Prof. Pamela Courtenay-Hall, Oct,2001

EPST 314

Multicultural and Antiracist Education:
Developing a Clear Conceptual Framework
In order to have a clear sense of the legitimate goals and strategies of multicultural and antiracist
education, it is important to have a clear sense of what we mean by the terms ‘multiculturalism,’
‘antiracism,’ etc. In turn, a clear understanding of these terms requires that we begin with an
understanding of what race and culture are. No easy task! Below, I will provide some of the best
conceptualizations of these terms that I have yet come across, and leave it to you to compare
them with your own best understandings of each of these terms. Most of these conceptu­
alizations come from the work of Lawrence Blum in “Antiracism, Multiculturalism, and Interracial
Community: Three Educational Values for a Multicultural Society.”1

What is race"?
Read each of the following definitions, note differences between them, and compare them with
your own conception of race. Then write out the most adequate definition of race that you
can come up with, explaining why it is better than others.. (What would Whatwouldadequate ‘ mean?
For starters, how about: —accurate and comprehensive with respect to our best current
understandings from biology, history, social science, and common usage. There will
sometimes be tensions between common usage and the most scientifically informed
understandings related to a concept. In such cases, you will need to suggest how such
tensions are to be resolved..)

From the Canadian Oxford Dictionary (1999);
1. Each of the major divisions of humankind having distinct physical characteristics.
2. A tribe, nation, etc. regarded as of a distinct ethnic stock.
3. A group of persons, animals or plants connected by common descent.

From the Random House College Dictionary (1972):
1. A group of persons related by common descent, blood, or heredity.
2. Ethnol. a subdivision of the human species, characterized by a more or less
distinctive combination of physical traits that are transmitted in descent.
From the Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia (1996) [italics added];
A race is a population group or subspecies within the living human species. Homo
sapiens, set apart from other subspecies on the basis of arbitrarily selected, commonly
visible, or phenotypic criteria. The criteria most often selected are skin color, hair
quantity and form, and the shape and form of the body, head, and facial features. A
problem is presented, however, by the high variability of such characteristics within any
particular population group. Not all genes that transmit all phenotypic characteristics
ascribed to a subspecies are transmitted in a cluster. As a result only some members of a
particular "race" will have all the criteria for that race, although every member will
probably have one or more of the characteristics.
* Lawrence Blum in “Antiracism, Multicutluralism, and Interracial Community; Three Educational Values for a
Multicultural Society.” Distinguished Lecture Series 1991-1992. Boston; University of Massachusetts at Boston.
1

The species Homo sapiens is not difficult for specialists to identify, nor is there
difficulty in determining its constituent populations, those groups of human beings who
inhabit the various areas of the earth. No such clear-cut agreement is possible in
determining the nature of subspecies, or races, and many, probably most, scientists
today reject the concept of race. Other scientists use the race concept as an expedient
shorthand expression for variants in anatomical traits exhibited by the populations of
broad geographic homelands—zoographic regions with characteristic resident animals
that shared the terrain with developing human populations.
Even in this geographic sense, however, the term race must be understood to have
value only as a general term without precise definition, because it does not take into
account hybridization and movement of populations with the consequent "gene flow"
from one area to another, nor does it allow for continuing evolution. Human beings do,
however, partially reflect their geographic origin in the physical traits that have been
mentioned, and in some physiological characteristics such as tolerance of cold, heat,
and altitude. [End of entry from Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia 1996]

What is racism?
Compare the best definition of racism that you were able to develop in your group discussion
with the definition from Lawrence Blum below, then write out the most adequate definition
that you can come up with, explaining why it is better than others.

RACISM;
Racism is the denial of the fundamental moral equality of all human beings.
It involves the expression of attitudes of superior worth or merit justifying or
underpinning the domination or unjust advantage of some groups over others
(Blum 1992, p.2).
Racism refers both to an institutional or social structure of racial domination or
injustice—as when we speak of a racist institution—and also to individual actions,
beliefs, and attitudes, whether consciously held or not, which express, support or justify
the superiority of one racial group to another. Thus, on both the individual and
institutional levels, racism involves denying or violating the equal dignity and worth of
all human beings on the basis of race, and on both levels, racism is bound up with
dominance and hierarchy (Blum 1992, p.4).

