolete by many authors; the nation-based, conservative
8 Allemann-Ghionda

education policy of the 1990s is complementary to this development in

theory. The criticism of the fostering of cultural difference and of intercultural
education leads to a pedagogy in which the equal rights of all children as
citizens are to be central, regardless of any cultural specificity (Costa-
Lascoux, 1992).
Parallel to the discussion in France, a similar discourse developed in
Germany. According to Radtke (1995, p. 46), intercultural education has
encouraged a culturalist and ethnicist point of view of the professional
educational thinking that now leads attention away from internal structural
problems of the organization of schools to cultural determinants external to
schools. Instead of talking about cultural differences, educationalists should
concentrate on the equality of opportunities and treatment, and on eliminating
the barriers to integration. An equivalent of the French anti-culturalist
sociology would be the position expressed by Bukow and Llaryora (1993).
For them, cultural difference is but a fallacious construction. Only the
socioeconomic position of a person and of a group are relevant. Whereas in
France intercultural education has almost completely disappeared from the
theoretical and policy discussion, this is not so in Germany. The criticism of
the cultural paradigm, on the contrary, encourages a more differentiated
conceptualization of intercultural education, both in theories and in policy
documents: a conception in which culture matters, but the social and
economical determinants of a child’s life matter also. A similar evolution can
be observed in Switzerland.
Why is cultural difference so important in the discourse of many German,
Swiss, and Italian scholars (and in official policy documents)? And why is the
criticism of intercultural education so harsh in the theory (and policy)
discussion of France? Whereas the research tradition of France is strongly
influenced by structuralist and Marxist positions, the research traditions of the
other countries owe their arguments to equal or more strong influences
favorable to the recognition of the specificity of minority languages and
cultures. Especially after the Second World War, many scholars in Italy and
Germany endeavored to develop or revitalize pedagogical theories open to
internationalism and to the respect of different cultures, languages, and points
of views, as a sort of moral commitment to the democratic ideals that had
been mortified during the totalitarian regimes. In Switzerland, the openness
for interculturalism in research may be seen as a facet of the pluralism of
opinions and the search for consensus deeply rooted in society and in politics,
as an aspect of the plurality of cultures, which (at least in part) neutralizes
nationalist ideas about culture in pedagogy, as an influence of the German and
Italian pedagogical discussion on interculturalism, and as the pedagogical
outcome of the discussion in the international organizations, some of them
located in Geneva. A further factor of differentiation may lie in the principles
that rule the organization of the common life of different cultural and
 Sociocultural and Linguistic Diversity 9

linguistic groups. Germany, Italy and Switzerland’s constitutions all mention

the protection of language and cultural as well as religious minorities,
whereas France’s constitution only mentions the equal rights of all citizens
(not communities). France has a centralist government system (as does Italy),
but Germany and Switzerland are governed according to a federal system that
allows leeway for many different accommodations to regional specificity. The
Italian centralism, however, is mitigated by the constitutional principle and by
laws favorable to minorities, including migrants; in those texts cultural
difference is mentioned as a positive element. The variety contained in and
resulting from federalism theoretically offers a favorable background for the
idea of tolerating or even appreciating cultural and linguistic difference. In
practice, though, local specificities can generate parochialism in language
issues. Generally speaking, none of the four countries treat national and
foreign minorities equally.
Beside cultural difference, miiltilingnalism is an equally important topic in
the discussion about intercultural education. Many authors think that, in order
to open education to an intercultural dimension, as well as to appreciate the
specific culture and needs of migrants, it is wise and necessary to value the
bilingualism of migrants and of any other bilingual person. This assumption,
however, is not equally strong in the four countries, nor is it developed in the
same way everywhere.
Generally speaking, the language issue in intercultural education is
stronger in Germany and Switzerland, and weaker in France and Italy. In
Germany and in Switzerland, the arguments include: (a) the importance of
allowing migrant children to continue to learn the language of their parents,
so that they may strengthen their personal and social identity as well as
become better speakers of the second language, and bilingual speakers
altogether; and (b) the idea of making all pupils or students familiar with the
variety of languages, so that they may learn to respect the persons and
cultures represented by those languages. Good examples of a synthesis
between theoretical approaches and curriculum development for multicultural
schools have only recently been published (Kuhs & Steinig, 1998). Both in
Germany and Switzerland, the favorable attitude of many researchers toward
the language issue may be influenced by a relatively strong attention to
foreign language teaching in the school systems.
In France and Italy, the language issue is much less discussed, but for quite
different reasons. In France, the strong assimilating philosophy and
institutionalized intended integration (especially through citizenship), along
with the policy to strengthen the French language and culture, leads to
underestimating the importance of the languages of migrant children in public
education, even if a minority of researchers claims to defend a space for
mother tongue tuition, and some migrants’ languages are included in the offer
of “foreign languages.” In Italy, it is essentially the kind of migration that
10 Allemann-Ghionda

determines the small attention given to bilingualism and multilingualism in

intercultural education. Migrants come essentially from African and Asian
countries, and they speak “exotic” languages or dialects. The heterogeneity of
immigration makes it even more difficult to imagine the inclusion of any
other language beside Italian and the foreign language taught in a particular
school, although the policy documents declare openness to the languages of
migrants. For similar reasons, migrant languages are not much considered in
the Italian-speaking part of Switzerland. Both in France and in Italy, the
theoretical discussion seems to be unfavorably influenced by the scarce
attention given to foreign language teaching in the school systems until very
recently.
In the pedagogy of the four countries, European integration is now a
powerful stimulus to pay more attention to the questions related to cultural
difference and multilingualism in education, but not necessarily and in no
case only related to migrant students.
Where the intercultural discussion has not been drawn back by a severe
criticism and rejection of cultural specificity in the name of what we might
call an equity hypothesis, the current discussion on intercultural education is
evolving. After a first paradigm shift, a transition from a paradigm of
assimilationism (informed by a deficit hypothesis) to a paradigm of cultural
difference and ethnicity (informed by a difference hypothesis), a second
paradigm shift might be characterized by the evolution towards the paradigm
of heterogeneity and pluralism (informed by a diversity hypothesis). Finally, a
third paradigm shift appears to take place in theory: In the early 1990s, more
and more authors of texts in general pedagogy (Heyting & Tenorth, 1994)
have recognized that the plurality of cultures and pluralism in education are
not marginal issues concerning a special pedagogy for migrants and
minorities or maybe for multilingual and multicultural environments, but that
they are core issues concerning general pedagogy, regardless of the
characteristics of the students involved. The next section of this chapter
develops the contents of the evolution of the intercultural education,
particularly the two last paradigm shifts described previously.

SOCIOCULTURAL AND LINGUISTIC DIVERSITY AS

A CORE ISSUE IN GENERAL EDUCATION AND
PEDAGOGY

Why does culture matter in education? In the theoretical conceptions of

intercultural education we find that the factor “culture” is mentioned as
relevant at one or more of the following different levels:
 Sociocultural and Linguistic Diversity 11

• The cultural and social backgrounds of students, teachers, and parents

should be taken into account in order to understand their attitudes,
actions, and learning problems as well as personal and social needs.
• The international and multicultural character of society as a consequence
of migration and other phenomena related to globalization should be
included as topics in order to change the cultural contents of the curricula.
• The cultural contents of education should be revised altogether in the
name of a universalist idea of education, free from any form of
ethnocentrism, so the contents include different perspectives and educate
for pluralism and relativism.
In the first conceptions (1970s), intercultural education was primarily a
matter of the first level: an approach to help migrants coping with school, and
schools coping with migration. The discussion gradually widened toward the
general question of preparing young people to live in a multicultural, socially
heterogeneous environment; in this context, the European integration became
more and more an argument for intercultural integration. Finally, the question
of pluralism and relativism was discussed as a question for the philosophy of
education, independent from the kind of students involved in a particular
setting,
As we saw, some critical positions argue that the cultural factor is of no
importance whatsoever, because it is the result of a social and scientific
construction, it hides the factors of differentiation that really matter in society
(i.e., the social and economic situation of individuals and groups), it can be
misused for discriminating against these persons and groups, and it does not
change the negative situation of migrants in school for the better.
To such criticism, one may answer that feelings of cultural identity are not
only the product of heteronomous attribution, but are also or even more
subjective realities (and realities nevertheless) that determine an individual’s
life and may lead him or her to express belonging and loyalty to a group, and
to experience the effects of difference. Moreover, sociopsychological research
has provided objective evidence for the fact that cultural difference affects the
communication between individuals and groups (Camilleri & Vinsonneau,
1996; Gudykunst, 1993). From a pedagogical point of view, we have to
consider two main points: On the one hand, a total exclusion of all topics of
cultural and linguistic variety in school eventually leads back to a conception
of education identical to that of the nationbased education systems of the 19th
century. Social justice will not arise out of this, but ethnocentric and
nationalistic ways of thinking will be supported on the side of the cultural
majority, and discrimination will result for minorities. On the other hand, a
well-founded dealing with cultural factors (differences, variety) will not
conceal the factors of the social, economic, and political forces that rule
human relationships, but will integrate them in the elaboration of a
conception.
12 Allemann-Ghionda

So the conceptualization of education in a society marked by globalization

and by multiple relationships between cultures needs to pursue reflection
about the role of the cultural factor. However, the theoretical discussion about
intercultural education seems to be stuck at present. One reason may be the
difficulty to implement theories. Theories are difficult to implement if the
political and institutional framework is not favorable (lack of policies for
multiculturalism). A further question must be asked: Are the school systems
compatible with intercultural approaches? In other words, the discussion
about how to take into account cultural factors in education should link the
theoretical discussion with a close and critical look at the structures of the
education systems as they actually are, particularly focusing the questions of
selection and exclusion or inclusion.
At this point, we refer to the second and third paradigm shift in the
discussion.
The second paradigm shift implies that the definition of education should
not focus merely on the cultural difference, but on a complex set of
differences that may be encountered in a classroom and a school, exactly as is
the case in any larger group of persons That is, there are differences in
culture, language, religion, social and economic position, and gender, to
mention some differences of the collective kind; but there are also differences
basically related to the individual, such as psychological or character or
physical features, opinions, sexual orientation, health, and social behavior. All
of these contribute to make groups in most schools heterogeneous in many
respects, and not only when and because migrant or other minority students
are present. The pedagogical consequence of this statement would be that the
teacher or the teaching team should be able to work on the grounds of a
school organization, with a curriculum and teaching methods respectful of
this heterogeneity. In the present situation, this is often not possible because
some school systems do not respect heterogeneity as a “normal” fact of
society and of school. For example, going back to the four countries examined
in this chapter, we find that some school systems (Germany, German-
speaking part of Switzerland) are highly selective and segregating. They have
many forms of separating students considered apt for higher qualifications
from those whose school career and working life are due to be more modest
ones, and students regarded as “different” from those held to be “normal.”4
The result is a complex system of differently qualifying types of junior high
school, and of special classes such as special education for mildly and for
severely disabled children, and classes for migrant pupils who do not speak
the second language yet. Strangely enough, migrant students tend to be placed
in the classes for special education and in the less qualifying types of high

