Misunderstandings of Multiculturalism Shouting Fire in Crowded Theaters !
~
IIII
IJ!
• •
III rl
r
ulticulturalism is both one of the most im~portant psychological constructs in this decade I V l a n d one of the most misunderstood, Fowers and Richardson's (June 1996) article demonstrated both tendencies. Dialogue can only occur when two parties engage in periods of silence and listening, allowing the other party an opportunity to speak. The influence of European American traditions on multiculturalism was overstated by Fowers and Richardson (1996). Multiculturalists were accused of not acknowledging their debt to Western ethical traditions that honor human dignity and authentic being. First, readers who are well-informed about the matter know that multiculturalism is not a product of any one ethnocultural group. Second, the natural and inalienable rights of individuals valued by European and European American societies generally appear to have actually been intended for European Americans only. How else can European colonization and exploitation of Third World countries be understood? How else can the forced removal of Native Americans from their lands, centuries of enslavement and segregation of African Americans, American immigration restrictions on persons of color throughout history, incarceration of Japanese Americans during World War II, and current English-only language requirements in the United States be explained? These acts have not been perpetrated by a few racist individuals but by the governments of the North Atlantic cultures to which Fowers and Richardson contended that multiculturalism is indebted. If European American ideals include a philosophical or moral opposition to racism, this has often not been reflected in policies and behaviors. Although Fowers and Richardson (1996) admonished multiculturalists not to characterize majority cultural norms as racist or oppressive by nature, those who have been victimized by these norms may find it difficult not to do so. The European American legacy appears not to be one of preserving the rights of individuals but one of preserving European American rights. We contend that multiculturalism has survived despite these influences. Multiculturalism is oversimplified, and the importance of values and beliefs behind each of our culturally learned behaviors was minimized by Fowers and Richardson (1996). They accused multiculturalists of relativism and brought up the familiar criticisms of relativist perspectives. In fact, multiculturalism includes a wide variety of alternative perspectives, from relativist to absolutist, probably no more or less than might be found in any other school of thought. 654
Western traditions are portrayed by implication as superior to non-Western traditions. The unfortunate isolated examples of minority accomplishment as jazz and blues or as environmental protection, although true, trivialize the many other areas of excellence and expertise, including multicultural scholarship, that have contributed proportionately to our national heritage. The implication that Western traditions are ethically better than nonWestern traditions is ethnocentric and demeaning at best. It is important to acknowledge indebtedness to both Western and non-Western sources. By advocating that hermeneutics ("the conditions under which understanding is possible"; Fowers & Richardson, 1996, p. 616) offers a more meaningful understanding of the cultural and historical context of multiculturalism than this outlook provides for itself, Fowers and Richardson (1996) presumed a unimodal perspective of multiculturalism and the superiority of nonmulticulturalists that is not justified. This view is also, ironically, inconsistent with the hermeneutical methodology. The extent of discrimination and racism in the United States was minimized by Fowers and Richardson (1996). The statement that "relatively few individuals in the contemporary United States would publicly advocate overt discrimination" (p. 611) is misleading by trivializing covert discrimination, by ignoring overt discrimination, and by not substantiating or documenting this vague generalization with any data. The generalization that racism has finally been delegitimized is factually incorrect, inappropriately exclusionary, and historically imperialistic and flies in the face of daily experience. At best, this belief is naive and culturally encapsulated. For example, advocates of restricting t h e immigration of persons of color may justify such restrictions as in the interest of the national economy rather than as racist (conveniently ignoring the fact that their own ancestors were immigrants). The extent of overt and especially covert cultural bias in psychology was minimized by Fowers and Richardson (1996). In contrast, the Basic Behavioral Science Task Force of the National Advisory Mental Health Council report (1996) pointed out that the extent of cultural bias is a major consideration in psychology. For example, over the past two decades, the amount of research on
Correspondence concerning this comment should be addressed to Gordon C. Nagayama Hall, Department of Psychology, Kent State University, Kent, OH 44242-0001, Electronic mail may be sent via Internet to
[email protected].
