Keating, Ana Louise. “Making New Connections”: TransformationalMulticulturalism in the Classroom.

 

Summary: Introducing the concept of transformational multiculturalism, Keating proposes pedagogy for “radical, liberatory change—on both individual and collective
levels.” She however maintains that these changes are context-specific and open to negotiation. She claims that students and teachers can be changed through exploration of multicultural issues and themes in the classroom, however, also cautions that “although multiculturalism has this potential to bring about change, it cannot do so unless scholars incorporate a more sustained analysis of the underlying dominant-cultural
framework and connect our theorizing more closely to our teaching practices” (94). She draws on her own teaching experiences to offer concrete suggestions for ways to enact transformational multiculturalism in the classroom and suggests one component of transformational multiculturalism that she thinks is highly effective: relational teaching tactics that begin with commonalities.

Area Cluster: 103–Theory
Methodology: Theory appication
Citation: Anzaldua, Giroux, Freire, Deloria, Hall,

Provocative Quotes:
“transformational multicultural teaching…can explode…stereotypes and expose the
“white” supremacist narrative from which they emerge and on which they rely” (93-4).

—Melting-pot Multiculturalism…
“differences are verbally and visually valorized yet in many ways dehistoricized and erased. Commonality—defined simplistically as sameness—replaces difference, as racism, sexism, and othersocial justice issues are subsumed under facile celebrations of “diversity” that fit well with contemporary U.S. consumer culture and thus reaffirm the status quo (Prashad 2001: 63)” (95).

Separatist Approach to Multiculturalism:

“At other times, multiculturalism indicates the existence of discrete
ethnic/racial/cultural traditions and groups, or what Trinh Minh-ha (1991:
232) describes as “the juxtaposition of several cultures whose frontiers remain
intact.” Like melting-pot multiculturalism, this separatist approach reinforces
the dominant-cultural worldview. More specifically, by referring to the existence
of a number of distinct “races,” separatist multiculturalists employ a
rhetoric of authenticity that supports the “commonsense” belief that selfcontained
ethnic identities are permanent, unchanging categories of meaning
based on biology, family, history, and tradition” (96).

“separatist multiculturalists reduce multiculturalism to a series of self-enclosed
binary configurations, where each ethnic/racial-specific canon is
examined primarily, if not exclusively, in opposition to “mainstream” (Eurocentric)
….This oppositional approach inadvertently reinscribes inflexible boundaries that foreclose possible common ground in the discussion of works by different racialized groups. While scholars often arrive at profound observations, the literary boundaries they construct prevent us from applying insights acquired in one cultural tradition to others” (96).

“In its most vicious manifestations, readers, scholars, and writers become isolationist and
gravitate only toward works corresponding to their own self-perceived identities” (96).

Resistant/Revolutionary/critical Multiculturalism:

“Less frequently, multiculturalism takes a turn toward the “resistant,”
the “revolutionary,” or the “critical,” and investigates underlying relations of
power…critical multiculturalism intervenes in the dominant-cultural framework and thus
represents an important development in multicultural theorizing. Critical
multiculturalists reject the commonsense belief that cultural identities are
preexisting, organic discoveries. While acknowledging that cultural meaning
often relies on what seem to be unitary notions of an authentic past and an
essential, self-contained set of unique traits, critical multiculturalists challenge
this rhetoric of authenticity. They demonstrate that cultural identities
are created, not discovered” (97).

“critical multiculturalism exposes the hidden biases (the Eurocentrism, the racism, and other forms of domination) that have shaped existing literary standards. Insisting that it’s not enough simply to expose and critique this oppressive framework, critical multiculturalists also seek new forms of criticism, new interpretative methodologies, and new definitions that more accurately reflect the complex realities of U.S. literature
and life” (97).

“I describe the multiculturalism I envision and attempt to enact as transformational (rather than “critical” or even “revolutionary”) to underscore its potential to effect change in the classroom. As I use the term, transformational multiculturalism entails nonbinary oppositional epistemological and pedagogical methods that work in the service of social
justice. Building on critical multiculturalism’s insights concerning the relational nature of all cultural identities, transformational multiculturalism eschews simple binaries—whether between “self ” and “Other,” “us” and “them,” or “oppressor” and “oppressed.” This nonbinary approach opens space for individual and collective agency that makes change possible (although not inevitable). Because we are all mutually implicated—albeit in differently power-inflected ways—in the “white” supremacist masculinist framework
that normalizes the unjust status quo, we can (indeed, we must) destabilize
and attempt to transform it” (97-8).

“Through self-reflection students can recognize
the ways their values, perspectives, and beliefs have been influenced by
the “imperatives of culture.” This recognition denaturalizes the dominant cultural
framework and enables students to recognize the roles they (can) play
in challenging and/or reinforcing an unjust status quo” (98).