4
The reforms that have been gradually making some of the school systems in these
countries more permeable and inclusive cannot be discussed here.
 Sociocultural and Linguistic Diversity 13

school even when their only “difference” is that of belonging to a cultural

minority and socially underprivileged family, often combined with an
insufficient command of the second language. So the discriminating use of
cultural, linguistic, and social difference is very much supported by the very
structural orientation of the school systems. On the contrary, the school
systems of Italy, of France, and of the Italian-speaking part as well as some of
the French-speaking cantons of Switzerland, have altogether a more inclusive
orientation. This favorably affects the academic achievement of migrant
students, although a problem of school failure still exists. The structural
differences between school systems suggest that a “positive discrimination”
on the basis of cultural factors can only be successful in systems organized
and conceived for the inclusion and best possible integration of all forms of
“difference.” If the question of integration or segregation is not tackled
globally, the integration of cultural difference can only remain a sterile
cosmetic exercise. A cultural reform of education needs to be pursued in the
framework of structural changes toward inclusive structures, where these have
not yet taken place. And, where the school systems are inclusive, the cultural
and linguistic issue should be tackled specifically: It is a specific form of
difference that requires pedagogical attention in order to guarantee a just
treatment.
If the second paradigm shift just described is about going beyond a cultural
view of difference toward a comprehensive view of heterogeneity, and about
questioning the structural barriers that may hinder a just treatment of
differences, the third paradigm shift can be described as the transition from a
discussion that takes place in a scientific subcommunity (the intercultural
educationalists) to a discussion led in general pedagogy. So we have again the
question of trespassing artificial and excluding boundaries, this time in the
realm of the very definition of education, which is the basic preoccupation of
pedagogy. The many effects of globalization concern all young people,
teachers, and planners involved in education, regardless of their own cultural
identity. The theoretical discussion in general pedagogy ought to be interested
in reflecting on the aims, contents, and possible changes that are necessary in
order to make education a meaningful help to grow up in a world that is
globally interdependent, to be able to analyze events in this context, and to
communicate in it.
These very roughly defined finalities need to be made precise. In doing so,
the whole possible range of students is to be kept in mind: young people
belonging to a majority or to minorities, native or foreign. The following
elements for an education respectful of sociocultural and linguistic diversity
are suggested:
14 Allemann-Ghionda

• Subjective and objective support of the identity of sociocultural and

linguistic minority students.
• Constructing curriculum contents implying and reflecting the positive
value of the plurality of cultures and languages.
• Building communicative, action-oriented skills.
• Accepting sociocultural diversity and the plurality of ideas as a challenge
for democracy.

Subjective and Objective Support of the Identity of

Sociocultural and Linguistic Minority Students
One of the core ideas of intercultural education is that it traditionally aims at
strengthening the cultural identity of minorities. But how can this goal be
reached if there is almost consensus about narrow and onesided culturalistic
approaches being contraproductive? It is not by encouraging students
perceived as members of a minority to exhibit their origins and particularities,
that their identity will be strengthened and their rights respected. It seems
more urgent to bring about a kind of education in which the specific life
background and knowledge of minority students is kept in mind and inspires
the setting and contents of teaching at all times by surrounding them with an
atmosphere of respect and consideration. A concrete consequence of such
respect and consideration will be that the teaching is free of cultural, social,
religious, linguistic, or any other prejudice, as well as ethnocentrism, not to
mention racism. Even more concretely, the languages of migrants and other
minorities must have a definite place in the curriculum, along with the
cultural contents they express. This place will be different according to the
organizational possibilities of the school and to the staff available, and the
arrangements will vary from formal teaching of all languages represented (if
the minorities concerned agree), to bilingual classes or schools, to forms of
partial immersion involving some subject matters, to more informal and less
structured approaches of language and culture awareness (Byram & Morgan,
1994). In the European countries considered in this chapter, the connection
between language and culture is usually very tight in each community of
migrants. The language of origin is therefore the vehicle to express
consideration for culture. Thus, a pedagogy attentive to the plurality of
cultures must be aware and create awareness of the plurality of minority
languages. Such a pedagogy will be inscribed in the broader framework of an
education that is respectful of sociocultural and linguistic diversity. Respect
for sociocultural and linguistic minorities will go along with respect for any
other form of difference in the classroom. Respect will be a matter of attitude
to be fostered through education, but also a matter of teaching styles, of
learning opportunities, and of equity of treatment.
 Sociocultural and Linguistic Diversity 15

Constructing Curriculum Contents Implying and

Reflecting Over the Positive Value of the Plurality of
Cultures and Languages
The principle of respect and consideration of the cultures and languages of
minorities can be broadened and extended to become a general pedagogical
principle. Even beside and beyond the presence of minority students in a
classroom and the concern not to offend, but on the contrary to strengthen
their identities, the curriculum contents and the methods of presenting and
discussing such contents can be modeled in such a way that the plurality of
cultures and languages is constantly present and becomes evident to every
student. The plurality of perspectives (pluralism), combined with the exercise
of critical analysis, is a pervading principle that can be applied to any topic or
subject matter. Here again, language teaching (revisited) can be a very rich
experience. Choosing appropriate literary texts or material of everyday
situations, a teacher can lead students to sharpen their perception of difference
in the meanings given to concepts and things, and in ways of life. In subject
matters like history, geography, art history, history of religions, politics, and
biology, and also by interdisciplinary projects, the choice of meaningful
topics, “keytopics” as Klafki (1993) called them, can be helpful. Such
meaningful topics can embrace the problems that are relevant for society in a
general manner (not only for minorities), and at the same time contain
international or intercultural dimensions that allow to point at issues that
involve the power relationship between majorities and minorities in a town or
country (or between North and South, East and West), or the acceptance of
different ways of thinking and of living.

Building Communicative, Action-Oriented Skills

Besides fostering a basically open attitude to difference, and transmitting
contents carefully chosen to support openness, a definition of education
adequate for a society in which sociocultural and linguistic diversity is the
rule should also contain a set of skills in the realm of communicative
competence in a sense larger than the language-based one. Given the
assumption that virtually any individual in our world is confronted with other
individuals with backgrounds and ways of expressing themselves different
from his or hers, and that, moreover, any individual is asked to react mentally,
often also verbally and with actions, to a firework of messages in codes not
always known, such communicative skills must be considered as key
qualifications. Such qualifications have a factual and cognitive component, in
the sense that the individual should be able to analyze the messages conveyed
by persons or things, and to reflect on his or her own thoughts, feelings, or
reactions, instead of just reacting blindly to the irritations of difference.
Theoretical models and empirical research findings in cultural psychology
16 Allemann-Ghionda

and intercultural communication (Bennett, 1986) can provide instruments that

can be integrated into pedagogy and into teaching.

Accepting Sociocultural Diversity and the Plurality of

Ideas as a Challenge for Democracy
Sociocultural and linguistic diversity implies a complex plurality of lifestyles
and ideas. Misunderstandings and conflicts are likely to occur, power clashes
may be the consequence, uncertainty about whether a value system can be
accepted or not will occasionally disturb the relationship between people.
Plurality is a challenge for democracy, and the institutions in which education
takes place must meet this challenge in order to develop the students’
sensitivity for a democratic way of coping with misunderstandings, conflicts,
power clashes, and moral dilemmas. Such openness might be called
pluralism. Developing such sensitivity may be the task of a subject matter
designed for that, for example, philosophy. But education offers many more
opportunities for exercising democracy in situations that occur in daily school
life, or for discussing in school political events of more general interest. The
question of value relativism should not be excluded from such discussions. A
theoretical model for tackling differences is hard to find. If a single position
dominates without having been discussed, then a kind of pseudo-universalism
is imposed, in which the values of some minorities might be disregarded, and
in which the ethnocentrism of the cultural majority is the real, if hidden,
guideline (Todorov, 1989). If a total relativism of values is the rule, conflicts
may arise. Discussion on values issues can only be fruitful if a consensus is
the goal, and if such consensus is sought sincerely, without mental reserves
about the superiority of any culturally inscribed ethic model, as is proposed
by Gutmann (1993) in her concept of “deliberative universalism.” A shared
model and method of consensus finding is the necessary condition for the
institutions (and in particular for schools) to construct conflict-solving
strategies apparent to everyone.
The ideas expressed on how to shape education in school institutions imply
adequate conditions that are often not given yet. This means that in many
cases changes have to occur in the structure and organization of schools:
minority cultures and languages can hardly be respected unless the timetable
of a school, the staff, and the material facilities (rooms, etc.) are planned
accordingly. Changes are also necessary, in many cases, in the official
curriculum and in the textbooks provided by the authorities, or chosen by the
staff, or made by single teachers. However, our analysis of the existing
curricula in the four countries shows that the structural and organizational
conditions are often open, indefinite, and flexible enough to allow many of
the pedagogical changes proposed here. The curricula and textbooks can be
integrated with further written and nonwritten material in order to attain the
 Sociocultural and Linguistic Diversity 17

cultural change necessary for an education respectful of sociocultural and

linguistic diversity, as in the four aims already outlined.
But the problem of change is not only one of adequate exterior settings and
correct syllabi. Cultural change implying respect for sociocultural diversity
and coping with the plurality of ideas is a matter of how the persons
responsible for education, that is, teachers and school principals, are formed
to bring about a paradigm shift in schools, complementary to the paradigm
shift that is taking place in research. The application of such a pedagogy in
everyday education in schools is still to be constructed, and the first
generation of teachers has still to be educated in this perspective.
In the next section, an attempt is made to sketch the skills teachers (and
school principals) need to acquire so that they may act in the sense of a
pedagogy respectful of sociocultural and linguistic diversity and the pluralism
of ideas.

