United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

Colloquium

CLT-99/CONF.601/CPL-7 Paris, January 1999 Original: English

Commonwealth Secretariat

TOWARDS A CONSTRUCTIVE PLURALISM

(UNESCO Headquarters, Paris, 28-30 January 1999)

Contribution to the Debate on The State and a Positive Vision of Pluralism

MULTICULTURALISM, EDUCATION AND THE STATE: ANTHROPOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES

bY

E. Liza Cerroni-Long Chairperson, IUAES Cornmission on Ethnic Relations

Professor of Anthropology, Eastern Michigan University

CLT-99/CONF.601/CLD.3

The designations employed and the presentation of material throughout this document do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the UNESCO Secretariat concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or the delimitations of its frontiers or boundaries. The author is responsible for the choice and presentation of the facts contained in this document and for the opinions expressed therein, which are not necessarily those of UNESCO and do not commit the Organization.

2

The Impact of Multiculturalism .

“The relationship of ethnicity and nationalism to democracy is one of the central questions of our

age” (Planner 1998: 161); multiculturalism- defined as the recognition that intracultural variation in

general, and ethnic&y in particular, have a great impact on democratic governance- directly

addresses this question.

Cultural heterogeneity is not of course a new phenomenon, but it has been argued that the type of

heterogeneity multiculturalism describes directly emerges from the historical circumstances created

by the global expansion of capitalism on the one hand and by the increasing application of

democratic principles of government on the other (e.g. Glazer 1975, Moynihan 1993). According to

this argument, multiculturalism is catalyzed by three major social trends: 1) changes in the

organization of the world economy, triggering mass migration in response to fluctuating

employment opportunities, 2) the dramatic expansion of transportation and communication

systems, greatly facilitating the movement of people and information across the world, and 3) the

increasing attention given to human rights, resulting in the organization of a myriad of subcultural

groups demanding social recognition and political protection (Goldberg 1994, Gordon and

Newfield 1996).

These trends, which are not likely to abate in the near future, are obviously playing a major role in

fostering and highlighting diversity. However, a number of social scientists- many of them trained

in anthropology- have long been pointing out that the issue of how to deal with cultural

heterogeneity has preoccupied political leaders since the establishment of the first large-scale states,

more than five thousand years ago (Bodley 1994, Cameiro 1970, Harris 1989, Smith 198 1; 1986,

Walzer 1997). From this perspective, multiculturalism is perceived as a new phenomenon only

because of the peculiar ideological blinders put in place by modem Western nationalism. By

grafting Romantic views of what a “volk” should be onto Enlightenment views of how civil society

should operate, this ideology ended up creating either the assumption of a fictional cultural

homogeneity (Anderson 1983), or the need to “build a nation” through very undemocratic- and

utterly ineffectual - attempts at mass acculturation (Fox 1990, Toland 1993).

3

- T--1”“- -------

These attempts became particularly important in two types of modem states: those which took over

the governance of a far-flung empire - such as the Soviet Union - and those emerging from a

process of territorial invasion, military annexation, and mass immigration - such as, for example,

Australia or the United States. It is in these contexts that one finds the most rigid political

application of modemization theory and the blunder at its core: the expectation that ethnicity, as a

form of “primordial attachment”, would be rapidly and easily replaced by citizenship, understood as

pride of membership in a large, modem, complex civil society. Recent historical developments, as

well as ongoing trends, reveal the magnitude of this blunder, and clearly indicate that it emerged

from a poor understanding of the correlation between culture and ethnicity (see Cerroni-Long

1986).

Culture and Multiculturalism

While still vastly misunderstood and often misused, the anthropological concept of culture has had

a major influence on current views of human behavior. To a certain extent, the very attention given

to the issue of multiculturalism derives from the pervasive influence of what has been called the

“cultural paradigm” (Goldschmidt 1985). In this respect it is ironic that, under the influence of

postmodernism, some anthropologists have recently put in question the basic disciplinary definition

of culture, just at a time when it is increasingly being accepted and used - albeit superficially - at

the popular level. Fortunately, though, postmodernism is increasingly being seen as a self-limiting

phenomenon, an episode of turn-of-the-century intellectual nihilism whose major legacy may be

confined to having helped reconfigure disciplinary boundaries and approaches.