It is worth noting that this conception of racism was criticized by several students in a course in
UBC’s Native Indian Teacher Education Program (Chilliwack, 2000) for failing to mention
hatred as a common feature of racism. An important question to think about is whether hatred
is present in some form even in “polite” forms of racism. And what other emotional sources
are involved in the development of racist attitudes? How could the conception be revised in
light of these concerns? It is also worth noting that Blum distinguishes between racism and
these three problematic attitudes or practices which may involve racism in particular cases but
which are not necessarily racist:

2

•
•
•
•

racial ignorance or insensitivity
making racial distinctions
racial exclusiveness (e.g., Chinese-Canadian children playing together at recess)
racial discomfort (i.e., discomfort being with people of racial/ethnic background
different from my own).

Here are some questions about racial discomfort Do you think that someone can experience
these feelings of discomfort without being in some way involved in racist thinking? --i.e.,
without holding any assumptions of superiority, but only of difference? Is it easier to imagine
racial discomfort being nonracist in some cases rather than in others? What examples come to
mind? What factors other than assumptions of superiority or inferiority might cause racial
discomfort? In other words, is discomfort that seems to have racial contours necessarily about
race or racialization? (Consider, for example, an African Canadian student feeling
uncomfortable in a group of white students, an Anglo-Canadian student feeling uncomfortable
in a group of Croatian-Canadian students, and a recently-immigrated Chinese-Canadian student
who speaks very little English feeling uncomfortable in a group of Anglo-Canadian students.)

What is antiracism?
Compare the best definition of antiracism as an educational goal that you were able to develop
in your group discussion with the definition from Lawrence Blum below. Then write out the
most adequate definition that you can come up with, explaining why it is better than others.

ANTIRACISM:
Antiracism... involves striving to be without racist attitudes oneself as well as being
prepared to work against both racist attitudes in others and racist injustice in society
more generally (Blum 1992, p.2)

Blum notes that there are three components of antiracism;
1) “Belief in the equal moral worth of all persons regardless of race, not just as an intellectual
matter, but rooted more deeply in one’s attitudes and emotions”;
2) Understanding the psychological dynamics of racism (“scapegoating, stereotyping, rigidity
and fear of difference, rationalization of privilege and power, projecting of unwanted wishes
onto others,” etc.) and understanding the particular historical forms of racism (“slavery,
colonialism, segregation, Nazism, the mistreatment of native Americans,” etc.);
3) Opposition to racism in the actions of others and in social practices and structures (Blum
1992, pp.4-6, indenting added).

What is culture?
Compare the best definition of culture that you were able to develop in your group discussion
with the definition below. Then write out the most adequate definition that you can come up
with, explaining why it is better than others.

3

CULTURE:
The forms of expression and language, ways of living, patterns of social and humannature interaction, understandings, knowledge, forms of production, forms of artistic
expression, and traditions of birthing, childraising, educating, home-making, mating,
friendship, care, celebrating, grieving, and dying, which have developed in a certain
community of people and which are passed on in some form from one generation to the
next. It is important to recognize that ‘culture’ includes not only elite intellectual and
artistic traditions, but also traditions of getting and preparing food, traditions of making
and wearing clothes, and traditions of caring for children, for the sick, and for the
elderly. These crucial elements of culture are too often not adequately recognized (in
western societies) for their intellectual and artistic dimensions, though they do seem to
be quite commonly recognized for their role in generating meaning and shaping identity.

What is nulticulturalism?
Compare the best conception of multiculturalism as an educational goal that you were able to

develop in your group discussion with the definition from Lawrence Blum below. Then write
out the most adequate conception that you can come up with, explaining why it is better than
others.