THE CONSEQUENCES FOR TEACHER EDUCATION

The structures for the education of primary level teachers of the four countries
have developed in systems outside the universities until very recent times.
Many of these institutions were or still are schools at a secondary level,
parallel to high schools. The first country to integrate the education of
primary level teachers into university-level institutes (Pädagogische
Hochschulen) and the universities from the 1960s on was Germany. In
France, this kind of reform was implemented in the early 1990s (Instituts
Universitaires de Formation des Enseignants). Italy is currently carrying out
a similar plan, and in most parts of federalist Switzerland, a political
discussion is taking place about whether or not, and how, to raise the
academic level of teacher education by including it into universities or
university-level institutions. Teachers for high school, however, receive an
academic education in all countries; this education in the subject matters is
not everywhere completed by a sufficient pedagogical education. For the
primary level, the nonacademic heritage means that specific institutional
cultures about how to define teacher education exist; they reflect different
social realities. Where the institutes for teacher education are structures
outside universities, the question of what place scientific knowledge has to
occupy in teacher education is often treated as a minor one: Practical skills
and teaching techniques are considered by the educators of teachers to be the
most (or only) necessary ones. On the contrary, where the education of
teachers is predominantly an academic one, as is the case for the secondary
level, pedagogical questions including the practical skills tend to be neglected.
The relation between “theory” and “practice” is a core issue in the current
18 Allemann-Ghionda

discussion on teacher education, with the ideal model still to be found even
where the reform is 30 years old (Radtke, 1996).
This premise is necessary in order to point at the structural and cultural
conditions in which a structural and cultural reform of the contents of
education has to be discussed. Recent research concentrates on the primary
level teacher education, but many statements apply a lso to the education of
junior high school teachers, especially the proposals for curricular contents
(Allemann-Ghionda et al., 1999a, 1999b). One point is, that the lack of
theoretical concern and consciousness produces but scant reflection in the
institutions themselves, about the implications of multicultural society and
schools for education in general, and for teacher education in particular.
Another point is that the curriculum contents in the present institutions for
primary teacher education in most cases do not contain systematic programs
for taking into account the dimension of cultural and linguistic plurality. The
curricula do contain some information and activities relevant to the problems
related to migration, in some cases more generally related to sociocultural and
linguistic diversity. Except for a few cases, this happens in an approximative
way, depending on the good will of single teacher educators, not on a policy
of the institution, nor of the school authority. The approach is often that of the
early stages of the discussion on school and migration (deficit hypothesis).
One exception is the University of Geneva, which has already taken over the
education of primary school teachers and included in its curriculum the
preparation for teaching in a multicultural perspective. Other examples of
relatively systematic curricular elements in teacher education are found in
Germany. This state of affairs of generally poor consideration of the issue
known as “sociocultural and linguistic diversity” may change, and research
results may contribute, especially in those regions that have not yet completed
the reform of teacher education for its curricular part.
Referring to the aims and contents of an education respectful of
sociocultural diversity, the following consequences for the contents of teacher
education may result:

Aim 1. The subjective and objective support of the identity of

sociocultural minority students requires teacher education to
be rich in carefully chosen knowledge on the background and
implications of migration and, in general, of sociocultural and
linguistic diversity as it appears in schools. Several disciplines
should contribute to constructing this knowledge: sociology,
psychology, social psychology, psycholinguistics, and
sociolinguistics. According to an empirical inquiry into the
contents of primary teacher training in Switzerland, for
example, the curricula contain no systematic information, and
often no information at all, about bilingualism, in the scope of
 Sociocultural and Linguistic Diversity 19

any taught subject. Many more examples could be quoted for

other topics that are crucial to understanding what happens in a
multilingual class with migrant students. If this kind of factual
knowledge and theoretical reflection is lacking, the teachers
are likely to misunderstand many events in the classroom and
at meetings with parents. The results will very often be
misplacement of migrant students in poorly qualifying classes
or school types, unconscious discrimination within the
classroom due to unreflected projection of negative prejudice
on ethnic grounds, production of school failure due to the
well-known Pygmalian effect, or reduction of every “wrong”
word or action of a migrant student to “cultural” or “ethnic”
causes. To avoid all these facts resulting from missing
contents in teacher education, the teacher students must be
formed to attain a level of analysis of the class accurate
enough to enable them to make hypotheses about the
children’s situation, previous knowledge and skills (and not
only ignorance and incapacities), language, culture and
religion background, as well as social environment. Especially
the language issue demands much more and better study and
training in several domains, ranging from knowledge about
social, institutional, and individual multilingualism and
bilingualism, to the development of teaching methods
adequate for classes with different levels ana qualities of
languaee skills. Even beside the variety of language skills a
class may have, teaching in heterogeneous classrooms requires
a variety of teaching methods and the know-now to let the
children learn at different speeds and according to different
learning styles. The art of teaching with individualized and
differentiated methods got lost along with the preindustrial
custom to organize school in multi-aged groups. The growing
heterogeneity in classrooms calls for such individualized
methods and for better ways of practicing an inclusive and at
the same time differentiated pedagogy.
Aim 2. Constructing curriculum contents implying a
plurality of cultures and languages requires that teachers be
able to reshape the curriculum contents in a pluralist way,
given the assumption that in many cases the official
curriculum and the textbooks will not meet this condition. To
be able to reshape curriculum contents, implies a strong
emphasis on training in text analysis and in curriculum
research. Text analysis means, in this case, the method of
examining given curricula and textbooks applying criteria to
20 Allemann-Ghionda

detect representations that might contain, for example,

ethnocentric views. Curriculum research means, in this case, a
method that will enable the teacher to complete the available
selective information contained in the textbooks and the whole
amount of information he or she has constructed in the course
of time, with new information (texts, resource persons, films,
etc.), and to arrange the contents in order to provide different
cultural perspectives and instruments for critical appraisal.
Both methods, text analysis and curricular research, are
necessary particularly at this stage, in which intercultural
education or, more broadly, an education respectful of
sociocultural diversity and of the plurality of ideas as it may
be discussed in educational theory, has harclly been
transferred into curricula and especially into textbooks.
Aim 3. Building communicative, action-oriented skills
requires from teacher education that it be enriched with
specific elements of cultural psychology and social
psychology, giving special attention to systematic work on the
cultural biography of each teacher student. The teachers are to
get acquainted with theories concerning communication, and
specifically communication between individuals and groups
with different social and cultural backgrounds. The typically
occurring stereotypes and reactions are to be studied, and
possible ways of acting and reacting to the practical part of the
teacher education are to be imagined and “rehearsed,” with the
help of role plays and other methods apart from the mainly
cognitive approach to texts.
Aim 4. Accepting sociocultural diversity and the plurality
of ideas as a challenge for democracy requires from teacher
education restructured curricular contents in the subjects
philosophy and politics, or general pedagogy if such subjects
are not taught. The capacity to communicate and act
appropriately in heterogeneous groups because of the social,
cultural, religious, and linguistic background of the students, is
to be enhanced by working on the personal and social skills
the student teacher has (Aim 3). A further step is to explicitly
discuss, in teacher education, the issue of value conflicts of
ethical, religious, or political nature. If the pedagogical aim is
that schools be able to develop coherent strategies for solving
conflicts based on ethical, religious, or political issues,
teachers and school principals must have the theoretical
background in order to grasp the meaning of such strategies
 Sociocultural and Linguistic Diversity 21

and to participate in their construction. Analyses and models

on the issue of pluralism and relativism, and reports on
actually occurring conflicts (e.g., the prohibition to wear a
scarf as a religious symbol in French schools) are the topics to
be discussed. If the students in schools are to become
responsible persons, capable of discussing issues
democratically, those who teach them must have tools to
propose arguments and examples to them and to lead them to
use those arguments and examples in discussions on the topics
chosen.

In the present situation, the issue of sociocultural and linguistic diversity is

often taught in separate timeslots like “Africa weeks” or “The integration of
foreigners,” and in specific seminars or lectures on “intercultural” or
migration-related topics. More often than not, topics related to this issue are
the object of optional courses or minicourses, which students can easily avoid
attending. This is especially the case in the German-speaking part of
Switzerland, where teacher education is partly based on an elective
curriculum. If general pedagogy discusses more and more in terms of an
education respectful of sociocultural diversity and aware of pluralism, these
dimensions are not any more the particular task of a special section of
pedagogy. Following the same logic, they must also become core issues in
teacher education. The ongoing structural and curricular reforms of teacher
education (particularly in Italy and Switzerland) should not underestimate the
question of including curricular elements into the compulsory part of teacher
education and of rewriting the single disciplinary tables of contents, instead of
confining migration and diversity topics into separate and optional formats.

CONCLUSION

The immigration countries Germany, France, and Switzerland have been

leading a theoretical discussion about intercultural education since the mid-
1970s, Italy from the mid-1980s. Theory was developed against the
background of an institutional vacuum, in the sense that none of the countries
has an official policy for multiculturalism. If this institutional reticence is one
of the reasons for the poor implementation rate of intercultural education in
schools, the second reason is the missing link between theorization on one
side, and reflection on the aims of educational reforms on the other. A third
reason is the general tendency to let school policies become private, market-
oriented matters. Given the assumption that state school policies are
necessary, it is argued in this chapter that inclusive education systems are
more receptive for taking intercultural approaches than segregating ones. The
22 Allemann-Ghionda

theoretical discussion will be more convincing and more effective in practice

if the goal of integrating all forms of difference into school structures will be
pursued. Taking into account not only cultural but also social, linguistic, and
any form of personal diversity, is not a case for a special subpedagogy, but
should be perceived as a core issue of general pedagogy. More and more
authors not identifiable with the scientific community of the “inter-
culturalists” have begun conceptualizing diversity and pluralism. A concept of
education respectful of sociocultural diversity and inclusive of pluralism
needs teachers and school principals who will construct it in schools. This has
consequences for the contents of teacher education. Coherently with the
assumption that an inclusive orientation of the school systems is the condition
sine qua non to effectively cope with sociocultural and linguistic diversity,
this dimension must be fully integrated and become compulsory in the
curriculum of teacher education.