“transformational multiculturalism begins with the premise that U.S. American culture and literature have always been multicultural and explores the reciprocal, uneven movements by which peoples, cultures, and texts are altered through their interactions with each other” (98).

“Relational teaching begins with commonalities. I define commonalities …as complex points of connection that enable us to negotiate among sameness, similarity, and difference” (103).

“I invite them (students) to investigate their own previously unexamined worldviews and the dominant-cultural framework that supports them” (105).

“I heighten their sense of agency and hold them more accountable
for the choices they make” (110).

“Relational teaching is situation-specific and can take many forms.
These forms, in turn, will be shaped by the courses we teach; by our own
identities, interests, experiences, and concerns, and those of our students; as
well as by other variables” (111).

“The recognition of our profound interconnectedness offers a vital key to long-term individual/collective change, a crucial point of departure in my work for social justice: if we’re all interconnected, then the events and belief systems impacting my sisters and brothers in New York City or Kabul or Baghdad or Jerusalem have a concrete effect on me” (112).

“design situation-specific, relational teaching tactics that acknowledge the ways we are mutually implicated in historical and contemporary events. This, at least, is my hope and one of my goals as an educator” (112).

Keating, Anna Louise. “Making New Connections” : Transformational Multiculturalism in the Classroom. Pedagogy: Critical Approaches to Teaching Literature, Language, Composition, and Culture 4 (2004): 93-117.

Summary: Introducing the concept of transformational multiculturalism, Keating proposes pedagogy for “radical, liberatory change—on both individual and collective
levels.” She however maintains that these changes are context-specific and open to negotiation. She claims that students and teachers can be changed through exploration of multicultural issues and themes in the classroom, however, also cautions that “although multiculturalism has this potential to bring about change, it cannot do so unless scholars incorporate a more sustained analysis of the underlying dominant-cultural
framework and connect our theorizing more closely to our teaching practices” (94). She draws on her own teaching experiences to offer concrete suggestions for ways to enact transformational multiculturalism in the classroom and suggests one component of transformational multiculturalism that she thinks is highly effective: relational teaching tactics that begin with commonalities.

Area Cluster: 103–Theory
Methodology: Theory appication
Citation: Anzaldua, Giroux, Freire, Deloria, Hall,

Provocative Quotes:
“transformational multicultural teaching…can explode…stereotypes and expose the
“white” supremacist narrative from which they emerge and on which they rely” (93-4).

—Melting-pot Multiculturalism…
“differences are verbally and visually valorized yet in many ways dehistoricized and erased. Commonality—defined simplistically as sameness—replaces difference, as racism, sexism, and othersocial justice issues are subsumed under facile celebrations of “diversity” that fit well with contemporary U.S. consumer culture and thus reaffirm the status quo (Prashad 2001: 63)” (95).

Separatist Approach to Multiculturalism:

“At other times, multiculturalism indicates the existence of discrete
ethnic/racial/cultural traditions and groups, or what Trinh Minh-ha (1991:
232) describes as “the juxtaposition of several cultures whose frontiers remain
intact.” Like melting-pot multiculturalism, this separatist approach reinforces
the dominant-cultural worldview. More specifically, by referring to the existence
of a number of distinct “races,” separatist multiculturalists employ a
rhetoric of authenticity that supports the “commonsense” belief that selfcontained
ethnic identities are permanent, unchanging categories of meaning
based on biology, family, history, and tradition” (96).

“separatist multiculturalists reduce multiculturalism to a series of self-enclosed
binary configurations, where each ethnic/racial-specific canon is
examined primarily, if not exclusively, in opposition to “mainstream” (Eurocentric)
….This oppositional approach inadvertently reinscribes inflexible boundaries that foreclose possible common ground in the discussion of works by different racialized groups. While scholars often arrive at profound observations, the literary boundaries they construct prevent us from applying insights acquired in one cultural tradition to others” (96).

“In its most vicious manifestations, readers, scholars, and writers become isolationist and
gravitate only toward works corresponding to their own self-perceived identities” (96).

Resistant/Revolutionary/critical Multiculturalism:

“Less frequently, multiculturalism takes a turn toward the “resistant,”
the “revolutionary,” or the “critical,” and investigates underlying relations of
power…critical multiculturalism intervenes in the dominant-cultural framework and thus
represents an important development in multicultural theorizing. Critical
multiculturalists reject the commonsense belief that cultural identities are
preexisting, organic discoveries. While acknowledging that cultural meaning
often relies on what seem to be unitary notions of an authentic past and an
essential, self-contained set of unique traits, critical multiculturalists challenge
this rhetoric of authenticity. They demonstrate that cultural identities
are created, not discovered” (97).

