Human Diversity, Cultural Hegemony, and the Integrity of the Academic Canon

Abstract

Questions concerning the appropriate treatment of diverse human experiences, identities, and perspectives in the curricula of our schools have achieved prominence in the debates over curriculum development in recent years. As manifestations of diversity in human characteristics have become more obvious and are experienced as being ubiquitous in the lives of all members of society, the facts of human diversity and cultural pluralism have become a significant source of social concern. As the special interests of diverse subgroups have been increasingly expressed in the political arena, the problems for education have been exacerbated and the debate accelerated. It is in this context that concern for Africentric and multicultural education has become the focus of so much attention and often uninformed debate. Africentric education can be thought of as a response to or corrective for what has been perceived by some as Eurocentric education, with the latter's history of having preempted the academic canon by imposing standards for knowledge content and validity that are associated with the cultures of northern Europe. Proponents of Africentric education insist that the long and rich history of the peoples of Africa and their cultures are legitimate foci for academic study; and that all students, especially students of African descent, should have the opportunity to be exposed to such studies. Additionally, the critics of an exclusive or excessive focus on Western civilization (Eurocentric knowledge) argue that such a truncated approach to knowledge is a distortion of reality and must be corrected. In both approaches the tendency exists for a single perspective and knowledge community to be the focus for curriculum organization. Thus, what is often debated are the contending validities and priority claims of each. In a recent report to the New York State Board of Regents, Gordon and Roberts (1991) argue that such a juxtaposition of claims misrepresents the problems. In their view, the problems are defined as having to do with (1) the juxtaposition of concern for human diversity, cultural hegemony, and the integrity of the canon; and (2) the pedagogical question of how