REFERENCES

Allemann-Ghionda, C. (1995). Implementing European strategies for language and

culture diversity. A cross national comparison based on six case-studies. EERA
[European Educational Research Association] Bulletin, 1(3), 12–22.
Allemann-Ghionda, C. (1997a). Interkulturelle Bildung [Intercultural education].
Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, Supplement 36, 107–149.
Allemann-Ghionda, C (Ed.). (1997b). Multiculture et education en Europe
[Multiculture and education in Europe] (2nd rev. ed.). Bern, Switzerland: Lang.
Allemann-Ghionda, C. (1997c). Ethnicity and national educational systems in Western
Europe. In H.-R.Wicker (Ed.), Rethinking nationalism and ethnicity: The struggle
for meaning and order in Europe (pp. 303–318). Oxford, United Kingdom: Berg.
Allemann-Ghionda, C. (1998). Les langues minoritaires nationales et de la migration
dans les systèmes scolaires d’ltalie et d’Allemagne: Politiques égalitaires, pratiques
hiérarchisantes [National minority languages and migration languages in the
education systems of Italy and Germany: Egalitarian policies, hierarcnic practices].
In S.Perez (Ed.), La mosaïque des langues [The mosaic of languages] (pp. 129–
164). Paris, France: L’Harmattan.
Allemann-Ghionda, C. (1999). Schule, Bildung und Pluralität: Sechs Fallstudien im
europäischen Vergleicli [School, education and plurality: A European comparison
based on six case-studies]. Bern, Switzerland: Lang.
Ajlemann-Ghionda, C., Goumoëns, C.de, & Perregaux, C. (1999a). Pluralité
linguistique et culturelle dans la formation des enseignants [Language and culture
plurality in teacher education]. Fribourg, Switzerland: Editions Universitaires.
Allemann-Ghionda, C., Goumoëns, C.de, & Perregaux, C. (1999b). Curriculum pour
une formation des enseignant(e)s a la pluralité culturelle et linguisticiue
[Curriculum for a teacher education that is inclusive of language and culture
plurality]. Berne, Switzerland: Fonds national de la recherche scientifique,
Programme National de Recherche 33.
 Sociocultural and Linguistic Diversity 23

Apeltauer, E. (Ed.). (1987). Gesteuerter Zweitspracherwerb. Voraussetzungen und

Konsequenzen für den Unterricht [Guided second language education: Its premises
and consequences for the curriculum]. Munich, Germany: Hueber.
Bennett, J.M. (1986). Modes of cross-cultural training: Conceptualizing crosscultural
training as education. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 20(2), 117–
134.
Bukow, W.D., & Llaryora, R. (1993). Mitbürger aus der Fremde. Soziogenese
ethnischer Minderheiten [Citizens from abroad. Social genesis of ethnic minorities]
(2nd ed.). Opladen, Germany: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Byram, M., & Morgan, C. (1994). Teaching-and-learning language-and-culture.
Clevedon, United Kingdom: Multilingual Matters.
Camilleri, C., & Vinsonneau, G. (Eds.) (1996). Psychologie et culture: Concepts et
méthodes [Psychology and culture: Concepts and methods]. Paris, France: Armand
Colin.
Caritas di Roma. (1997). Immigrazione. Dossier statistico ‘97 [Immigration: Statistics
1997]. Rome, Italy: Anterem.
CDCC [Council for Cultural Co-operation]. (1986). Rapport final du groupe de
travail. Projet Nr. 7 du CDCC: L’éducation et le développement culturet des
migrants [Final report of the project n. 7 Education and cultural development of
migrants]. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe.
Certeau, M.de. (1987). Economies ethniques: Pour une école de la diversité. In OECD
[Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development] (Ed.), L'éducation
multiculturelle [Multicultural education] (pp. 170–196). Paris, France: OECD,
CERI [Centre for Educational Research and Innovation].
Commission of the European Community. (1977, July). Guidelines on the schooling of
the children of migrant workers, No. 486. Brussels, Belgium: Commission of the
European Community.
Commission of the European Community. (1994). Report on the schooling of
migrants’ children in the European Union. Brussels, Belgium: Commission or the
European Community.
Costa-Lascoux, J. (1992). L’enfant, citoyen à l’école [The child, a citizen in school].
Revue Française de Pedagogic, 101, 71–78.
Dasen, P.R. (1997). Fondements scientifiques d’une pèdagogic interculturelle
[Scientific foundations of intercultural education]. In C.Allemann-Ghionda (Ed.),
Multiculture et education en Europe [Multiculture and education in Europe] (2nd
rev. ed.) (pp. 263–284). Bern, Switzerland: Lang.
Dittrich, E.J., & Radtke, F.O. (1990). Der Beitrag der Wissenschaften zur
Konstruktion ethnischer Minderheiten [The contribution of sciences to the
construction of ethnic minorities]. In E.J.Dittrich & F.O.Radtke (Eds.), Ethnizität.
Wissenschaft und Minderheiten [Ethnicity, science and minorities] (pp. 11–40).
Opladen, Germany: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Giordan, H. (Ed.). (1992). Les minorités en Europe. Droits linguistiques et droits de
l’homme [Minorities in Europe. Language rights and human rights]. Paris, France:
Kimé.
Gudykunst, W.B. (1993). Towards a theory of effective interpersonal and intergroup
communication: An anxiety/uncertainty management perspective. Newbury Park,
CA: SAGE.
24 Allemann-Ghionda

Gutmann, A. (1993). The challenge of multiculturalism in political ethics. Philosophy

& Public Affairs, 22(3), 171–206.
Haut Conseil a Integration. (1991). Pour un modéle français d’ intégration. Premier
rapport annuel [For a French model of integration: First annual report]. Paris,
France: La documentation française.
Heyting, F., & Tenorth, H.E. (Eds.). (1994). Pädagogik und pluralismus. Deutsche
und Niederländische erfahrungen im umgang mit pluralität in erziehung und
erziehungswissenschaft [Pedagogy and pluralism. German and Dutcn experiences
in dealing with plurality in education and educational science]. Weinheim,
Germany: Deutscher Studienverlag.
Klafki, W. (1993). Allgemeinbildung heute—Grundziige internationaler Erziehung
[Liberal education today: Fundamentals of an international education].
Pädagogisches Forum 6, 21–28.
Kuhs, K., & Steinig, W. (Eds.) (1998). Pfade durch Babylon. Konzepte und beispiele
für den umgang mit sprachlicher vielfalt in schule und gesellschaft [Paths through
Babylon: Concepts and examples for dealing with language plurality in school and
society]. Freiburg, Germany: Fillibach.
Ministère de (‘education nationale. (1994). Le nouveau contrat pour l’école. 158
decisions [The new school contract: 158 decisions]. Paris, France: Ministère de
l’éducation nationale [Ministry of national education].
Nieke, W. (1995). Interkulturelle erziehung und bildung. Wertorientierungen im alltag
[Intercultural education and formation: Value orientations in daily life]. Opladen,
Germany: Leske & Budrich.
OECD [Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development]. (1991).
Education and cultural and linguistic pluralism. Synthesis of case studies. Effective
strategies and approaches in me schools. Paris, France: OECD, CERI [Centre for
Educational Research and Innovation].
Pujol, M., & Véronique, D. (1991). L’acquisition d’une langue étrangére: Recherches
et perspectives [The acquisition of a foreign language: Research results and
perspectives]. Geneva, Switzerland: Cahiers ae la Section Education de la Faculté
de Psychologie et de Sciences de l’éducation de l’Universite de Genève.
Radtke, F.O. (1995). Demokratische diskriminierung. Exklusion als bediirfnis oder
nach bedarf [Democratic discrimination: Exclusion as a need or as required].
Mittelweg 36, 32–48.
Radtke, F.0. (1996). Wissen und Könneti. Grundlagen der wissenschaftlichen
Lehrerbildung [Knowledge and skills: Foundations of a science-based teacher
education]. Opladen, Germany: Leske & Budrich.
Rey-von Allmen, M. (1996). D’uue logique mono à une logique de l’inter. Pistes pour
une education interculturelle et solidaire [From a logic of “mono” to a logic of
“inter”: Tracks for an education that is intercultural and promotes solidarity].
Geneva, Switzerland: Cahiers de la Section Education de la Faculté de Psychologie
et de Sciences de l’éducation de l’Université de Genève.
Secco, L. (Ed.) (1992). Pedagogia interculturale. Problemi e concetti [Intercultural
pedagogy: Problems and’ concepts]. Brescia, Italy: La Scuola.
Sténou, K. (1997). Experiences et projets de l’Unesco dans le domaine de l’éducation
interculturelle [Experiences and projects of the Unesco in the field of intercultural
education]. In C.Allemann-Ghionda (Ed.), Multiculture et education en Europe
 Sociocultural and Linguistic Diversity 25

[Multiculture and education in Europe] (2nd rev. ed.) (pp. 83–93). Bern,
Switzerland: Lang.
Taguieff, P.A. (1985). Le néo-racisme différentialiste. Sur I’ambiguïté d’une evidence
commune et de ses effets pervers: 1’éloge de la difference [Differentialist neo-
racism. On the ambiguity of a common evidence and on its perverse effects: The
praise of difference]. Langage et société 34, 69–98.
Todd, E. (1994). Le destin des immigrés. Assimilation et segregation dans les
democraties occidentals [The destiny of migrants: Assimilation and segregation in
western democracies.] Paris, France: Seuil.
Todorov, T. (1989). Nous et les autres. La réflexion française sur la diversité humaine
[We and the others: The French reflection on human diversity]. Paris, France:
Seuil.
Tyack, D., & Tobin, W. (1993). The grammar of schooling: Why has it been so hard to
change? American Educational Research Journal, 31(3), 453–479.
Wagner, A. (1997). Orientation and Work of the OECD [Organization for Economic
Co-operation and Development] in the Field of Intercultural Education. In
C.Allemann-Ghionda (Ed.), Multiculture et éducation en Europe [Multiculture and
education in Europe] (2nd rev. ed.) (pp. 95–100). Bern, Switzerland: Lang.
Wicker, H.-R. (Ed.). (1997). Rethinking nationalism and ethnicity: The struggle for
meaning and order in Europe. Oxford, United Kingdom: Berg Publishers.
 Chapter 2
The Rise and Fall of Multicultural
Education in the Australian
Schooling System
Desmond Cahill
RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia

Prior to the mid-1970s, the political philosophy of multiculturalism and the

allied notion of multicultural education were both unknown on the Australian
sociopolitical and educational scene. Their genesis was, of course, generated
by Australia’s massive post-World War II immigration movement, another
Golden Age of Migration that has now come to an end even though
immigrants and refugees continue to arrive on Australian shores in significant
numbers despite public disquiet on environmental and unemployment
grounds.
The government policies and programs attached to the umbrella term of
multiculturalism fundamentally have been an attempt to incorporate the
“immigrant other” into the Australian polity. Multicultural education has been
the response to deal with the realities of classrooms containing students from
a range of cultural and linguistic backgrounds even though its aims were, as
shall be seen, always broader. Underlying the debates that continue unabated,
especially from the 1996 resurgence of the ever-present racism that lies at the
heart of the European invasion- and settlement of the Australian continent and
the formation of the Australian nation in 1901, has been the failure of
Australian society to resolve in a satisfactory and constructive way the
diminishing but still potent legacy of the British colonialist and White
European supremacist mindset, the failure to deal with the claims of the
Aborigines, and the failure to construct an assured self-identity as a multi-
ethnic nation hovering uneasily on the Asian periphery. Fundamentally, it has
been a failure of national leadership, and the failure to articulate and
communicate a national vision.
It is important to note that the multicultural education movement was
initially less focused on race and racial differentiation than on overseas birth-
place, language, and ethnicity. This may seem surprising for a nation whose
White Australia policies were hammered out in the land of “the New Gold
Mountain” of the 1850s. They were then enshrined for more than half a centu-
ry in the first legislative acts of the Australian Parliament until their complete

27
28 Cahill

repudiation in early 1973. It was not an accident that very soon after that the
concept of a multicultural Australia emerged, as the impact of the post-War
immigration program was fully felt across most parts of the nation and as
Asians, beginning with the Anglo-Indians in the mid-1960s, began their vari-
ous emigratory movements together with the movements of Islamic peoples,
especially from Lebanon and Turkey in the late 1960s and early 1970s.
To understand both the rise and recent fall of the multicultural education
movement, we need to appreciate the changes in both the
immigration/cultural diversity and educational landscapes.

