Conceptual framework – Critical Multiculturalism

In Chapter 5 I address the concept of multiculturalism, describing and commenting on three different perspectives. One of those perspectives, critical multiculturalism, is the framework within which this research is placed. It is important for the reader to understand the concept of critical multiculturalism before proceeding, and so I will spend some time in this early chapter setting out the literature and indicating why I believe there are benefits to adopting such a framework. Additional discussion can be found in section 5.2 below.

Before going further, it is worth knowing that critical multiculturalism arises from the tradition of critical theory. Critical theory is based on an ontology of historical realism, meaning that structures in society are shaped by their social, political, cultural, economic, ethnic, and gender histories. Critical theory draws on this history to analyse ideologies,

assumptions and events that created societal structures as well as the implications of this history for a society’s values (Bronner and Kellner, 1989; Guba and Lincoln, 1994; Morrow and Brown, 1994). Critical theorists argue that societal structures create “coercion, injustice, inequality and inequity” (Box, 2005, p11) and operate as a constraint on society because they serve to label some individuals as different (Guba and Lincoln, 1994). Writing in the field of public administration, Richard Box argues that what happens in society is always a result “of actions taken by those with money and power” (Box, 2005, p27), that is, those with the power to dictate societal structures are drawn from the ranks of the dominant ideology which not only places some people in privileged positions at the expense of others (Steinberg and Kincheloe, 2001) but also supports continuation of those societal structures to maintain that ideology and dominance of the privileged (Box, 2005). Box asserts that a critical theoretic approach to public administration prompts individuals to look at the historical context within which society has developed, and encourages the use of “critical reason” and “imagination” to consider alternatives rather than pursuing unquestioning acceptance of society as it is manifest (Box, 2005, p11-12). Failure to consider history presents two problems, according to Box (2005): firstly, he says, there is a risk that some voices in society would be excluded, such as those representing gender or race; secondly, he continues, failure to account for history would diminish our understanding of how history has shaped societal values – values which, in turn, dictate the structures in society that come to be dominant and accepted as givens.

Arising from this background, critical multiculturalism, sometimes referred to as insurgent or resistance multiculturalism, arose in the 1980s from the field of critical pedagogy (Kanpol and McLaren, 1995) in which leading authors wrote about a new way of looking at education in multicultural classrooms (see for example McLaren, 1994; Kincheloe and Steinberg, 1997; Giroux, 2000; Steinberg and Kincheloe, 2001). Many of these authors took their initial inspiration from the work of Paolo Freire who set out the parameters of a critical pedagogy in his home country, Brazil, a pedagogy that would liberate the peasants through literacy (Freire, 1972). The concern of critical pedagogists is not only to give space to non-white students to describe their lived experience, but also to ensure that the dominant, privileged, usually white-Western students question their own history and how it contributes to the way in which society is described and shaped by asking whose knowledge and history is represented in society, who does this privilege

and who is excluded (Giroux, 1995). Thus, critical multiculturalism examines “social struggles over signs and meanings” (McLaren, 1994, p53) and draws attention to the way in which social, cultural and institutional relations dictate meaning, meaning that is ascribed by the dominant ideological position (McLaren, 1994; Wear, 2003).

Critical multiculturalism proposes that society is characterised by power and privilege which not only determine the values of that society but also determine what constitutes difference and therefore who represents the dominant majority and who falls into the marginalised minority (McLaren, 1994; Giroux, 2000; Steinberg and Kincheloe, 2001; Burton, 2002; Wear, 2003). Analysis of “power structures and socio-historical constructs” (Nylund, 2006, p29) brings understanding of how society is shaped, how knowledge is produced, and how some come to be viewed as inferior to others (Steinberg and Kincheloe, 2001). McLaren (1994) and Goldberg (1994) argue that those people who are labelled different, or less equal, are subsequently excluded from the opportunities available to the dominant majority. Wendy Martineau describes this as being “rendered invisible by the dominant meanings of a society” (Martineau, 2012, p170). Exclusion, or invisibility, results when the definition of difference is set by the dominant norms and values – if you are not like us then you are different – thus privileging some whilst disempowering others (Fleras, 2002). Stephen May goes on to point out that not all differences are equal because some individuals have more choices than others and some individuals are “differentially constrained” by “structural forces” such as racism, colonialism and capitalism (May, 2009, p43). In arguing that consideration of culture always takes place within a “discourse of power and inequality”, May urges reflection on ethnicity and culture without the essentialising labels that frequently accompany thinking about ethnic identity to the exclusion of consideration of structural inequalities (May, 2009, p42).

Drawing on its roots in critical theory, several authors have noted the transformative potential of critical multiculturalism (Guba and Lincoln, 1994; Goldberg cited in Kanpol and McLaren, 1995, p11; Valadez, 2001; Giroux, 1988; May, 2009). This transformation is brought about by examining and questioning the way in which history has shaped society, and continues to shape an individual’s responses to society. As Dawn Burton expresses it, “difference is always a product of history, power, culture and ideology” (Burton, 2002, p210) which Barry Kanpol and Peter McLaren argue should be examined

in the context of a theoretical framework that addresses “oppression, resistance and liberation” (Kanpol and McLaren, 1995, p4). Critical multiculturalism acknowledges the role of history in the development of experience and therefore meaning (McLaren, 1994), in the development of an individual’s identity (Shohat and Stam cited in Turner, 1993, p418), and exposes the historical background to relationships (Kanpol and McLaren, 1995; Giroux, 2000; Matustik, 2002). According to Henry Giroux, a task of critical multiculturalism is, therefore, to focus attention on the role of history, language and institutions in the production of discrimination (Giroux, 2000), and to allow individuals the space to set out and take control of their own histories in order to participate in the dominant political system (Giroux, 1995).