In the case of anthropology, the attention called by postmodernism to issues of intracultural

variation on the one hand, and to cultural perform - activity on the other, while giving rise to a

field- “cultural studies” - which appears to be in direct competition with sociocultural anthropology,

may in fact have set the stage for theoretical developments of great import. One of these

developments has to do with the clarification of the issue of “cultural membership”, particularly in

reference to subcultural and ethnic diversity (Cerroni-Long 1995). But this clarification demands a

more precise definition of what culture is, and of how it is expressed, transmitted, maintained, and

changed. In other words, now that there is almost popular consensus on the fact that culture is both

“patterns of and patterns for behavior”, and that these patterns are perpetuated even in situations in

which members of a particular culture have become incorporated into another, anthropologists need

4

to sort out the mechanisms ensuring cultural continuity and, especially, the strategies assuaging

conflict among culturally different groups linked together into a common social framework.

A first step in this direction involves a better understanding of the political dimension of cultural

membership. This does not simply involve acknowledging that sovereignty is a typical component

of cultural organization. Rather, it also requires an analysis of the impact that differential access to

political power consistently has on the hierarchical organization of ethnic and subcultural groups

within a democratic framework. Such an analysis reveals that multiculturalism typically defines

political structures that are pluri-ethnic but hegemonically monocultural. Thus, multiculturalism

must always be assessed in reference to the cultural context which frames it. Again, this requires a

clearer understanding of the process by which the various factors catalyzing that complex system of

behavioral constraints we call culture translate into specific forms of individual agency (see

Cerroni-Long 1997).

Such an understanding can actually lead to “inserting ‘culture’ into multiculturalism” (Wadi and

Khan 1997) and it is only by looking at multi-culturalism through the prism of culture that

anthropological expertise can be brought to bear upon the debates currently waged on diversity. In

particular, this would facilitate the application of anthropological perspectives in the development

of multicultural education, a rapidly growing area of pedagogical intervention which at the moment

seems chiefly characterized by the unevenness of its approaches.

Multicultural Education: Current Interpretations

Because the modem nation-state “takes its content and inspiration from the ‘demotic’ type of ethnie”

and has, in fact, derived its model from the way some European nations “were constructed around

strong, cohesive ethnic cores” (Smith 1986:212), its administration is generally not culturally

pluralist. This is not surprising, since the issue of cultural hegemony is inextricably entangled with

the process of nation-building, but the byproducts of the situation are serious, owing to the fact that

cultural dissonance in hierarchical, centralized polities sets into motion a powerful centrifugal

process. This process often leads to group self-segregation and secessionist movements, two

phenomena that are emerging with increasing frequency in all parts of the world, being further

catalyzed by a reduction in the coercive power of state governments, as they lose control of

resources through economic globalization.

In an attempt to circumvent the type of internal conflict which leads to separatism, some states have

introduced an overt “policy of multiculturalism”, aimed at protecting the cultural integrity of all

constituent ethnic groups, while integrating them into a social fabric as flexible as possible. The

most well-known example of such an approach is perhaps the Canadian one, inaugurated by then-

Prime Minister Trudeau in October 1971, and made into law by the passing of the Multiculturalism

Act (Bill C-93) in July 1988. However, such innovations are usually injected into a tradition in

which cultural hegemony, and the strong assimilatory doctrine emerging from it, have played a

crucial role in the definition of citizenship. Consequently, multicultural policies reveal an

accommodationist strategy, aimed at defusing conflict by focusing the attention of non-dominant

populations on issues of cul,tural identity, rather than on the ongoing realities of socio-political

inequality.

The inherent ambiguities of the multiculturalism policy emerge most clearly when one looks at its

impact on education. The results of a recent international survey sponsored by the IUAES

Commission on Ethnic Relations (COER) on “The Role of Anthropology in Multicultural

Education” document a very confusing situation (Cerroni-Long 1998). First of all, and not

surprisingly, in view of what was argued above, there is no consensus on what multicultural

education is, how it should be implemented, and what outcomes should be expected from it.