CHANGES IN THE IMMIGRATION AND CULTURAL

DIVERSITY LANDSCAPE

Australia has increasingly been held up as a multicultural lighthouse because

of the massive transformation of its demographic profile, notwithstanding the
recent step back from government commitment to multicultural policies. The
Australian Bureau of Statistics in its five yearly censuses has never collected
data on the basis of race except in relation to the Aborigines and Torres Strait
Islanders, Australia’s indigenous groups. Information has been collected in
terms of (a) birthplace, (b) parental birthplace, (c) language regularly spoken,
and (d) religion. Table 2.1 outlines Australia’s multicultural profile at the time
of the 1996 census in terms of birthplace, language, and religion.

TABLE 2.1 Australia’s Multicultural Profile (in percentages)

Top 20 Birthplaces Top 20 Languages Top 20 Religious Groups
1. Australia 73.9 1. English 82.0 1. Roman Catholic 27.0
2. United 6.0 2. Italian 2.1 2. No religion** 25.2
Kingdom
3. New Zealand 1.6 3. Chinese* 1.9 3. Anglican 22.2
4. Italy 1.3 4. Greek 1.5 4. Uniting 7.5
Church***
5. Vietnam 0.8 5. Arabic 1.0 5. Presbyterian 3.7
6. Greece 0.7 6. Vietnamese 0.8 6. Orthodox**** 2.6
7. China 0.6 7. German 0.6 7. Baptist 1.7
8. Germany 0.6 8. Spanish 0.5 8. Lutheran 1.4
9. Philippines 0.5 9. Macedonian 0.4 9. Islam 1.1
10. Netherlands 0.5 10. Tagalog 0.4 10. Buddhism 1.1
 The Rise and Fall of Multicultural Education 29

11. India 0.4 11. Croatian 0.4 11. Christian 1.0

12. Malaysia 0.4 12. Polish 0.4 12. Jehovah’s 0.5
Witness
13. Lebanon 0.4 13. Turkish 0.3 13. Judaism 0.5
14. Hong Kong 0.4 14. Maltese 0.3 14. Pentecostal 0.4
15. Poland 0.4 15. Dutch 0.2 15. Salvation Army 0.4
16. South Africa 0.3 16. French 0.2 16. Church of Christ 0.4
17. Ireland 0.3 17. Serbian 0.2 17. Hinduism 0.4
18. Malta 0.3 18. Hindi 0.2 18. Assembly of 0.4
God
19. USA 0.3 19. Russian 0.2 19. 7th Day 0.3
Adventist
20. Croatia 0.3 20. Korean 0.2 20. Latter Day 0.2
Saints
Others 10.0 Others 5.9 Others 2.2
TOTAL 100.0 TOTAL 100.0 TOTAL 100.0
Note. Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics, August 1996 census.
*Chinese includes Cantonese as the largest Chinese-speaking group together with
Mandarin plus small numbers of Hokkien, Hakka, and Teochew speakers.
**No religion means those who said they had no religion or nothing was stated on
the census form. Their numbers have risen very considerably in the last decade.
***The Uniting Church is the result of a union of the former Methodist and
Congregationalist Churches and some Presbyterians in 1975.
****Orthodox includes the Greek Orthodox as the largest, together with, in order
of size, the Macedonian, Serbian, Russian, Coptic, Ukrainian, and Romanian
Churches.

Since 1947, the Australian population has increased from approximately 7

million to close to an estimated 19 million in 1999, about half through natural
growth and the other half through migration. At every census in the post-War
period, the percentage of overseas-born Australians has increased to total
26.1% in 1996. This implies that an estimated 40% of the population either is
born overseas or has at least one parent bom overseas. Of this number, about
two thirds are from countries where English is a foreign language (Italy,
Vietnam) or an associate language (Malta, the Philippines). Migration is thus
a central fact in Australian social, political, and religious life, and, in the view
of Foster and Stockley (1984), multiculturalism was devised as a systems
management mechanism to handle and defuse the immigrant question.
30 Cahill

The first two post-war decades (1950s-1970s) were focused on European

migration, but since then there has been an increasing influx from the Asian
countries, initially from India, East Timor, Hong Kong, and Vietnam, and
more recently from countries such as China and the Philippines. In the 5-year
period from 1991–1996, increases in aggregate numbers were in respect of
China (+32,119 persons), Vietnam (+28,799), the Philippines (+19,506), New
Zealand (+15,543), Hong Kong (+9,497), and South Africa (+6,149), with
decreases for the United Kingdom (−46,051), Italy (−16,678), Greece
(−9,615), and the Netherlands (−7,811), principally as a result of mortality.
Although immigration continues from the three main English-speaking
countries (New Zealand, United Kingdom, and South Africa), representing
just over one third of the intake, in 1997–1998 the largest source countries, in
order, were China, Hong Kong (still retained as a separate category), India,
the Philippines, Vietnam, Bosnia-Herzogovina, and Indonesia.
Another aspect of Australia’s multicultural mosaic is religious affiliation
with, as the largest religious group in 1996, the Roman Catholic church (4.8
million), followed by the Anglican (3.90 million), the Uniting Church (1.33
million), the Presbyterian/Reformed (0.68 million), and the Orthodox (0.50
million). A large group is the atheist and agnostic group (25.2%), so prevalent
that in late 1998 Pope John Paul II described Australia as “a culture of
secularism.” In the 5-year intercensal period, the fastest growing religious
groups were the Buddhist (an increase of 42.9%) and the Islamic (35.8%).
Hence, Australia is very much part of the growing religious diasporas across
the world, and, at the schooling level, this has been reflected in the recent
increase in non-Christian schools.
Another perspective is given by the language figures (Table 2.1), which
include the second generation group (i.e., those born in Australia with at least
one immigrant parent) and perhaps subsequent generational groups.
Reflecting not only the birthplace data but also the fact of language shift
across to English, in aggregate numbers between 1991 and 1996 there were
significant rises in the number of English, Chinese, Vietnamese, and Arabic
speakers, and speakers of Australia’s indigenous languages, with very sharp
decreases in speakers of European languages except for Macedonian and
Croatian, though the increase is more apparent than real because of the shift in
self-description of “Yugoslav” language speakers from the 1991 census. It is
anticipated that after the next census in 2001 the Chinese languages (mainly
Cantonese and Mandarin) will be the most widely spoken languages in
Australia after English.
Table 2.2 contains the first- and second-generation figures for the largest
groups, though it must be pointed out that groups such as the Italians and
Greeks are now moving into their third and fourth generations. Crisscrossing
this has been the increasing rate of intercultural and interfaith marriages. The
old Chinese saying that “a chicken does not marry a duck” is increasingly
 The Rise and Fall of Multicultural Education 31

irrelevant in Australia though, like the differential rates for language shift
across to English, the rate of intermarriage varies enormously across ethnic
communities.

TABLE 2.2 Australia’s First- and Second-Generational

Groups
Birthplace 1st-Generation 2nd-Generation Total % of Pop.
U.K. 1,072,514 1,444,620 2,517,134 14.2
Italy 238,216 333,880 572,096 3.2
New Zealand 291,381 199,928 491,309 2.8
Greece 126,524 153,913 280,437 1.6
Germany 110,332 139,319 249,437 1.4
Netherlands 87,898 142,528 230,426 1.3
Vietnam 151,085 46,848 197,933 1.1
Lebanon 70,237 82,526 152,763 0.9
China 110,987 40,163 151,150 0.9
Ireland 51,462 95,097 146,559 0.8
Philippines 92,933 35,160 128,093 0.7
Malta 50,871 77,191 128,062 0.7
India 77,522 43,640 121,162 0.7
Poland 65,119 55,640 120,759 0.7
Malaysia 76,221 30,710 106,931 0.6
Croatia 47,015 41,179 88,194 0.5
Hong Kong 68,437 19,415 87,852 0.5
USA 49,526 36,724 86,250 0.5
South Africa 55,717 28, 157 83,874 0.5
FYROM 42,181 28,470 70,651 0.4
Note. Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics, August 1996 census.

As a consequence, there has been a whole range of cultural, religious, and

linguistic encounters not only at the national level but especially at the level
of local suburbia—in the neighborhood, in local community structures, in the
workplace, and especially in the schools, right from the late 1940s (Martin,
32 Cahill

1978). In Australia, there are virtually no ghettoes in any strict sense of the
term, and the ethnic concentrations that were present in the poorer inner
suburban areas were dispersed to middle and outer ring suburbs in the large
cities such as Sydney and Melbourne. The inner suburbs have been
transformed, meanwhile, by the process of gentrification over the past quarter
century through the replacement of migrant and other poor families by middle
class, double income couples who want to be close to the city’s central
business district and other cultural amenities.
All this made the necessity for a multicultural educational process more
than evident but the dispersal also made it more difficult to deliver in practical
terms at the local level.
Since 1980, changes in the immigration intake policy have had a direct
impact on schooling systems and their strategies for educating arriving
students. In addition, all systems have had to cope with much greater numbers
of first-, second-, and third-generation students at various stages of the shift
from first language to English as a second language that occurs in all non-
English speech communities and with varying levels of bilingual proficiency.
These changes have been:
Diversification in the Immigrant Intake. With each decade in the post-War
period, significant changes have occurred in the source countries with a
proportional decline in the number of immigrants where English is the first
and official language such as the United Kingdom and the United States, and
an increase in the numbers from non-English-speaking countries, as has been
documented earlier.
As well, intake categories have changed. During the 1980s, family reunion
numbers increased, but with the extended family component being
significantly cut during the past decade, now being about 10% of the intake in
1997 (DIMA, 1997). At the same time, there has been a very significant rise
in nuclear family migration, especially as a result of intercultural marriages.
Skilled migration has also been cut because of the economic circumstances
though this has been offset by the increase in business migration. During the
1990s, the source countries for the refugee and special humanitarian program
have shifted from Vietnam and Timor to countries such as Afghanistan,
Bosnia, Ethiopia, Iraq, Sri Lanka, and Somalia.
Although schools have been appreciative of the consequent cultural
richness of this diversification, their student populations became more
multilingual than previously. This in particular had an effect on the
employment of bilingual teaching aides and adequately trained interpreters
and translators. This multilinguality made it more difficult to employ a greater
range of these personnel and, in a climate of funding cutbacks, response
capacity became limited.
 The Rise and Fall of Multicultural Education 33

