Aspectos Financieros y Presupuestarios

Crenshaw (1989) regards identity politics as a process that brings people together based on a shared aspect of their identity. Put another way, it is what brings otherwise diverse groups together to seek community recognition and redress. However, as Crenshaw points out, frequently groups come together based on a shared political identity but then fail to examine differences among themselves within their own group. In her words, “The problem with identity politics is not that it fails to transcend differences, as some critics charge, but rather the opposite – that it frequently conflates or ignores intragroup differences” (p. 25). Crenshaw’s criticisms were largely based the emergence of feminist discourse, and she pointed out that while there were some commonalities, the discrimination that middle-class white women faced was not the same as that of black working-class women. She argues that for some individuals, there is more than one form of oppression at play, and that this intersectionality needs to be considered in any social justice discourse. Crenshaw states that any observations that do not take intersectionality into account cannot accurately represent people’s experiences and needs.

Intersectionality theory is relevant to this research in that intra-group differences are also of interest in the New Zealand context. While there is evidence to support the concept of strong ethnic identities in educational settings (e.g. Bishop & Glynn, 1999), uncritical categorisation of people based on gender or racial heritage also risks stereotyping and othering, and potentially undermines recognition of multiple points of discrimination and inequality, within and between groups.

Border theory is closely aligned to intersectionality theory as it reinforces the need to consider individuals’ multiple ethnic and cultural identities and how these might be foregrounded or backgrounded by individuals depending on the context they find themselves in. Border theory emerged from border studies that originated through the exploration of the complex political and cultural exchanges occurring along the United States and Mexican border. This theory has grown to encompass the

discourse and cultural exchanges between groups of people from different ethnic, racial and cultural backgrounds. Rather than the emphasis on singular cultures often

found in multicultural literature, border studies examines the intersections of cultures and identities and the resulting effects. From border studies theory arises the term “border crossings,” (Anzaldúa, 1987), which refers to moving across diverse borders such as race, gender, or geography. She describes a borderland as:

a vague and undetermined place created by the emotional residue of an unnatural boundary. It is in a constant state of transition. The prohibited and forbidden are its inhabitants. Los atravesados live here: the squint- eyed, the perverse, the queer, the troublesome, the mongrel, the mulatto, the half-breed, the half dead; in short, those who cross over, pass over, or go through the confines of the normal. (p. 25)

Maria Root (1996) theorises on the different ways individuals approach their cultural heritages and locatedness. They may acknowledge each cultural identity equally and can be wholly immersed, respected, and accepted by two cultures simultaneously. Second, the individual can shift foreground and background identities to cross borders defined by race and ethnicity. At various times, a person with a bicultural or multicultural identity or background may wish temporarily to emphasize or highlight one background while de-emphasizing another, in what Root calls “situational ethnicity and situational race”. Third, Root discusses the individual who “decisively sits on a border, experiencing it as the central reference point”. Some individuals self- designate themselves in the “other” multiracial category, not defined by the typical five-race listing on many forms. These individuals wish to invent a new or revised identity. Root designates a fourth area being largely located within one cultural group, but making forays into other groups from time to time. She states that this instance is not one of changing loyalties but merely of adapting to one’s personal needs, saying that people might change ways of identifying themselves over their lifetime.

A key element of Root’s 1996 theory is the ability of the individual to shift from seeking approval from others to defining him-or herself. Such assertions of identity are referred to by Holland, Lachiocotte, Skinner, and Cain (1998) as the space of ‘authoring’. Holland et al., emphasise however that ‘I’ (self) making is in no way entirely self-orchestrated. Instead it is the joining up of a number of different voices

which draws together that which is already there (built over history and time), and the continuing dynamic nature of daily interaction.

The foregrounding and backgrounding of different identities can manifest in different ways. For example, difference might at times be expressed through a national

identity, and other times at an individual level through clothing choices and body adornment. In this research, I suggest that Burbules (1997) can help illustrate these various expressions of identity, as well as some of the many potential intersections, through his ‘categories of difference’. An important aspect of Burbules’ theory is what might be interpreted as motivations of difference; that is, the different reasons why groups and individuals seek to emphasise differences between themselves and others. He describes these as difference to, difference against, which is situated in a more socio-political context and about the rejection of dominant or intra-group norms and expectations. A third category is difference beyond. This involves some aspects of cultural expression, beliefs or value systems that are beyond the comprehension or description of other groups of people.

The theories of Fraser (1989), along with Crenshaw (1989), Anzaldúa (1987), Root (1996), and Burbules’ (1997) examples highlight the complexities that surround discourses on culture, diversity and difference that are implicit within Bernstein’s (2000) pedagogic device. Understanding the significance of and intersections between these theories and their implications for educational policy design is a key aspect of this research. In the context of educational or social policy design,

assumptions and generalisations about individual and group identities can have the effect of undermining the very things that the policy may be designed to address, that is, inequities and disparities in educational outcomes across different groups of students.