Attaching a label of difference operates to place some people in a subordinate position to those people who are deemed to meet the norm. Critical multiculturalism refuses to accept labels, preferring instead to examine how those labels were developed, by whom and for whose benefit, how they are interpreted, and what alternatives for understanding exist (Burton, 2002). Thus critical multiculturalism provides a framework to examine dominant hegemonies and those labelled “different” to understand social structures that create “patterns of domination and subordination” (McLaren, 1994, p58). As Stephen May and Christine Sleeter describe it, solidarity across communities will only be achieved when everybody understands the oppression of others, understands the history of themselves and others, in the process exposing power relations (May and Sleeter, 2010). To achieve this, society needs, they say, an awareness of “normative assumptions” and “institutional practices that characterise them” (May and Sleeter, 2010, p11).

A further strength of critical multiculturalism is that it draws on the forward thinking aspect of critical theory which “critiques contemporary society whilst envisioning possibilities” (Burton, 2002, p210), allowing critical multicultural theorists to move beyond simply identifying and questioning power structures to seeking ways to redress this situation. May describes this process as “naming” and “actively challenging” injustice (May, 2009, p35).

Giroux (1995) and CarolAnn Daniel (Daniel, 2008) both argue that critical multiculturalism also provides a framework for moving away from a focus on minorities to a focus on the political system and how it has been shaped by history and language.

Giroux argues that the dominant political system effectively makes “inequity invisible” and therefore promotes disadvantage (Giroux, 1995, p114). In Giroux’s words critical multiculturalism intends to “strip white supremacy of authority and legitimacy” in order to identify the structures of power that “racialize the social order” (Giroux, 2000, p326). David Nylund agrees that critical multiculturalism provides a space for a challenge to whiteness as a socially-constructed norm, with its “normalizing discourse” that operates to subjugate some people (Nylund, 2006, p36). May also notes that the “invisibility of Whiteness” characterises what he describes as the colour blind nature of public policy (May, 2009, p44).

Importantly, critical multiculturalism seeks to empower minorities, to value and “re- value” different knowledge (May, 2009, p43), and to challenge and transform or rebuild the systems and institutions, especially Eurocentric ideologies, that entrench subordination and discrimination (Goldberg, 1994; McLaren, 1994; Giroux, 2000; Fleras, 2002; Prins and Saharso, 2013). Such transformation would hasten a winding back of the “effects of repressive and constraining power” (Goldberg, 1994, p30) and restore social justice (Burton, 2002). Kanpol and McLaren comment further that the power of “Western forms of hegemony” is in shaping people living within that political system, a power that makes it hard for those people to see ways in which they could act differently (Kanpol and McLaren, 1995, p2). In healthcare specifically, Joan Anderson and colleagues add that “Western science” is “the norm” against which all other beliefs are measured (Anderson et al., 2007, p297).

Giroux (1995, p112-116) suggests that critical multiculturalism may be seen by the dominant order as a threat to their position, not only because it “embraces multiple identities” and “diverse cultural traditions”, but also because critical multiculturalism has a “moral and ethical” tone rather than a market-based tone. Critical multiculturalism uses culture as the vehicle to demonstrate that cohesive society does not need to be built on a single, common culture but rather that recognition of all cultures as of equal worth and worthy of equal support is a solid basis for political legitimacy through a “universal right to cultural self-definition and self-production” (Turner, 1993, p425). Similarly, Kanpol and McLaren (1995) suggest that people would gather around issues of common concern and form a common bond around that issue regardless of cultural background. Giroux describes this as “unity-in-difference” which can only be achieved if society rejects

“essentialising and separatist” language that deems some cultures “tolerable” to others (Giroux, 2000, p338). Kanpol and McLaren go on to argue that a dominant ideology will always seek to explain why some “differences matter over others” noting that wherever identity sets up a “we” there must always be a relationship of power between the “we” and others (Kanpol and McLaren, 1995, p8-9).

When societal structures continue unquestioned it seems inevitable that some citizens will be disadvantaged, especially those that seemingly do not conform to the dominant norms. The examples given in Chapter 1 show how CALD citizens can be disadvantaged by healthcare systems which do not acknowledge the different ways in which health and illness can be experienced by people of CALD backgrounds. Thus far, in this section I have described critical multiculturalism as a framework that can shine a light on societal structures which may serve to exclude some citizens as beneficiaries of public policy. According to both Will Kymlicka and Barry Hindess, the external environment is mirrored within the political system ensuring that internal agency culture, and therefore practices, benefit the dominant group in society further entrenching disadvantage to minority groups (Kymlicka, 1995; Hindess, 2008). A critical multicultural approach can be used to shine a light into the government health sector, exposing those internal structures and procedures that support the development of health policy, but which may put the needs of some citizens ahead of others in order to maintain dominance of the privileged and powerful. A critical multicultural framework offers a powerful tool to health policy makers to reflect on their own assumptions and positions in society with a view to developing more inclusive health policy and citizen engagement. Such examination opens the possibility of greater understanding between healthcare organisations and CALD background citizens, with a view to reducing disadvantage exacerbated by the implementation of the healthcare system.