Changed Patterns of Dispersal. Students from families where English is

not the main language are now more dispersed across Australia and within
each school system than previously. The dispersal was caused by (a) the
influx of well-educated and financially well-off specialist workers and
business migrants into more affluent areas that previously had not received
significant numbers of immigrants, (b) the gentrification of inner-suburban
metropolitan areas that has forced recently arrived families to find
accommodation in the cheaper middle-ring and outer-ring suburban areas, (c)
the movement of refugee families into country areas, usually under the
auspices of the government’s Community Refugee Settlement Scheme, and,
most importantly, (d) the movement of first-, second-, and third-generation
families away from former areas of ethnic concentration and zones of
transition, typically in lower socioeconomic status areas, to a broad range of
suburbs across each of the major cities.
The result was to make education service delivery more difficult,
especially in the allocation of teachers of English as a second language (ESL)
across a greater range of schools, in the provision of English language
intensive schools for newly arrived immigrant and refugee students, and in the
establishment of language maintenance programs. In general, the available
resources had to be spread more thinly across the schools.
Cuts in the Immigrant Intake. The constant shifts in immigration intake
policy, especially the cutbacks during the 1990s, have had considerable
structural impact as they resulted in the closure of many language reception
centres for newly arriving immigrant students and the laying off of some
teachers. However, the general effect was to increase the precarious nature of
the ESL strategy and of ESL employment. For school systems, it rendered
planning difficult, and forced most systems to employ teachers on a
temporary basis, given that the funding was Commonwealth-based. Yet it
must be said in passing that even though the percentage of the ESL teaching
force employed on a temporary basis is high, they are a most committed
group of teachers.
Increasing Numbers of NESB Students. Since the high figures of the late
1980s, the immigrant intake has declined. This led to the perception that the
number of children from non-English-speaking families has declined. This
perception seems to have been strongly held in national bureaucratic circles in
Canberra where the focus has always been upon the newly arrived, and
partially contributed to their undermining of the ESL program that began in
the mid-1980s under the Labour Government and was finally to succeed in
1997 under the Liberal conservative coalition government. It was and remains
a wrong perception. First, there has been the pipeline effect over several
decades of the second-generation cohort; that is, the children of immigrants
who arrived either as adults or as children themselves. As well, the third
Other documents randomly have
different content
 GEORGE MEREDITH, 1883
(b. 1828)

“The Spirit of Shakespeare.”

Thy greatest knew thee, Mother Earth; unsoured

He knew thy sons. He probed from hell to hell
Of human passions, but of love deflowered
His wisdom was not, for he knew thee well.
Thence came the honeyed corner of his lips,
The conquering smile wherein his spirit sails
Calm as the God who the white sea-wave whips,
Yet full of speech and intershifting tales,
Close mirrors of us: thence had he the laugh
We feel is thine: broad as ten thousand beeves
At pasture! thence thy songs, that winnow chaff
From grain, bid sick Philosophy’s last leaves
Whirl, if they have no recompense—they enforced
To fatten Earth when from her soul divorced.

How smiles he at a generation ranked

In gloomy noddings over life! They pass.
Not he to feed upon a breast unthanked,
Or eye a beauteous face in a cracked glass.
But he can spy that little twist of brain
Which moved some mighty leader of the blind,
Unwitting ’twas the goad of personal pain,
To view in curst eclipse our Mother’s mind,
And show us of some rigid harridan
The wretched bondman till the end of time.
O lived the Master now to paint us Man,
That little twist of brain would ring a chime
Of whence it came and what it caused, to start
 Thunders of laughter, clearing air and heart.
Poems and Lyrics of the Joy of
Earth. 1883, pp. 161-2.

ROBERT BROWNING, 1884

(1812-1889)

“The Names.”

Shakespeare!—to such name’s sounding, what succeeds

Fitly as a silence? Falter forth the spell,—
Act follows word, the speaker knows full well,
Nor tampers with its magic more than needs.
Two names there are: That which the Hebrew reads
With his soul only: if from lips it fell,
Echo, back thundered by earth, heaven and hell,
Would own, “Thou didst create us!” Nought impedes
We voice the other name, man’s most of might,
Awesomely, lovingly: let awe and love
Mutely await their working, leave to sight
All of the issue as below—above—
Shakespeare’s creation rises: one remove
Though dread—this finite from that infinite.

Complete Poetic and Dramatic

Works of Robert Browning.
Cambridge edition, U.S.A.
1895.

Browning wrote this sonnet as a contribution to the Shakespearean Show-

Book issued at the “Shakespearean Show” held in the Albert Hall, London, 29-
31 May 1884, in aid of the Hospital for Women in Fulham Road. The sonnet is
dated 12 March 1884.
 WILLIAM WETMORE STORY, 1886
(b. 1819)

“The Mighty Makers.”

Whose are those forms august that, in the press

And busy blames and praises of to-day,
Stand so serene above life’s fierce affray
With ever youthful strength and loveliness?
Those are the mighty makers, whom no stress
Of time can shame, nor fashion sweep away,
Whom Art begot on Nature in the play
Of healthy passion, scorning base excess.
Rising perchance in mists, and half obscure
When up the horizon of their age they came,
Brighter with years they shine in steadier light,
Great constellations that will aye endure,
Though myriad meteors of ephemeral fame
Across them flash, to vanish into night.

Such was our Chaucer in the early prime

Of English verse, who held to Nature’s hand
And walked serenely through its morning land,
Gladsome and hale, brushing its dewy rime.
And such was Shakespeare, whose strong soul could
climb
Steeps of sheer terror, sound the ocean grand
Of passions deep, or over Fancy’s strand
Trip with his fairies, keeping step and time.
His too the power to laugh out full and clear,
With unembittered joyance, and to move
Along the silent, shadowy paths of love
As tenderly as Dante, whose austere
 Stern spirit through the worlds below, above,
Unsmiling strode, to tell their tidings here.
Poems. 1886, vol. ii. pp. 273-4.

THOMAS SPENCER BAYNES, 1886

(1823-1887)

Shakespeare’s work alone can be said to possess the organic strength

and infinite variety, the throbbing fulness, vital complexity, and
breathing truth of Nature herself. In points of artistic resource and
technical ability—such as copious and expressive diction, freshness
and pregnancy of verbal combination, richly modulated verse, and
structural skill in the handling of incident and action—Shakespeare’s
supremacy is indeed sufficiently assured. But, after all, it is of course
in the spirit and substance of his work, his power of piercing to the
hidden centres of character, of touching the deepest springs of
impulse and passion, out of which are the issues of life, and of
evolving those issues dramatically with a flawless strength, subtlety,
and truth, which raises him so immensely above and beyond not
only the best of the playwrights who went before him, but the whole
line of illustrious dramatists that came after him. It is Shakespeare’s
unique distinction that he has an absolute command over all the
complexities of thought and feeling that prompt to action and bring
out the dividing lines of character. He sweeps with the hand of a
master the whole gamut of human experience, from the lowest note
to the very top of its compass, from the sportive childish treble of
Mamilius, and the pleading boyish tones of Prince Arthur, up to the
spectre-haunted terrors of Macbeth, the tropical passion of Othello,
the agonised sense and tortured spirit of Hamlet, the sustained
elemental grandeur, the Titanic force, the utterly tragical pathos of
Lear.
 Encyclopædia Britannica. 9th
edition. Art. “Shakespeare.”
Vol. xxi. 1886, p. 763.

GERALD MASSEY, 1888

(b. 1828)

Our Prince of Peace in glory hath gone,

With no Spear shaken, no Sword drawn,
No Cannon fired, no flag unfurled,
To make his conquest of the World.

For him no Martyr-fires have blazed,

No limbs been racked, no scaffolds raised;
For him no life was ever shed,
To make the Victor’s pathway red.

And for all time he wears the Crown

Of lasting, limitless renown:
He reigns, whatever Monarchs fall;
His Throne is in the heart of all.

The Secret Drama of

Shakespeare’s Sonnets. 1888.

WALT WHITMAN, 1890

(1819-1892)

The inward and outward characteristics of Shakespeare are his vast

and rich variety of persons and themes, with his wondrous
delineation of each and all—not only limitless funds of verbal and
pictorial resource, but great excess, superfœtation—mannerism, like
a fine aristocratic perfume, holding a touch of musk (Euphues, his
mark)—with boundless sumptuousness and adornment, real velvet
and gems, not shoddy nor paste—but a good deal of bombast and
fustian—(certainly some terrific mouthing in Shakespeare!).
Superb and inimitable as all is, it is mostly an objective and
physiological kind of power and beauty the soul finds in Shakespeare
—a style supremely grand of the sort, but in my opinion stopping
short of the grandest sort, at any rate for fulfilling and satisfying
modern and scientific and democratic American purposes. Think, not
of growths as forests primeval, or Yellowstone geysers, or Colorado
ravines, but of costly marble palaces, and palace rooms, and the
noblest fixings and furniture, and noble owners and occupants to
correspond—think of carefully built gardens from the beautiful but
sophisticated gardening art at its best, with walks and bowers and
artificial lakes, and appropriate statue groups, and the finest
cultivated roses and lilies and japonicas in plenty—and you have the
tally of Shakespeare. The low characters, mechanics, even the loyal
henchmen—all in themselves nothing—serve as capital foils to the
aristocracy. The comedies (exquisite as they certainly are), bringing
in admirably portrayed common characters, have the unmistakable
hue of plays, portraits, made for the divertisement only of the élite
of the castle, and from its point of view. The comedies are
altogether non-acceptable to America and Democracy.
But to the deepest soul, it seems a shame to pick and choose
from the riches Shakespeare has left us—to criticise his infinitely
royal, multiform quality—to gauge, with optic glasses, the dazzle of
his sun-like beams.
From Poet-Lore, July 1890.
Complete Prose Works. Boston,
Mass., 1898, p. 394.

Walt Whitman, when he says that “the comedies are altogether non-
acceptable to America and Democracy,” states rather what he considers ought
to be, than what actually is. In his essay, “Poetry To-day in America,” he says
of Shakespeare, “In portraying mediæval European lords and barons, the
arrogant poet, so dear to the inmost human heart (pride! pride! dearest,
perhaps, of all—touching us, too, of the States closest of all—closer than
love), he stands alone, and I do not wonder he so witches the world.”—Prose
Works, Boston, 1898, p. 283.

RICHARD WATSON GILDER, 1891

(b. 1844)

“The Twenty-Third of April.”

A English earth and breathèd air

little
Made Shakespeare the divine; so is his verse
The broidered soil of every blossom fair;
So doth his song all sweet bird-songs rehearse.
But tell me, then, what wondrous stuff did fashion
That part of him which took those wilding flights
Among imagined worlds; whence the white passion
That burned three centuries through the days and
nights!
Not heaven’s four winds could make, nor round the earth,
The soul wherefrom the soul of Hamlet flamed;
Nor anything of merely mortal birth
Could lighten as when Shakespeare’s name is named.
How was his body bred we know full well,
But that high soul’s engendering who may tell!