June 1997 • American Psychologist Copyright 1997 by the American Psychological Association, Inc, 0003-066X/97/$2.00 Vol. 52. No. 6, 654-655
African Americans published in American Psychological Association journals has decreased (Graham, 1992). Multiculturalists are accused of not providing simple solutions to complicated clinical problems of cultural contact. The problems are just as real even though there may not be a quick-fix, easy solution to them. It seems likely that a culturally informed approach to such problems, as well as to less extreme ones that may be more commonly encountered, may be more productive than an approach that ignores culture. Multiculturalism is inaccurately portrayed as inherently adversarial. Fowers and Richardson (1996) suggested that multiculturalism has been exclusively defined by diversity, without any acknowledgment that there has been a balanced emphasis on finding common ground and similarities as well as recognizing unique cultural differences across groups. Also, they presumed that multiculturalism is a moral movement designed to promote and lobby for the special interests of marginalized groups rather than recognizing the importance of multiculturalism for all of society. In fact, this is not the case. For example, multicultural education has been proposed as an approach to preventing sexual aggression (Hall & Barongan, 1997). Fowers and Richardson (1996) also suggested that the elimination of a Eurocentric bias in psychology is the primary agenda of multiculturalism. Readers should know that the multicultural agenda is to stop imposing any o n e group's cultural values on all others, whether Eurocentric or not. The existence of separatist movements within multiculturalism should not be surprising, given a cultural context that has often been hostile to persons of color. The intercultural dialogue that Fowers and Richardson (1996) advocated may be difficult to accomplish if multiculturalists are assumed to not desire a dialogue. In our opinion, the interactions between the majority culture
June 1997 • American Psychologist
and multiculturalism have been primarily a majority monologue. REFERENCES
Basic Behavioral Science Task Force of the National AdvisoryMental Health Council. (1996). Basicbehavioral scienceresearch for mental health: Sociocultural and environmental processes. American Psychologist, 51, 722-731. Fowers, B.J., & Richardson, E C. (1996). Why is multiculturalism good?American Psychologist, 51, 609-621. Graham, S. (1992). "Most of the subjects were White and middle class": Trends in published research on African Americans in selected APAjournals, 1970-1989. American Psychologist, 47, 629639. Hall, G. C. N., & Barongan,C. (1997). Preventionof sexual aggression: Sociocultural risk and protective factors.American Psychologist, 52, 5-14. SIGNATORIES Christy Barongan, Psychology,Kent State University, Kent, Ohio Guillermo Bernal, Psychology,President, American PsychologicalAs-
sociation Society for the Psychological Study of Ethnic Minority Issues (Division45), and Universityof Puerto Rico, San Juan, Puerto Rico LiUian Comas-Diaz, Transeultural Institute, Washington, DC Christine C. lifima Hall, President, AsianAmericanPsychologicalAssociation, and Academic Affairs, Arizona State University West, Phoenix Gordon C. Nagayama Hall, Psychology,Kent State University, Kent, Ohio Robin A. LaDue, Fetal Alcoholand Drug Unit, NativeAmericanCenter for Excellence, University of Washington, Seattle Thomas A. Parham, Past president, Associationof Black Psychologists; Past president, Associationof Multicultural Counselingand Development; and Career and Life Planning Center, Universityof California, Irvine Paul B. Pedersen, Education, University of Alabama, Birmingham Lisa M. Porch,-Burke, President-elect, AmericanPsychologicalAssociation Societyfor the PsychologicalStudy of Ethnic MinorityAffairs (Division 45), and California School of Professional Psychology, Alhambra David Rollock, Psychology,Purdue University,West Lafayette, Indiana Maria P. P. Root, AmericanEthnic Studies, Universityof Washington, Seattle
655
