The Politics of Multicultural Art Education

Abstract

Giving depth and definition the more general movement toward multiculturalism in American society and its schools, various liberation groups have challenged the dominance of the Western, white-male cultural tradition, finding it guilty of sexism, racism, classism, ageism, elitism, essentialism, homophobia, and ethnocentrism. Postmodernist thinkers warn, however, that movements which select and contest oppressive aspects of a dominant tradition may inadvertently reinforce or perpetuate other, equally oppressive aspects of that tradition; in this way contribute dominance in spite of our liberatory intentions (Lather, 1991b, p. 15). The problem of discerning the reproductive dimensions of our efforts (Lather, 1991 a, p. 154) is both obscured and complicated by the fact that within any liberation movement, there are those who opt for integration, those who argue for separatism, and those who choose pluralism as the best route liberation (Collins, 1981). Finding the integrationist vision of the melting pot and the specter of the separatist ghetto intellectually naive and/or ethically repugnant, most multiculturalists in art education subscribe pluralism not only as an accurate description of what is, but as a prescription for liberation and a model for teaching about art from other than the dominant culture's point of view. If pluralism would seem be an intellectually and ethically safe position, it is nevertheless politically problematic. Indeed, its apparent safeness in these regards might well stem from the fact that, although it provides a basis for criticizing political action, it is a position without a clear-cut political agenda of its own. If a pluralistic approach multiculturalism in art education is realize its promise of liberation and social justice, those advocating this approach need explore and address the political ambiguity inherent in this approach change. Toward this end, we have chosen review those tendencies within cultural pluralism that will need further critique if programs embodying them are not perpetuate oppressive values, attitudes, or structures of the dominant culture. We will then conclude our discussion by briefly suggesting the continuing importance of integrationist and separatist impulses if pluralistic approaches multicultural art education are be effectively implemented. Multiculturalism and pluralism are peculiarly Western ideas ideas not altogether unrelated the colonialist history of our dominant culture. In a postcolonialist context, the idea of studying other cultures (or one's own culture as if one were a visiting anthropologist) might yet entail a subtle form of intellectual expansionism: a desire know about the world and in that familiar Western sense, to be on top of it. Although the paradox of a Western bias in the notion of cultural pluralism is not intolerable, it should encourage us question whether the concept of cultural pluralism carries the same connotations or is equally valued in the diverse cultures multicultural pluralists intend recognize, understand, and appreciate. In an initial attempt anticipate the more particular values of the dominant culture that might be perpetuated in a pluralistic approach multiculturalism, we have identified several different responses among pluralists the oppression of Western mainstream culture. These responses, found alone or in various combinations, are: attack the dominant culture; escape it; repair (or control) the damage it inflicts; or transform it into a common culture. We will take a quick look at each, suggesting which attitudes of