The assimilation and integration approaches as explained above have major problems. The assimilation approach in the first place does not in any way lead to any form of integration except the absorption of minority groups into the main stream. On the other hand, the main problem in the integration approach is that although the culture, language and values of the “other” (i.e. the minority groups) are taken on board, there is no effort made towards a symbiotic learning of each other. Eventually, the minority groups embrace the language, value and culture of the majority group at their own expense. This promotes social injustice instead of social justice. According to Naidoo (1996a:13), in order to address difficulties that surfaced during the assimilation and integration approaches as they unfolded in various countries, the idea of multicultural education was suggested, motivated and implemented as a solution. In reaction to the oppressive problems of the assimilation approach and that of cultural and racial integration, a more accommodating approach namely multicultural education was introduced during the late 1970s. In other words, multicultural education emerged in reaction to the
Multicultural education recognises and accepts the rightful existence of different cultural groups and views cultural diversity as an asset and a source of social enrichment rather than as a handicap or social problem. Unlike assimilation, it fosters a balance between social conformity on the one hand and social diversity and change on the other. It further encourages some form of acculturation, as opposed to assimilation, where cultures are shared and enriched through interaction (Lemmer & Squelch, 1993:2). While assimilation involves the complete elimination of cultural differences, which may lead to cultural alienation, multicultural education recognises that cultures change and are modified but that each culture retains its essence. The differences between the integration approach and the multicultural education approach are that in the former learners tend to stick to their ethnic identities, since integration implicitly diluted and eroded the authenticity of original ethnic identities, whereas the multicultural education approach gives recognition to the right to existence of diverse ethnic groups without the pressure to amalgamate. In other words, the process of integration assumes that there has to be one form of society as an outcome whereas multiculturalism thrives on diversity as an outcome. Of course, multiculturalism can envisage harmony, but that harmony comes through tolerance of coexisting differences (Carrim, 1995:6). Central to multicultural education is the notion that the schools are expected to accommodate the different cultures of learners among them, by making it a point that all cultures are equally valued and respected within the school context (Soudien, 2004:96). I develop these ideas further in this subsection.
Multiculturalism is not an easy term to define, and its place within the liberal theory debates has remained controversial (Kymlicka, 2002:339). Kymlicka notes that multiculturalism is connected to minority rights. The issue becomes part of the liberal debate when it comes to considering that “minorities that share basic liberal principles nonetheless need minority rights” (Kymlicka, 2002:339). In this sense, multiculturalism also becomes an issue of social justice. Nevertheless, the practice of multiculturalism in education does not immediately translate to the effective implementation of social-justice concerns. Within education, debates on multiculturalism originated in the liberal pluralist approach to education and society that attempted to address the Black demands for the restructuring of the schooling system and pedagogical practices in the UK and the USA. Multiculturalism was viewed as part of the
emancipatory programmes that were granted a mandate to address racial inequality in schools (McCarthy, 1998, cited by Naidoo, 1996a:13). I argue that the view of multiculturalism as emancipatory can originate from the quest to provide equal educational access and quality.
Banks (1981: 2) posits that in the UK, multicultural education developed out of the notion that education should draw upon the experience of the many cultures that constitute the country‟s multiracial society. In the USA, multicultural education emerged in response to the ethnic rejuvinisation or revitalisation movement. Specific minority groups there demanded the inclusion of their cultures and histories in the curriculum. They also demanded educational equality for cultural and ethnic groups. In this light, South African multicultural education is regarded as a sound approach based on the educational merit that it has other than purely addressing matters of racial equality. Lemmer and Squelch (1993:340) argue that the pedagogical merits that multicultural education is understood to have contributed to the development of equal educational opportunities in the country. Multicultural education broadens learners‟ perspectives of the world and informs their own identity, which are important ingredients in the processes of learning in diverse classes.
Multicultural education concerns the acceptance of similarities and differences between and within different cultures (Atmore, 1994:155). As Gollick and Chin (1998:3) suggest, multicultural education embraces the strategy in which the cultural backgrounds of the learners are incorporated in the development of effective classroom instruction and school environments. It is designed to support and extend concepts of culture, differences, equality and democracy in the formal schooling setting. Gollnick and Chin further indicate that multicultural education focuses on the different micro cultures to which individuals belong, with an emphasis on interaction of membership in the micro culture, especially race, ethnicity, class and gender. It also calls for the elimination of discrimination against individuals because of their group membership.
naively suggests that cultural and racial differences can be removed by merely promoting cultural exchanges and understandings. In this regard, multiculturalism would also be promoting the illusion that the majority and the minority groups can swap places and learn how the other lives while leaving the structures of power intact. Naidoo points to another weakness inherent in the given approach:
It can promote a new racism based not on the ideas of (the assumed) innate biological superiority, but on the supposed incompatibility of cultural traditions. This presents itself as a worldly acknowledgement that different communities have different values and different ways of life which they have an instinct and right to defend. (Naidoo, 1996a:16).
Sekete et al. (2001:9) cite Carrim (1999) and Moletsane and Zafar (1999) in their proposition that research into the multicultural education approach of racial integration is seriously flawed because of its mistaken assumption that all cultures enjoy equal status in a society and that all people who belong to a particular cultural group are the same. On the other hand, the multicultural education approach is not well understood by many people since it is complex, controversial and minimally supported by the teachers who are expected to implement it in their schools.
Lemmer and Squelch (1993:2) propose that, essentially, multicultural education concerns challenging the nature of teaching and learning in order to create a suitable learning environment for learners from diverse cultural backgrounds. According to Mansfield and Kehoe (1994:419), multicultural education traditionally emphasised intergroup harmony, educational underachievement, individual prejudice, equality of opportunity, enrichment through the celebration of diversity, as well as improvement of the self-image through pride in one‟s cultural heritage. Some of the major emphases of multiculturalism as observed here can at best offer formal recourse to justice but they do not go far enough to address justice issues where the envisaged harmony could not be reached. In other words, this form of multiculturalism also promotes forms of social hegemony. Hence, I agree with Kehoe (1994:354) that multicultural education did not achieve these goals because it ignores the fact that racial differences as well as racial discrimination, which flows from the visible
differences, must be challenged by changing the total organisation of the institutions. This would mean that such forms of multicultural education only address superficial elements, such as the common elements that are found in individuals, without adequate interrogation of the individuals‟ differences. Such education can also be regarded as a disservice to the disadvantaged because it interferes with the learners‟ ability to feel a sense of belonging to the school environment. As a result, sentiments that such multicultural education ignores the institutional basis of domination and discrimination (Kehoe, 1994:354), which negatively affects the process of racial integration in the schools, can easily be justified.