MULTICULTURALISM;
Multiculturalism [as an educational goal] involves an understanding, appreciation and

valuing of one’s own culture, and an informed respect and curiosity about the ethnic
culture of others. It involves a valuing of other cultures, not in the sense of approving
of all aspects of those cultures, but of attempting to see how a given culture can express
value to its own members [or help its members create and express meaning and
goodness in their lives and communities] (Blum 1992, p.2; parentheses added).
his definition may sound a little rosy. In reality, it may seem that a kind of mutual tolerance
may in many cases of cultural conflict be the most that we can hope for. But it might be argued
that in such cases,what has been
achieved is not a true multiculturalism, but only the halfway
p mt of tolerance or worse, the mere cessation of hostilities. Considering this point how do
you think multiculturalism is best defined?

Blum argues that there are three subvalues of the value of multiculturalism as he defines if
affirming one's own cultural identity; learning about and valuing one’s own cultural

to understand and learn about (and from) cultures other than

treasured and

9
1 92. p.8).

the existence
to be

For a very different view on the question of valuing cultural diversity itself, see Jerrold
Coombs’ article, “Multicultural Education and Social Justice” (International Yearbook ofAdult
Education 14 (1986): 1-14). This question leads into holist vs. individualist debates about
valuing such as, Is it the culture itself that is valuable, or is it only the fact that a particular
culture matters to its people that makes any culture be something of value?
Put more directly, is it reasonable to value a culture in the sense of devoting funding to its
preservation, if no living members of that culture are concerned about its preservation?
Does a culture have meaning and significance beyond what it means to its bearers? If so,
who is to decide its meaning and significance, and on what criteria? But these questions go
beyond the scope of this outline.

One of the most useful aspects of Blum’s conceptual framework in terms of aiding curriculum
development in multicultural education is his articulation of the three dimensions of culture for
ethic groups that have had to deal with emigration or immigration and resultant cultural
transition. I will use Canadian examples to illustrate these three dimensions;
1) Ancestor culture of the ethnic group
(for example, ancient Japanese culture as the ancestor culture for Japanese-Canadians).
However, it is important to recognize that there is not one homogeneous ancient Japanese
culture, but rather, many, with regional, linguistic, religious, class and gender differences.
2) Historical experience of the ethnic group once outside its originary homeland or once
invaded by powerful immigrants
(for example, the experiences of Japanese Canadians from the late 19th century to the late
20th century, including the period of developing many successful family fishing, grocery, and
other businesses, the horrible years of dispossession and internment in detention camps
during the Second World War, and the late 20th century efforts to have these problems
addressed).
3) Current ethnic culture of the ethnic group, which Blum characterizes as “family ethnic
rituals, foods, customs regarding family roles and interactions,” etc. It is important to note
that dealing with racism can be a very significant part of current ethnic culture for
marginalized groups.
So, for example, current ethnic culture for Japanese-Canadians will include much more than
just the kinds of rituals, food practices and family customs that Japanese-Canadians
currently participate in. It will also include the resources, discourses and practices that
Japanese-Canadians have developed to deal with the various forms of discrimination they
still encounter, and the resources and institutions they have developed to enable the
continuation of their cultural identity.

Blum notes that these latter two dimensions of culture are profoundly inter-cultural with
respect to the ancestor culture of the group and the dominant culture(s) with which the group
has had to interact. (Of course, an ancestor culture may also itself have been influenced by
earlier intercultural negotiations.)

Awareness of these three dimensions of culture can help teachers to frame their students’
explorations of culture in ways that avoiding the problems of freezing, etc., described on the
following page with special reference to indigenous peoples.
5

Two different philosophical foundations for Multiculturalism
The rise of interest in multiculturalism in Canada over the past three decades has coincided
with an increase in the popularity of cultural moral relativism, the view that (1) there are
universally binding moral laws or universal values of any sort, and that (2) if there are any
laws, these have force only relative to a particular cultural group within a particular history
regional context, and they cannot be validly critiqued from outside of that cultural, historic
regional context. As a result of these beliefs, cultural relativists often argue that all cultures must
be taken equally seriously, and given equal protection and support - because no one is in any
position to decide which cultures are more deserving of respect and support than others.
But cultural relativism is not the only possible foundation for multiculturalism. As Blum notes,
“While the philosophical relativism on which this version of multiculturalism rests needs to be taken
seriously - it has a long and distinguished philosophic history - there is an alternative, quite different
and nonrelativistic, philosophical foundation for multiculturalism” (Blum, p. 12). That alternative is
cultural pluralism, the view that although different cultures manifest many different values and
must respond to different ecological and historical contexts, it is possible for the values and context
of a given culture to be appreciated by people from a different culture, and to that extent, also to be
judged by those people. Cultural pluralism is an important perspective to consider, because it is not
clear how one can, for example, condemn the racist and genocidal values of Nazi Germany without
a commitment to cultural pluralism or to some less modest alternative to cultural relativism.

