‘Both ways education’ dominant culture access and minority culture maintenance: An analysis of competing theories

Abstract

In this paper I examine two competing theories of ‘Both Ways’ education: Harris' culture domain separation theory and the ‘negotiated meaning’ approach articulated by Kemmis and Deakin colleagues. After outlining the two approaches, the analysis proceeds along three dimensions: view of culture, language, and epistemology/ontology. I conclude that Harris' theory is based on a flawed concept of culture while Kemmis' approach is more congruent with contemporary culture theorising. Both approaches have tended to use linguistic data in a methodologically dubious manner to draw conclusions about fundamental differences in Aboriginal and Western world views. This does not undermine the ‘negotiated meaning’ approach as seriously as it does Harris' culture domain separation theory, since the former theorists do not equate world view and culture. Negotiated meaning theory is more defensible conceptually from a Western academic perspective in terms of its epistemological and ontological assumptions. However, this should not preclude specific indigenous groups from making decisions to demarcate indigenous and non‐indigenous culture and knowledge for pedagogical purposes. I discuss two further major problems with Harris' position. Firstly, he creates confusion by employing different levels of conceptual analysis to discuss domain separation theory without explicating clearly their relationship. Secondly, domain separation as a strategy for cultural survival is unrealistic and indigenous peoples do not necessarily want it.