Indeed, even the term “multicultural education” is not universally used or understood. Alternative

terms, such as “inter- cultural”, “multinational”, “pluralistic”, “interracial”, “ethnic”, and “minority

education”, reveal that diversity is variously defined. This relates to the second point documented

by the survey results: the historical circumstances giving rise to heterogeneity in a certain cultural

setting powerfully affect definitions of diversity. Finally, the survey also clearly reveals that,

generally speaking, anthropology has so far played a very marginal role in the development of

multicultural education.

By and large, current interpretations of multicultural education involve two different types of

approaches: the “managerial” and the “therapeutic”. The managerial approach, which incorporates a

strong linguistic component, aims at fostering the acquisition of skills, or competencies, that can be

used at the interpersonal level to avoid misunderstandings or to defuse conflict caused by cultural,

ethnic, or subcultural differences. This is an approach which generally focuses on communication

patterns, and which is usually implemented through short but intensive training programs. It

particularly attracts adult learners who are in professional situations requiring exposure to cross-

cultural interactions, and it is the preferential approach in the business world. In this approach the

anthropological concept of culture is adopted at its most superficial level: culture is mainly ethos, a

series of values and beliefs which translate into idiosyncratic patterns of communication. The

6

- 1. v-1___- -. ___

approach assumes that once these patterns are learned - just like a foreign language - differences

can be “managed” and conflict. The “therapeutic” approach, on the other hand, is more complex,

and its implementation can follow two different models. The first model is built around the

concept of individual rights, and defines multicultural education as a way of assuaging

discriminatory attitudes by providing all members of a society with the same amount of “cultural

freedom” (James 1995:16), understood as the opportunity to define one’s personal identity, and to

socially express it under protective guarantees. The second model focuses instead on the

importance of group identity, and proposes conflict alleviation by boosting the “cultural prestige”

of all groups, in the hope that a healthy self-esteem may lead to enhanced interpersonal and

intergroup harmony (see Nieto 1992). Neither of these two models delves much into the

anthropological concept of culture, apart from identifying cultural membership with performative

expression, and by emphasizing - in a rather uncritical way - the role of culture in the establishment

of “group identity” through allegiance to some abstract cultural heritage.

At the moment, most programs of multicultural education applied in school settings seem to adopt

various versions of the “therapeutic” approach. Consequently, multiculturalism has rapidly become

correlated with issues of equity, consciousness raising, and identity politics. It is perhaps not

surprising, therefore, that some of these programs have been castigated as anti-educational and

divisive by various critics. As a matter of fact, in the American setting - where these trends have

perhaps reached extreme expressions - a huge debate over the merits and demerits of multicultural

education has raged for years under the generic label of “culture wars” (see Hunter 1991), and the

term “political correctness” - understood as rigid allegiance to the “cultural rights” orthodoxy - has

become an emotionally charged epithet.

Multicultural Education and Postmodernism

While quite different, both the “managerial” and “therapeutic” approaches to multicultural

education share a common characteristic: they give attention to the individual dimension of

multiculturalism, whether in terms of the strategic management of diversity, or in terms of the

perception of group membership. This attention seems clearly related to the preoccupation with

personal identity characterizing “postmodem” societies, that is, societies in which capitalism has

entered a new developmental phase, defined by the transnational dispersion of labor and capital,

and the promulgation of mass consumerism. In such settings - which are rapidly growing in number

7

- local traditions get constantly subverted and the social is privatized, so that a sense of identity can

often be built only on the basis of globalized consumption practices.

Consequently, the Zeitgeist emerging from the postmodem condition involves hunger for personal

recognition as well as the dilution of social allegiance; former British Prime Minister Margaret

Thatcher used to say that “there are no societies, there are only individuals” (see Habermas 1994).

Unsurprisingly, the type of multiculturalism promoted in such settings is one in which cultural

membership is considered a matter of choice, and any kind of group membership is defined as a

source of diversity, potentially needing protection of equal rights and celebration of uniqueness.

Thus, in American society, for example, one’s ethnicity is often considered an identity “option”

(Waters 1990), and multicultural education has been applied to issues of diversity not only

emerging from ethnic origin, but also from gender and age differences, religious preference,

economic disadvantage, sexual orientation, physical disability, and choice of “alternative lifestyle”

(see Schuman and Olufs 1995).

There are various pitfalls to such an approach. To begin with, it creates an enormous confusion

about the acquisitions of cultural membership, the relationship between culture and ethnicity, the

dimensions of intracultural and intra-ethnic diversity, and the dynamics of intergroup relations.