Blum notes that a pluralist, non relativistic approach to multicultural education would involve
“exposing students to, and helping them to appreciate the range of, values embodied in different
cultures.” But he warns that a pluralist approach
should not minimize the work often necessary to see beyond the parochial assumptions
and perspectives of one’s own culture.... Indeed, one of the undoubted contributions
of the multicultural movement has been to reveal those obstacles as well as the dominant
culture’s resistance to acknowledging them (Blum, p. 12).

Blum describes multicultural perspectives as differing from antiracism perspectives in part by
discussing the tragic case of Vincent Chen, the Chinese-American who was beaten and killed
by a white autoworker resentful against the Japanese for the effects of global auto production
competition on unemployment for American autoworkers. Blum notes that Vincent Chen’s
murderer not only mistook a Chinese-American for a Japanese American; he seemed to have
“no clear sense that there was any difference between these two Asian-American groups.”
Blum notes that “racist attitudes are generally not sensitive to [such] cultural and ethnic
distinctions,” and this is the reason why distinct cultural and ethnic groups often need to and do
unite in opposition to racism [Blum, p. 13].
Blum also discusses the example of Irish Americans as once discriminated against by AngloProtestant Americans, but now themselves largely seen as part of the dominant white majority,
to explain how racialization can change over time, and to note that from a multicultural point
of view, a dominant racial group (white Americans) can be seen to be composed of many

6

different ethnic and cultural groups (e.g., Anglo-Protestant Americans, Irish Catholic
Americans, Polish Catholic Americans, Jewish Americans, etc.) He concludes:

Antiracism and multiculturalism constitute two distinct and complementary leses,
yielding different categorizations of a common social reality. Both lenses highlight a
truth about that reality. Antiraicsm; the truth that groups are arranged in a hierarchy of
dominance and submordination, security and vulnerability, advantage and disadvantage;
multiculturalism: the truth that groups have distinct cultures (Blum, p.l4).
But it is also important to recognize the extent to which resistance to racism can become a part
of one’s historical cultural experience and current culture. It might be more accurate, then, to
describe multiculturalism and antiracism as two different focal points on the same bifocal lens.
However, this lens quickly becomes multifocal as soon as we begin to grapple with the
complex intertwining of class, gender, and disability with race and culture in the
characterization of social experience.

Related values —
Blum discusses two other values that are important themes in any program of multicultural and
antiracist education:

A SENSE OF INTERRACIAL COMMUNITY:
This involves a sense, not necessarily explicit or articulated, that one possesses human
bonds with persons of other races and ethnicities. The bonds may, and ideally should,
be so broad as to encompass all of humanity; but they may also be limited to the bonds
formed in friendships, schools, workplaces and the like (Blum 1992, p.2).
TREATING PERSONS AS INDIVIDUALS:
This involves recognizing the individuality of each person—specifically, that while an
individual person is a member of an ethnic or racial group, and while that aspect may be
an important part of who she is, she is more than that ethnic or racial identity. It is the
lived appreciation of this individuality, not simply paying lip service to it, that
constitutes the value I will call treating persons as individuals (Blum 1992, p.2).
We will see some related concerns about cultural identity and generalization focusing on
indigenous peoples on the following page.