“critical multiculturalism exposes the hidden biases (the Eurocentrism, the racism, and other forms of domination) that have shaped existing literary standards. Insisting that it’s not enough simply to expose and critique this oppressive framework, critical multiculturalists also seek new forms of criticism, new interpretative methodologies, and new definitions that more accurately reflect the complex realities of U.S. literature
and life” (97).

“I describe the multiculturalism I envision and attempt to enact as transformational (rather than “critical” or even “revolutionary”) to underscore its potential to effect change in the classroom. As I use the term, transformational multiculturalism entails nonbinary oppositional epistemological and pedagogical methods that work in the service of social
justice. Building on critical multiculturalism’s insights concerning the relational nature of all cultural identities, transformational multiculturalism eschews simple binaries—whether between “self ” and “Other,” “us” and “them,” or “oppressor” and “oppressed.” This nonbinary approach opens space for individual and collective agency that makes change possible (although not inevitable). Because we are all mutually implicated—albeit in differently power-inflected ways—in the “white” supremacist masculinist framework
that normalizes the unjust status quo, we can (indeed, we must) destabilize
and attempt to transform it” (97-8).

“Through self-reflection students can recognize
the ways their values, perspectives, and beliefs have been influenced by
the “imperatives of culture.” This recognition denaturalizes the dominant cultural
framework and enables students to recognize the roles they (can) play
in challenging and/or reinforcing an unjust status quo” (98).

“transformational multiculturalism begins with the premise that U.S. American culture and literature have always been multicultural and explores the reciprocal, uneven movements by which peoples, cultures, and texts are altered through their interactions with each other” (98).

“Relational teaching begins with commonalities. I define commonalities …as complex points of connection that enable us to negotiate among sameness, similarity, and difference” (103).

“I invite them (students) to investigate their own previously unexamined worldviews and the dominant-cultural framework that supports them” (105).

“I heighten their sense of agency and hold them more accountable
for the choices they make” (110).

“Relational teaching is situation-specific and can take many forms.
These forms, in turn, will be shaped by the courses we teach; by our own
identities, interests, experiences, and concerns, and those of our students; as
well as by other variables” (111).

“The recognition of our profound interconnectedness offers a vital key to long-term individual/collective change, a crucial point of departure in my work for social justice: if we’re all interconnected, then the events and belief systems impacting my sisters and brothers in New York City or Kabul or Baghdad or Jerusalem have a concrete effect on me” (112).

“design situation-specific, relational teaching tactics that acknowledge the ways we are mutually implicated in historical and contemporary events. This, at least, is my hope and one of my goals as an educator” (112).

Moreno, Renee M. “The Politics of Location”: Text as Opposition.”

Moreno, Renee M. “The Politics of Location”: Text as Opposition.” College Composition and Communication 54 (2002): 222-242.

Summary: Foregrounding issues of race, ethnicity, and education, this article ties together two important issues in teaching (so-called) basic writing: how social and pedagogical issues in higher education shape possibilities for bicultural students’ writings and how these students can use their developing sense of literacy and their texts to explore identity.

Area Cluster: 110—Academic Writing

Citation: Baldwin, Freire, Hayes-Bautista, hooks, Morrison, Thiong’o, Jones-Royster

Methodology: Case Studies, Sampling, Definition, Discourse Analysis

Provocative Quotes:
“Many scholars, including, Rodolfo Acufia, have described Latinos in this country as internally colonized subjects. Acufia has asserted in Occupied America: A History of Chicanos that the process of education becomes another site in which this colonization happens” (222-3).

“By reclaiming native languages that evolve over time, culture is created and hope for society is realized” (223).

“Although the histories of U.S. Latinos/as are very different from histories of African Americans, Asian Americans, and Native Americans, I argue that within institutions these histories are often collapsed; we are all “othered,” even objectified, our histories balkanized” (224).

“In this article, I discuss students who are pushed to the margins of educational institutions, whose mis-education in public schools has not necessarily prepared them for higher education (certainly not given them the kind of preparation that is required at elite U.S. colleges and universities)” (224).

“The very nature of precomposition courses assumes a “less than” approach to the languages and discourses, both written and oral, that these students come to classrooms with and that these students are “assessed” to possess. Second, in educational institutions, we all have to learn a standard language, a language that does not necessarily embrace students’ multicultural lives. Third, as bicultural subjects in institutional locations, we all have to deal with being the other” (422).

“Through language, students have the power to counter stereotypical images of their bodies and socially constructed knowledge of their communities. The images that they present of their lives illustrate that they are reacting to and are aware of the institutional perceptions of themselves, and they are often eager to show that they are capable and competent students” (226).

“”robbing people of their voice,” as Thiong’o also describes it, and what often happens in school when students’ languages are deemed improper or inadequate” (228).