“Five Books of Song.” IV. The Two

Worlds. 1894, p. 154.
 MATHILDE BLIND, c. 1894
(1841-1896)

“Shakespeare.”

Yearning to know herself for all she was,

Her passionate clash of warring good and ill,
Her new life ever ground in Death’s old mill,
With every delicate detail and en masse,—
Blind Nature strove. Lo, then it came to pass,
That Time, to work out her unconscious will,
Once wrought the mind which she had groped to fill,
And she beheld herself as in a glass.

The world of men, unrolled before our sight,

Showed like a map, where stream and waterfall,
And village-cradling vale and cloud-capped height
Stand faithfully recorded, great and small,
For Shakespeare was, and at his touch with light
Impartial as the sun’s, revealed the All.

“Shakespeare Sonnets, VII.”

Poetical Works. Ed. Arthur
Symons. 1900, p. 443.

ALFRED, LORD TENNYSON, BEFORE 1892

(1809-1892)

There are three repartees in Shakespeare which always bring tears to

my eyes from their simplicity.
 One is in King Lear, when Lear says to Cordelia, “So young and so
untender,” and Cordelia lovingly answers, “So young, my lord, and
true.” And in The Winter’s Tale, when Florizel takes Perdita’s hand to
lead her to the dance, and says, “So turtles pair that never mean to
part,” and the little Perdita answers, giving her hand to Florizel, ”I’ll
swear for ’em.” And in Cymbeline, when Imogen in tender rebuke
says to her husband:

“Why did you throw your wedded lady from you?

Think that you are upon a rock; and now,
Throw me again!”

and Posthumus does not ask forgiveness, but answers, kissing her:

“Hang there like fruit, my soul,

Till the tree die.”

Life and Works of Alfred, Lord

Tennyson. Ed. Hallam, Lord
Tennyson. 1898, vol. iv. pp. 39
et seq.

See also ib., pp. 39-43.

SIDNEY LEE, 1899

(b. 1859)

Shakespeare’s mind, as Hazlitt suggested, contained within itself the

germs of all faculty and feeling. He knew intuitively how every
faculty and feeling would develop in any conceivable change of
fortune. Men and women—good or bad, old or young, wise or
foolish, merry or sad, rich or poor—yielded their secrets to him, and
his genius enabled him to give being in his pages to all the shapes of
humanity that present themselves on the highway of life. Each of his
characters gives voice to thought or passion with an individuality and
a naturalness that rouse in the intelligent playgoer and reader the
illusion that they are overhearing men and women speak
unpremeditatingly among themselves, rather than that they are
reading written speeches or hearing written speeches recited. The
more closely the words are studied, the completer the illusion grows.
Creatures of the imagination—fairies, ghosts, witches—are
delineated with a like potency, and the reader or spectator feels
instinctively that these supernatural entities could not speak, feel, or
act otherwise than Shakespeare represents them. The creative
power of poetry was never manifested to such effect as in the
corporeal semblances in which Shakespeare clad the spirits of the
air.
So mighty a faculty sets at nought the common limitations of
nationality, and in every quarter of the globe to which civilised life
has penetrated, Shakespeare’s power is recognised. All the world
over, language is applied to his creations that ordinarily applies to
beings of flesh and blood. Hamlet and Othello, Lear and Macbeth,
Falstaff and Shylock, Brutus and Romeo, Ariel and Caliban are
studied in almost every civilised tongue as if they were historic
personalities, and the chief of the impressive phrases that fall from
their lips are rooted in the speech of civilised humanity. To
Shakespeare the intellect of the world, speaking in divers accents,
applies with one accord his own words: “How noble in reason! how
infinite in faculty! in apprehension how like a god!”
Life of William Shakespeare. 1899,
chap. xxi.
 PART II
“GOOD SENTENCES”

Good sentences.

Merchant of Venice, I. ii. 11.

Brief, short, quick, snap.

Merry Wives, IV. v. 2.

In the quick forge and working-house of thought.

Henry V. V. prol. 23.

A good swift simile.

Taming of the Shrew, V. ii. 54.

 “GOOD SENTENCES”

Shakespeare, we must be silent in thy praise,

’Cause our encomions will but blast thy bays,
Which envy could not, that thou didst so well,
Let thine own histories prove thy chronicle.

Anonymous. Epig. 25. Witts

Recreations. 1640, printed
1639.

To-day we bring old gather’d herbs, ’tis true,

But such as in sweet Shakespeare’s garden grew.
And all his plants immortal you esteem,
Your mouths are never out of taste with him.

John Crowne (d. 1703?). Prologue

to Henry the Sixth, the First
Part. Adapted from
Shakespeare’s 1 Henry VI.
1681. Sig. A2.

Shakespeare (whom you and every playhouse bill

Style the divine, the matchless, what you will)
For gain, not glory, wing’d his roving flight,
And grew immortal in his own despite.
 Alexander Pope (1688-1744).
Imitations of Horace. Bk. II. ch.
i. ll. 69-72. 1737.

Thrice happy! could we catch great Shakespeare’s art,

To trace the deep recesses of the heart;
His simple plain sublime, to which is given
To strike the soul with darted flame from heaven.

James Thomson (1700-1748).

Prologue to Tancred and
Sigismundâ. 1745. Sig. A4.

Let others seek a monumental fame,

And leave for one short age a pompous name;
Thou dost not e’en this little tomb require,
Shakespeare can only with the world expire.

Epitaph on a Tombstone of
Shakespeare. Gentleman’s
Magazine. June 1767, vol. xxvii.
p. 324.

Shakespeare came out of Nature’s hand like Pallas out of Jove’s head,
at full growth and mature.
George Colman (1733-1794),
before 1767.
 George Colman, who advocated the theory that Shakespeare had some
classic learning, commenting in the Appendix to the second edition of his
translation of the comedies of Terence (1768) on Richard Farmer’s Essay on
the Learning of Shakespeare (1767), which maintains that Shakespeare got
his knowledge of the ancients from translations, says: “Mr. Farmer closes
these general testimonies of Shakespeare’s having been only indebted to
Nature, by saying, ‘He came out of her hand, as some one else expresses it,
like Pallas out of Jove’s head, at full growth and mature.’ It is whimsical
enough, that this some one else, whose expression is here quoted to
countenance the general notion of Shakespeare’s want of literature, should be
no other than myself. Mr. Farmer does not choose to mention where he met
with this expression of some one else; and some one else does not choose to
mention where he dropped it.” Colman’s “Appendix” was printed in the
“Variorum” editions of Shakespeare, and that of 1785 gave an anonymous
note, stating that Young “in his Conjectures on Original Composition (vol. v. p.
100, ed. 1773) has the following sentence: ‘An adult genius comes out of
Nature’s hands, as Pallas out of Jove’s head, at full growth and mature.’
Shakespeare’s genius was of this kind.” Young’s Conjectures appeared in
1759, so perhaps Colman borrowed, though, as he says (Prose on Several
Occasions, 1787, ii. p. 186), “The thought is obvious, and might, without
improbability, occur to different writers.” At any rate, his form of the thought
is better than Young’s, so he has here been given the credit for it.

To mark her Shakespeare’s worth, and Britain’s love,

Let Pope design, and Burlington approve:
Superfluous care! when distant times shall view
This tomb grown old—his works shall still be new.

Richard Graves (1715-1804). “On

erecting a Monument to
Shakespeare under the
direction of Mr. Pope and Lord
Burlington.” Euphrosyne, 1776.

This refers to the monument erected by public subscription in Westminster

Abbey in 1741. The design was by William Kent, and the statue of
Shakespeare, which was part of it, was executed by Peter Scheemachers.
Our modern tragedies, hundreds of them do not contain a good line;
nor are they a jot the better, because Shakespeare, who was
superior to all mankind, wrote some whole plays that are as bad as
any of our present writers’.
Horace Walpole (1717-1797).
Letter to Sir Horace Mann, Oct.
8, 1778. Letters. Ed. Peter
Cunningham, 1858, vol. vii. p.
135.

Write like Shakespeare, and laugh at the critics.

Daniel Webb (1719?-1798). Literary
Amusements, 1787, p. 22.

Shakespeare, . . .
Lord of the mighty spell: around him press
Spirits and fairy forms. He, ruling wide
His visionary world, bids terror fill
The shivering breast, or softer pity thrill
E’en to the inmost heart.

W. L. Bowles (1762-1850).
“Monody on the Death of Dr.
Warton,” 1801. Poems, 1803,
vol. ii. pp. 141-2.

Is there no bard of heavenly power possess’d,

 To thrill, to rouse, to animate the breast?
Like Shakespeare o’er the sacred mind to sway,
And call each wayward passion to obey?
F. D. Hemans (1793-1835).
“England and Spain,” 1807.

Our love of Shakespeare, therefore, is not a monomania or solitary

and unaccountable infatuation; but is merely the natural love which
all men bear to those forms of excellence that are accommodated to
their peculiar character, temperament, and situation; and which will
always return, and assert its power over their affections, long after
authority has lost its reverence, fashions been antiquated, and
artificial tastes passed away.
Francis Lord Jeffrey (1773-1850).
Edinburgh Review, Aug. 1811,
vol. xviii. p. 285.

Shakespeare had the inward clothing of a fine mind; the outward

covering of solid reading, of critical observation, and the richest
eloquence; and compared with these, what are the trappings of the
schools?
George Dyer (1755-1841). “The
Relation of Poetry to the Arts
and Sciences,” in The Reflector,
1811. Reprinted in Poetics,
1812, ii. p. 19.
Shakespeare has been accused of profaneness. I for my part have
acquired from perusal of him, a habit of looking into my own heart,
and am confident that Shakespeare is an author of all others the
most calculated to make his readers better as well as wiser.
S. T. Coleridge (1772-1834).
“Outline of an introductory
Lecture on Shakespeare,” 1812.

Let no man blame his son for learning history from Shakespeare.
Id. Seven Lectures on
Shakespeare and Milton. Ed. J.
P. Collier, p. 19.

The greatest genius that, perhaps, human nature has yet produced,
our myriad-minded[232:1] Shakespeare.
Id. Biographia Literaria, 1817,
chap. xv.

The great, ever-living, dead man.

Ibid.

Humanity’s divinest son,

That sprightliest, gravest, wisest, kindest one—
Shakespeare.
 Leigh Hunt (1784-1859). Thoughts
of the Avon on 28 Sept. 1817.