7

EDST3I4
■

_______ _________________ Prof. Pamela Courtenay Hall, Nov. 1999

Problems of Generalization and Re-presentation in First Nations Education
Recognition of First Peoples and learning about their histories and their contemporary
social, cultural, economic and political realities are important parts of environmental
education. In these endeavours, all of us, whether native or non-native, need to recognize
and deal with problems of cultural generalization and reification. It is not surprising that
these problems are widespread. Dominant societies have formed around centuries of
racism, ethnocentrism and bodily and cultural genocide directed against indigenous peoples.
It will take time and effort and reeducation to infuse dominant cultures and languages—and
ways of speaking, perceiving, thinking, picturing and remembering—
with the distinctions and understandings needed to avoid these problems.

♦ FREEZING - Holding onto a traditional picture of an indigenous people, or honouring
their historical roots, but failing to recognize or honour their present social, cultural,
economic and political realities. I.e., failing to honour the strategies and paths of
adaptation that particular indigenous groups or individuals have taken and are taking
now in dealing with dominating cultures. In other words, mistaking ancestor culture or
historical experience for contemporary culture.
♦ MYTHOLOGIZING - Uncritically accepting myths about indigenous cultures and
expecting indigenous people to live up to them.
♦

COMMODIFYING CULTURE - Treating culture as if it consisted of little more than
cuisine, clothing styles, art and music, all as commodities for the consumption and
entertainment of those who would like to purchase them —rather than understanding
culture as the practices, traditions, languages, knowledge, relationships and community
life that lie behind the artifacts.

♦

CULTURAL APPROPRIATION- Attempting to incorporate practices, rituals,
concepts or beliefs from another culture into one’s own without adequate understanding
of the context that informs them, the limitations of “transplanting”, and the constraints
and protocols that need to be observed.

♦

UNIVERSALIZING or “PAN-INDIANISM’ - Failing to recognize diversity across
different indigenous societies & cultures. Ex.’s: “Native American beliefs”,
“According to native legends....”
There are times when collective terms are
appropriate and accurate, but other times when they amount to a lack of recognition of
the particular First Nation involved (e.g., Cree, Mohawk, Shuswap, etc.) or of the
particular bands or people involved (e.g., northern Alberta Cree c/w Cree bands in other
regions).

HOMOGENIZING - Failing to recognize diversity within particular indigenous societies (e.g.,
with respect to socio-economic background, with respect to schooling experiences, with respect
to views about educational issues, environmental issues, gender issues, etc.).

8

EPST 314_______ Understanding Essentialism and Constructionism

Prof. Pamela Courtenay Hall, March 2000

ESSENTIALISM:
The view that there is a core set of characteristics which everyone “genuinely” belonging to a
certain group possesses. (One can have essentialist views about gender, about race, about
socio-economic class, about culture, etc.)
BIOLOGICAL ESSENTIALISM:
The view that these core characteristics are Inborn in a person, and ultimately of genetic origin.
Assuming these core characteristics to be innate, biological essentialists also often argue
that it would go against instinct and be socially counter-productive to attempt to change
these characteristics, to attempt to alter their distribution in people, or to encourage people
to go Into occupations that are unsuited to their supposed biologically given predispositions
and abilities.

Many people who think of race as solely a biological property think of it in these terms:

Biological property:
Possession of a certain set of physical characteristics,
— either commonly visible features
(often: skin colour, shape of head or facial features,
colour and form of hair, eye colour, shape of body),
— or genetic constitution (genotype).

Many people who think of race solely as a socially constructed property think of it in these
terms:

Socially Constructed Property:
1. Dominant groups classify human beings according to ‘race’ because their
particular racial classification system serves their interests. They develop
criteria to legitimize their classification system, but it is held in place largely by
their social, economic, political and military power to impose it within their own
society and in other societies as well.
2. There is no pre-existing objective reality compelling this classification.
3. The very fact of this classification system being in use has tended to legitimate
and entrench it.

Essentializing race:
Ignoring the extent to which racial identity is influenced or created by social and
historical factors both in a person’s life and in the broader society, and failing to
recognize the influence of socially dominant interest groups in the construction of
‘race’ (i.e., racialization), insisting against this complexity that racial identity is
determined solely by biological factors and/or that racial identity is tied to certain
behaviours and capacities.
9