“writing for many bicultural people is an important site of resistance and reconciliation” (237).

Flower, Linda. “Intercultural Inquiry and the Transformation of Service.” College English 65 (2002):181-201.

Summary: Flower believes a fundamental conflict remains unresolved when students confront the suddenly realized limitations of their own understanding in service-learning. They come prepared to act; they really needed to inquire. She argues that the conflicts and contradictions of community outreach call for an intercultural inquiry that not only seeks more diverse rival readings but constructs multivoiced negotiated meanings in practice.
Methodology: case studies, discourse analysis

Area Cluster: 112—Community, Civic & Public

Valuable Citation: Cushman, Dewey, Du Bois, Flower, Haraway, Freire
Provocative Quotes:

“we must recognize the “multitude of disparate elements, voices, and viewpoints” (68) that emerge as contradictory ideologies, and practices within events and the activity systems that shape them. We could respond to the crosscurrents of motive and assumption within community outreach with a theory-based cultural critique” (182).

“The field of contradictions I have just described is not unique to community outreach. Like any vigorous activity system, it is a site of diverse voices and agendas. But advocates and critics of service-learning often fail to recognize the full range of contradictory voices that students and teachers alike need to encounter within this space” (185)
“Whether the matter at stake is education, work, social identity, racism, risk, or respect, an intercultural inquiry seeks rival readings of that issue that have the potential to transform both the inquirers and their interpretations of problematic issues in the world” (186).
“students use the practice of intercultural inquiry to go beyond a contact zone into confronting contradictions, inviting rivals, and constructing and negotiating meaning through the eyes of difference.” (187).
“Having entered the contact zone of cultural difference, we must be prepared to go beyond contact into the struggle to understand with others in a collaborative intercultural inquiry. We must be ready to step beyond the safe distance of critique to the active negotiation of the inevitable contradictions within service and the conflicts within our own thinking and understanding. Finally, we must set for ourselves and our students the explicit goal of creating a transformed and transformative understanding, not as a lofty ideal, but as an operational, achievable, and profoundly significant expectation”(194).

“Intercultural inquiry not only transforms what we know; it alters our relationship with others. It asks us to acknowledge the expertise and agency of people whom service has traditionally cast as the served, the patient, the client, or the ones in need. But sometimes we must look in new ways to perceive that agency” (197).

Daniell, Beth. “Narratives of Literacy: Connecting Composition to Culture.”

Daniell, Beth. “Narratives of Literacy: Connecting Composition to Culture.” College Composition and Communication 50 (1999): 393-410.
Summary: Beth contends that various narratives of literacy-grand narratives, ethnographic, little narratives-over the years have influenced and continue to shape the images we in composition studies have of who we are, what we do, and how we do it. Using Lyotard as a terministic screen to examine these narratives she brings to light a number of issues: the conflicted politics of composition studies over the last two or three decades, the relationship of theory and ideology, the ethical questions of research, the problematics of separating the spiritual from academic study. And she finally maintains that literacy is a term that now “illuminates the ways that individual acts of writing are connected to larger cultural, historical, and social and political systems” (408).
Methodology: Archival, Bibliographic
Most Valuable Citation: Havelock, Ong, Berlin, Freire
Area Cluster: 112 Community, Civic & Public
Provocative quotes:
“Indeed the move in composition studies away from the individualistic and cognitive perspectives of the seventies and early eighties toward the social theories and political consciousness that prevail today was encouraged, pushed along, impelled by competing narratives of literacy. These days, literacy- the term and concept-connects composition, with its emphasis on students and classrooms, to the social, political, economic, historical, and cultural” (393).
“To see reading and writing as social practice mediated and regulated by institutions instead of as a free-standing, individual mental operation supplied composition with a different lens to use in looking at our students, their texts, and our own work. The idea that writing and writing instruction were deeply connected with power became, with Berlin’s histories, a mainstream idea” (399).
“The problem with grand narratives is the unfortunate human tendency to overgeneralize from them: The Freire narrative has been used to support a discourse that sometimes seems to assume that all our students are oppressed” (400).
“Freire has shown that a “banking” pedagogy can support oppressive structures elsewhere in society and that literacy and literacy learning can be liberatory in some situations. But we have learned from experience that neither Freire’s methods nor his critique will automatically bring critical consciousness to North America” (401).
“literacy is multiple, contextual, and ideological” (403).
Taken as a whole, the little narratives argue as well that the relationship between literacy and oppression or freedom is rarely as simple as we have thought” (403).
“…literacy, including instruction in writing, is woven into a society’s structures of power” (405).

“As the little narratives make clear, literacy can oppress or resist or liberate, and the best of these studies present the simultaneity of these ideological contradictions” (406)