Also, it ends up making multicultural education a vehicle for the affirmation of the rights of

“interest groups” - a legalistic and moralistic enterprise - rather than an instrument for a better

understanding of the process by which cultural differences affect behavior. Thus, it has been

argued that American multi- culturalism is “a code word for minority demands for separate

recognition in academic and other cultural institutions”; consequently: “Culture for multi-

culturalists, . . . refers primarily to collective social identities engaged in struggles for social

equality” (Turner 1994:407). In line with this perspective, American multicultural education has

generated endless debates on the textual content of school curricula, which have become the

“contested space” now being claimed by previously unrepresented groups.

In postmodem societies, then, multiculturalism has both politicized and trivialized the concept of

culture, which is increasingly perceived as “the jouissance of the late capitalist consumerist subject,

playing with the heady new opportunities for self-creation that the ever-growing world of

commodities appears to provide” (Turner 1994:419). From this perspective, which dismisses the

ascriptive aspects of cultural/ethnic membership, the aspirations to self-determination of various

populations victimized by colonial expansion can be easily misunderstood. Even more crucially,

the behavioral expression of cultural/ethnic diversity ends up being defined as a voluntary

affirmation of membership, so that the intergroup conflict it triggers can be blamed on the

presumed “cultural militancy” of group members.

8

Injecting multicultural education with an anthropological perspective could serve as a welcome

corrective to these apparently self-defeating trends. However, it should also be kept in mind that the

postmodem Zeitgeist puts in question the usefulness, indeed the very legitimacy, of educational

approaches aimed at providing students with emancipatory intellectual tools. In other words, the

fact that some applications of multicultural education seem to increase, rather than assuage,

individual alienation, intracultural fragmentation, and intercultural conflict, may not be totally

fortuitous. Postmodem nihilism denies the possibility of any extra-cultural stance; thus, it denies

the possibility of educational strategies fostering either critical self-reflection or the adoption of

universalist principles as the basis for a meaningful intercultural dialogue.

Present interpretations of multicultural education, therefore, must be seen as at least partly

correlated on the one hand to the anti-universalistic premises of postmodernism - as revealed, for

example, in its criticism of science - and, on the other, to the increasing pedagogical emphasis on

instruction over education. Both of these trends reveal the typically postmodem rejection of the

emancipatory role of rationality, but they also fit particularly well a world in which “old methods of

hierarchical control have to be replaced with the more flexible management of human resources”

(Ashley 1997:75). Identity politics may just be one of these methods. In a world in which

“manpower planning” is increasingly affecting the educational process, and unquestioning

consumption is the chief civic duty, a critical analysis of what culture is may well be considered

socially subversive.

Still, current interpretations of multicultural education may prove so woefully inadequate for

dealing with the destructive impact of cultural diversity that alternative approaches will become

indispensable. A promising alternative pedagogical model is one framing cultural diversity in the

context of the commonalities characterizing our species, and encouraging the understanding of

diversity in reference to an analysis of cultural membership and of the process by which it is

acquired and perpetuated. This is a model in which the role of anthropology is particularly

important, given this discipline’s contribution to the holistic study of our species in general and to

the enculturation process in particular.

Multicultural Education: Proposed Developments

What, then, are the characteristics of the anthropological approach to multi- cultural education, and

what are its advantages? Perhaps, the best way to illustrate these points is by briefly describing two

actual applications of this approach, and derive from them some common characteristics. Both of

9

I 1’ ‘11, -------1

the models have been applied in American academic settings, and both have been developed by

professional anthropologists with the support of an inter- disciplinary team.

The first model is provided by the recently-established Venter for Human Origin and Cultural

Diversity” (CHOCD) at the University of Missouri, St. Louis. The aim of the center, as described

by its co-director, Prof. Sheilah Clarke-Ekong (1998), is to provide a setting where young students,

attending school at the elementary or secondary level, can be brought in by their teachers to

conduct various learning activities aimed at clarifying their understanding of human origins and

characteristics, as well as the correlation between cultural variation and adaptive needs. The

activities require the students’ hands-on involvement in two laboratory-type settings, where, under

the supervision of a multidisciplinary teaching team, they can move from one work-station to the

next in the process of solving sets of “focused learning problems”. The first of these laboratories

includes work stations for learning about: 1) the common African origin of humankind, 2) human

fossil classification, 3) restructuring lifeways from fragmentary remains, 4) the biology of human

skin color difference, and 5) bone sculpting. The second laboratory, instead, offers settings which

respectively reproduce a domestic residence in urban East Africa and a public square in rural West

Africa. Two other set- tings familiarize the students with a West-African male-initiation center,

and with the ensemble performance of African music through the use of authentic percussion

instruments.

