![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
multicultural versus social justice antiracism
I was reading Jackie Horne's (my thesis advisor!) new article "Harry and the Other: Answering the Race Question in J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter" in the most recent The Lion and the Unicorn (unfortunately not freely available). This article, in introducing the ideas of antiracism, gives what I think is a really nice and succinct definition of some of the tensions:
She then defines the different forms of educational practice arose out of these two definitions of antiracism:
The essay itself is a quite interesting analysis of the tension in the Harry Potter books between these two forms of antiracism, but it's this introduction I found myself wanting to quote. I think a lot of the antiracism discussions on the Internet in the last three years have really been about this tension Jackie describes. The personal versus the structural, and the universalist versus the relativist.
Jackie C. Horne. "Harry and the Other: Answering the Race Question in J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter." The Lion and the Unicorn 34.1 (2010): 76-104. Project MUSE. Tufts University, Medford, MA. 22 Mar. 2010 <http://muse.jhu.edu/>.
While both definitions agree that antiracism centers on "those forms of thought and/or practice that seek to confront, eradicate, and/or ameliorate racism," they differ in what they label racism, and in what steps they believe should be taken to eradicate and/or ameliorate it (4). One line of thought, which has its roots in the European Enlightenment, argues for universalism, "the conviction that people are all equally part of humanity and should all be accorded the same rights and opportunities" (19). Those who embrace a universalist approach to antiracism typically see their main task as overcoming prejudice; if we rid ourselves of prejudice (our own and others'), we will see how those of a different race are the same as we are, and will thus treat them fairly.
During the same period, however, a different approach to antiracism developed, one that often conflicted with a universalist approach. This approach to antiracism, termed relativism, also has deep roots in European history, dating back to the writings of the eighteenth-century philosopher Michel de Montaigne. Montaigne wrote of Europeans' encounters with [End Page 77] New World civilizations not to point out the superiority of his fellow Frenchmen, but to call into question the idea that French manners and norms were natural, and therefore superior. Relativism, then, emphasizes the belief that "truths are situationally dependent" and that "cultural and/or physical differences between races should be recognized and respected; that different does not mean unequal" (Bonnett 13).
In many ways, these two definitions of antiracism form the two faces of one coin, with the strengths of one pointing to the weaknesses of the other. A universalist approach embraces the idea of emancipation for all, but can easily slip into colonialism, mistakenly concluding that culturally specific Western norms are "universal" and therefore in need of promulgation to other, less enlightened societies or races. A relativist approach would seem to ameliorate this problem, recognizing and honoring difference. Yet focusing on human difference can also easily slip into an anti-egalitarian discourse; as Bonnett notes, "respecting difference can easily turn into asserting hierarchy" (17). Respecting racial differences can slide very quickly into respecting racial inequality; you, other culture, are by nature different, so it is only natural that you are inferior, too.
During the same period, however, a different approach to antiracism developed, one that often conflicted with a universalist approach. This approach to antiracism, termed relativism, also has deep roots in European history, dating back to the writings of the eighteenth-century philosopher Michel de Montaigne. Montaigne wrote of Europeans' encounters with [End Page 77] New World civilizations not to point out the superiority of his fellow Frenchmen, but to call into question the idea that French manners and norms were natural, and therefore superior. Relativism, then, emphasizes the belief that "truths are situationally dependent" and that "cultural and/or physical differences between races should be recognized and respected; that different does not mean unequal" (Bonnett 13).
In many ways, these two definitions of antiracism form the two faces of one coin, with the strengths of one pointing to the weaknesses of the other. A universalist approach embraces the idea of emancipation for all, but can easily slip into colonialism, mistakenly concluding that culturally specific Western norms are "universal" and therefore in need of promulgation to other, less enlightened societies or races. A relativist approach would seem to ameliorate this problem, recognizing and honoring difference. Yet focusing on human difference can also easily slip into an anti-egalitarian discourse; as Bonnett notes, "respecting difference can easily turn into asserting hierarchy" (17). Respecting racial differences can slide very quickly into respecting racial inequality; you, other culture, are by nature different, so it is only natural that you are inferior, too.
She then defines the different forms of educational practice arose out of these two definitions of antiracism:
The most common takes the form of multicultural antiracism, an approach that affirms the value of diversity as a method of combating racial oppression. Since the late 1980s, learning about and celebrating other cultures has become a cornerstone of educational practice in many British, Canadian, and American schools. The goal of such multicultural education is not simply to become familiar with the traditions of other cultures, but to "enable empathy," to "generat[e] cross-cultural understanding and solidarity," enabling students to "see things from others' point of view" (Bonnett 94–95).
[...]
Less common in K-12 education is what Bonnett terms "radical antira-cism," an approach that focuses less on personal awareness of prejudice and more on developing critical thinking skills in order to confront racism (104–6). I will refer to this approach as social justice antiracism rather than radical antiracism, as educational discourse has embraced the former rather than the latter label during the past decade. While a multicultural approach to antiracism work focuses on individuals learning about others and about their own biases, social justice pedagogies focus on teaching students to examine the social, political, and economic structures in which they live. In particular, it draws upon the framework of oppression, "a hierarchical relationship in which dominant or privileged groups benefit, often in unconscious ways, from the disempowerment of subordinated or targeted groups" (Adams, Bell, and Griffin 5). In other words, social justice antiracism assumes that racism lies not only in individuals, but also in the institutions that grant privileges and power to certain racial groups in a society, and restrict other racial groups from the same. Such a belief leads social justice antiracism to demand that students question, deconstruct, and challenge those institutional structures that contribute to, or actively foster, racism (104).
[...]
Less common in K-12 education is what Bonnett terms "radical antira-cism," an approach that focuses less on personal awareness of prejudice and more on developing critical thinking skills in order to confront racism (104–6). I will refer to this approach as social justice antiracism rather than radical antiracism, as educational discourse has embraced the former rather than the latter label during the past decade. While a multicultural approach to antiracism work focuses on individuals learning about others and about their own biases, social justice pedagogies focus on teaching students to examine the social, political, and economic structures in which they live. In particular, it draws upon the framework of oppression, "a hierarchical relationship in which dominant or privileged groups benefit, often in unconscious ways, from the disempowerment of subordinated or targeted groups" (Adams, Bell, and Griffin 5). In other words, social justice antiracism assumes that racism lies not only in individuals, but also in the institutions that grant privileges and power to certain racial groups in a society, and restrict other racial groups from the same. Such a belief leads social justice antiracism to demand that students question, deconstruct, and challenge those institutional structures that contribute to, or actively foster, racism (104).
The essay itself is a quite interesting analysis of the tension in the Harry Potter books between these two forms of antiracism, but it's this introduction I found myself wanting to quote. I think a lot of the antiracism discussions on the Internet in the last three years have really been about this tension Jackie describes. The personal versus the structural, and the universalist versus the relativist.
Jackie C. Horne. "Harry and the Other: Answering the Race Question in J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter." The Lion and the Unicorn 34.1 (2010): 76-104. Project MUSE. Tufts University, Medford, MA. 22 Mar. 2010 <http://muse.jhu.edu/>.