In the September 2005 issue of College
English, Marilyn Edelstein’s
article, “Multiculturalisms, Past Present and Future” analyzes the history of dissenting viewpoints on multiculturalism in the college classroom. She recognizes how writers such as
Allan Bloom, William Bennett and Dnisesh D’Souza argue for a mono-culturalism, which imply Everett V. Stonequist’s description of
the marginalized assimilating to the implied standard with the intentions of
perpetuating a standard culture. Additionally, Edelstein refers to Lillian S.
Robinson’s, Treason Our Text: Feminist
Challenges to the Literary Canon in which Robinson highlights the
monoculturalist critique of multiculturalism as a demarcation for political
inclusiveness, which neglects the ideas of universal aesthetic merit. To my
mind, the very nature of the monocultural critique perpetuates binary
oppositions of race, at the same time, does not advance the possibilities of
what one can learn from Edelstein’s observation of “effective multiculturalism.”
For
Edelstein, “effective multiculturalism needs to be based on a more radically
ethical idea of acknowledging and respecting alterity” (Edelstein 35).
Edelstein connects her use of alterity here to Julia Kristeva’s idea of the
“stranger” and the “foreigner,” in which Kristeva assumes that all people are
foreigners within themselves. One is not made aware of her foreignness until
she becomes aware of her otherness through a confrontation with the Other. In
this case, the process of multiculturalism goes beyond the act of mere
tolerance of difference, but rather, forces the subject to participate in a
reflexive process that requires the perpetual interrogation of the self by
inhabiting the space of the Other.
Within the same issue of College English, Beth McCoy and Jacqueline M. Jones’ article, “Between Spaces,” addresses issues related
to whiteness and the confrontation of foreignness when reading Toni Morrison’s,
critical analysis Playing in the Dark.
Morrison’s concept of “American Africanisms” shifts the conversation about the
black body as an object of oppression to the white body as an object of
oppression. To my mind, the rhetorical moves that Morrison makes in
articulating a concept of American Africanisms forces white readers to
objectify whiteness. The recognition of this objectivity from the point of view
of an African American woman would explain the resistance that McCoy
encountered while teaching this text. Jacqueline M. Jones points out the
challenges of interrogating whiteness as a normative culture when multicultural
practices are attempted in the classroom. She writes:
If a
class discussing multicultural issues spends significant time achieving
positive white identities for its white participants (however warranted), such
activities nevertheless do reassert whiteness as the center, and this process
can prevent inclusive, multiple, and diverse perspectives from flourishing in
meaningful ways. (Jones 59)
Here, Jones describes her experience as an African American student in McCoy’s predominantly
white class. She mentions Ian Marshall and Wendy Ryden’s article,
“Interrogating the Monologue: Making Whiteness Visible,” which was published in
the December 2000 issue of College
Composition and Communication. Marshall and Ryden suggest that the mere
interrogation of racism interrogates whiteness, which interrogates the
subjectivity of white students. As a result of this interrogative discourse,
Jones illustrates how much of the class was spent on simultaneously
interrogating white subjectivity at the same time constructing a positive
self-image of whiteness. Seemingly, in the process of deconstructing whiteness
as a universal signifier of humanity, the attempt to reconstruct positive images
to prevent resistance from white students, in Jones’ mind, recentered whiteness
while compromising the possibilities of what Edelstein would describe as "effective multiculturalism."
McCoy and Jones' experiences are small illustrations of how scholars are aware of and address the paradoxical
function of multiculturalism in the college classroom. The function of multiculturalism is paradoxical because while there
has been some attempt to address the varying cultural needs of students, the
overall structure of this learning is oppressive, which perpetuates racial
binary oppositions premised on ethnic and biological absolutes.
These observations
lead me to question, is it time that we begin to reconstitute how we teach
literature? Are we perpetuating ideas of dominance and power, by labeling
literature in terms of culture and by teaching the "great" works as universal literature and “other” literatures as
specializations? What are we trying to
gain in this ideological separation? Considering the New Historicists' supposition that
history is subjective, I wonder if the current teaching of literature under these constructed historical contextual frameworks threatens the relevancy of literature in an increasingly diversified American culture? Is it possible to explode these
boundaries and teach literature through themes? Is it possible to reconstitute literature so that we are teaching a course on the limitations of human ethics, and death through the works of Aeschylus’
Agamemnon, and Faulkner's Absalom, Absalom! to Euripides’ Medea and Morrison’s Beloved all in one introductory literature course?