His plays alone are properly expressions of the passions, not

descriptions of them. His characters are real beings of flesh and
blood; they speak like men, not like authors.
William Hazlitt (1778-1830). “On
Shakespeare and Milton,”
Lectures on the English Poets,
1818, p. 98.

In trying to recollect any other author, one sometimes stumbles, in

case of failure, on a word as good. In Shakespeare, any other word
but the true one, is sure to be wrong.[234:1]
Ibid., p. 108.

Shakespeare was the least of a coxcomb of any one that ever lived,
and much of a gentleman.
Ibid., p. 111.

. . . Divinest Shakespeare’s might

Fills Avon and the world with light,
Like omniscient power which he
Imaged ’mid mortality.
 P. B. Shelley (1792-1822). “Lines
written among the Euganean
Hills,” October 1818.

Shakespeare led a life of allegory: his works are the comments on it.
John Keats (1795-1821). Letter to
George and Georgiana Keats,
18 Feb. 1819.

If we wish to know the force of human genius, we should read

Shakespeare. If we wish to see the insignificance of human learning,
we may study his commentators.
William Hazlitt (1778-1830). Table
Talk, 1821, vol. i. p. 177.

. . . Shakespeare, who in our hearts for himself hath

erected an empire
Not to be shaken by time, nor e’er by another divided.

Robert Southey (1774-1843). A

Vision of Judgment, 1821, ix. ll.
17, 18.

I look upon him to be the worst of models, though the most

extraordinary of writers.
 Lord Byron (1788-1824). Letter to
Murray, 14 July 1821. Moore’s
Life of Byron.

Schiller has the material sublime: to produce an effect, he sets you a

whole town on fire, and throws infants with their mothers into the
flames, or locks up a father in an old tower. But Shakespeare drops a
handkerchief, and the same or greater effects follow.
S. T. Coleridge (1772-1834). Table
Talk, 29 Dec. 1822.

An immortal man,—
Nature’s chief darling, and illustrious mate,
Destined to foil old Death’s oblivious plan,
And shine untarnish’d by the fogs of Fate,
Time’s famous rival till the final date!

Thomas Hood (1799-1845). The

Plea of the Midsummer Fairies,
cv. 1827, p. 53.

Who knows or can figure what the Man Shakespeare was, by the
first, by the twentieth, perusal of his works? He is a Voice coming to
us from the Land of Melody: his old brick dwelling-place, in the mere
earthly burgh of Stratford-on-Avon, offers us the most inexplicable
enigma.
 Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881).
Critical and Miscellaneous
Essays, “Goethe.” Reprinted
from Foreign Review, No. 3,
1828.

Students of poetry admire Shakespeare in their tenth year; but go on

admiring him more and more, understanding him more and more, till
their threescore-and-tenth.
Ibid.

No one can understand Shakespeare’s superiority fully until he has

ascertained, by comparison, all that which he possessed in common
with several other great dramatists of his age, and has then
calculated the surplus which is entirely Shakespeare’s own.
S. T. Coleridge (1772-1834). Table
Talk, 12 May 1830.

His was the wizard spell,

The spirit to enchain:
His grasp o’er nature fell,
Creation own’d his reign.

“Poetical Portraits” by A Modern

Pythagorean in Blackwood’s
Edinburgh Magazine, vol. xxvii.
1830, p. 632.
It is not too much to say, that the great plays of Shakespeare would
lose less by being deprived of all the passages which are commonly
called the fine passages, than those passages lose by being read
separately from the play. This is, perhaps, the highest praise which
can be given to a dramatist.
Lord Macaulay (1800-1859).
Edinburgh Review, June 1831,
vol. liii. pp. 567-8.

I believe Shakespeare was not a whit more intelligible in his own day
than he is now to an educated man, except for a few local allusions
of no consequence. And I said, he is of no age—nor, I may add, of
any religion, or party, or profession. The body and substance of his
works came out of the unfathomable depths of his own oceanic
mind: his observation and reading, which were considerable,
supplied him with the drapery of his figures.
S. T. Coleridge (1772-1834). Table
Talk, 15 March 1834.

I would be willing to live only as long as Shakespeare were the

mirror to Nature.
Id., Letters, etc., 1836, i. 196.

Than Shakespeare and Petrarch pray who are more living?

 Whose words more delight us? whose touches more
touch?
Leigh Hunt (1784-1859). “Blue-
stocking Revels; or, the Feast
of the Violets.” Canto III.
Monthly Repository, 1837.

In the gravest sense it may be affirmed of Shakespeare, that he is

among the modern luxuries of life.
T. De Quincey (1785-1859).
“Shakespeare,” Encyclopædia
Britannica, 7th ed., 1842.
Written 1838.

Produce us from any drama of Shakespeare one of those leading

passages that all men have by heart, and show us any eminent
defect in the very sinews of the thought. It is impossible; defects
there may be, but they will always be found irrelevant to the main
central thought, or to its expression.
Id. “Pope,” Encyclopædia
Britannica, 7th ed., 1842.
Written 1839.

Shakespeare, a wool-comber, poacher, or whatever else at Stratford in

Warwickshire, who happened to write books! The finest human
figure, as I apprehend, that Nature has hitherto seen fit to make of
our widely diffused Teutonic clay. Saxon, Norman, Celt or Sarmat, I
find no human soul so beautiful, these fifteen hundred known years;
—our supreme modern European man.
Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881).
“Geschichte der Teutschen
Sippschaft,” translated by
Carlyle in Chartism, 1839.
Critical and Miscellaneous
Essays.

It is to be doubted whether even Shakespeare could have told a

story like Homer, owing to that incessant activity and superfœtation
of thought, a little less of which might be occasionally desired even
in his plays;—if it were possible, once possessing anything of his, to
wish it away.
Leigh Hunt (1784-1859). “What is
Poetry?” Imagination and
Fancy, 1844. Ed. A. S. Cook,
1893, p. 65.

Now, literature, philosophy, and thought are Shakespearised. His

mind is the horizon beyond which, at present, we do not see.
R. W. Emerson (1803-1882).
“Representative Men.”
Shakespeare; or the Poet,
1844.

Shakespeare, on whose forehead climb

 The crowns o’ the world: O eyes sublime,
With tears and laughter for all time!
E. B. Browning (1809-1861). A
Vision of Poets, 1844.

A rib of Shakespeare would have made a Milton: the same portion of

Milton, all poets born ever since.
W. S. Landor (1775-1846).
“Imaginary Conversations.”
Works, 1846, ii. p. 74.

In poetry there is but one supreme,

Tho’ there are many angels round his throne,
Mighty, and beauteous, while his face is hid.

Id. “On Shakespeare.” “Poems and

Epigrams.” Works, 1846.

A long list can be cited of passages in Shakespeare, which have been

solemnly denounced by many eminent men (all blockheads) as
ridiculous: and if a man does find a passage in a tragedy that
displeases him, it is sure to seem ludicrous: witness the indecent
exposures of themselves made by Voltaire, La Harpe, and many
billions beside of bilious people.
T. De Quincey (1785-1859).
“Schlosser’s Literary History.”
 Tait’s Magazine, Sept., Oct.,
1847.

A thousand poets pried at life,

And only one amid the strife
Rose to be Shakespeare.

R. Browning (1812-1889).
Christmas Eve and Christmas
Day, xvi., 1850.

When I began to give myself up to the profession of a poet for life, I

was impressed with a conviction, that there were four English poets
whom I must have continually before me as examples—Chaucer,
Shakespeare, Spenser, and Milton. These I must study, and equal if I
could; and I need not think of the rest.
William Wordsworth (1770-1850).
Memoirs. By Christopher
Wordsworth, 1851, vol. ii. p.
470.

I cannot account for Shakespeare’s low estimate of his own writings,

except from the sublimity, the superhumanity of his genius. They
were infinitely below his conception of what they might have been,
and ought to have been.
Ibid.
. . . Matchless Shakespeare, who, undaunted, took
From Nature’s shrinking hand her secret book,
And page by page the wondrous tome explored.

D. M. Moir (1798-1851), before

1851. “Stanzas on an Infant.”
Poetical Works, 1852, vol. ii. p.
50.

Shakespeare’s glowing soul,

Where mightiness and meekness met.

Ibid., p. 341, “Hymn to the Moon.”

Kind Shakespeare, our recording angel.

T. L. Beddoes (1803-1849). “Lines

written in Switzerland.” Poems,
1851, vol. i. p. 215.

Kinder all earth hath grown since genial Shakespeare

sung!

Edward Bulwer, Lord Lytton (1805-

1873). “The Souls of Books,” i.
l. 21. Works, 1853, vol. iii. p.
282.
 Shakespeare . . .
. . . Wise and true,
Bright as the noon-tide, clear as morning dew,
And wholesome in the spirit and the form.

Charles Mackay (1814-1899).

“Mist.” Under Green Leaves,
1857.

I care not how Shakespeare is acted: with him the thought suffices.
Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865), c.
1860.

I am always happy to meet persons who perceive the transcendent

superiority of Shakespeare over all other writers.
R. W. Emerson (1803-1882).
“Culture.” Conduct of Life,
1860.

We may consider Shakespeare, as an ancient mythologist would

have done, as “enskied” among “the invulnerable clouds,” where no
shaft, even of envy, can assail him. From this elevation we may
safely predict that he never can be plucked.
Cardinal Wiseman (1802-1856).
William Shakespeare, 1865, p.
 28.

To say truth, what I most of all admire are the traces he shows of a
talent that could have turned the History of England into a kind of
Iliad, almost perhaps into a kind of Bible.
Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881).
“Shooting Niagara: and After?”
Macmillan’s Magazine, August,
1867.

Shakespeare! loveliest of souls,

Peerless in radiance, in joy.

Matthew Arnold (1822-1888).

“Heine’s Grave.” New Poems,
1867, p. 198.

If Shakespeare did not know the ancients, I think they were at least
as unlucky in not knowing him.
J. R. Lowell (1819-1891). Among
my Books, 1870, p. 190.

Shakespeare recognised both our human imperfections and our human

greatness. . . . A woman is dearer to Shakespeare than an angel; a
man is better than a god.
Welcome to Our Bookstore - The Ultimate Destination for Book Lovers
Are you passionate about books and eager to explore new worlds of
knowledge? At our website, we offer a vast collection of books that
cater to every interest and age group. From classic literature to
specialized publications, self-help books, and children’s stories, we
have it all! Each book is a gateway to new adventures, helping you
expand your knowledge and nourish your soul
Experience Convenient and Enjoyable Book Shopping Our website is more
than just an online bookstore—it’s a bridge connecting readers to the
timeless values of culture and wisdom. With a sleek and user-friendly
interface and a smart search system, you can find your favorite books
quickly and easily. Enjoy special promotions, fast home delivery, and
a seamless shopping experience that saves you time and enhances your
love for reading.
Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and
personal growth!

ebookball.com