The second model, which I piloted at Eastern Michigan University, is a course aimed at

familiarizing university students - training to become school teachers - with the factors that

contribute to human diversity. Through inter- disciplinary lectures, readings, and the discussion of

film clips, students are introduced to the various aspects of human diversity - from the biological to

the psychological, and from the geographical to the historical - and study the process by which

these get translated into overall cultural diversity on the one hand, and intracultural variation on the

other. Then, in the second part of the course, students are guided toward understanding the

commonalities characterizing our species, and are asked to analyze the process by which these very

commonalities can lead to dramatically different cultural outcomes. Finally, to apply the learning

acquired in the course, students are requested to select one specific type of diversity, and to study it

in more depth through the ethnographic analysis of its expression at the level of lived experience.

An emphasis on some form of experiential learning, found in each of the two models described, is

certainly a central characteristic of the anthropological approach to multicultural education. Also,

since sociocultural anthropologists need to develop a robust reflexivity in order to successfully

conduct research, they feel that activating the realization that we are all “cultural carriers” is

fundamental to acquiring a broader view of diversity. Secondly, the holistic approach of

10

anthropology - which encompasses subdisciplinary specializations in population genetics,

paleontology, primatology, archaeology, linguistics, and ethnology - implies that, for diversity to be

really understood, it needs to be looked at from as many perspectives as possible. This

perspectivism, emphasized by the interdisciplinary component of the two models described, is an

important aspect of the anthropological approach, and it calls attention to the issues of membership

that seem so central to the political dimension of diversity. Finally, because of its holism,

anthropology adopts a variety of analytical tools, from the most “scientific” to the most

“humanistic”. Consequently, it can address a broad range of expressions of diversity - from food

preparation to music, and from kinship terminology to healing practices - but it also constantly

refers them to the hierarchy of adaptive needs from which they emerge.

Perhaps, it is just this insistence on the adaptive value of cultural diversity - supported by the

evidence of more than a century of research - that gives the anthropological approach its advantage.

Once we learn that culture is our species-specific survival mechanism, directly emerging from our

biological characteristics, and that the apparent randomness of cultural practices derives from the

impact of environmental, historical, and social factors on creative individual responses to a

hierarchy of needs, we are likely to view diversity more as an asset than as a problem. At the same

time, learning that our basic characteristics specifically limit our ability to positively respond to

diversity, removes the moralistic component from multicultural education.

Knowing that we are a social species, which processes experience through pattern recognition and

through a complex symbolizing process, also puts a new spin on one of the most sensitive

multicultural issues: racial diversity. While the scientific relevance of the race concept has by now

been completely exploded, and anthropologists can easily demonstrate it, the ongoing confusion

over “racial” categories usefully reminds us that the visible component of diversity plays an

important part in its definition and management. Our biological sensitivity to pattern-recognition is

specifically related to a reliance on visual sensory input. Consequently, the ideal that democracy

should create “color blind” societies is a particularly badly phrased one. The principle that

diversity should not affect social equality is crucial to a democratic society, but to deny that

markers of diversity are perceived differently, and that their visibility enhances their perception and

interpretation, is unrealistic and ultimately self-defeating. Injecting an anthropological component

into multicultural education, especially as applied to early schooling and to teacher-training

programs, would immeasurably reduce the type of misunderstandings about diversity that may lead

to conflict.

To summarize, the anthropological approach to multicultural education is experiential, reflexive,

and interdisciplinary. It aims at engaging the attention of students with what seem the “natural

11

7” .(1’ “I’ ” “‘(I, I-----.--

premises” of multi-culturalism: the recognition that we all belong to one species, characterized by

basic commonalities but also by a tremendous array of differences which, however, can be

categorized, studied, and understood in reference to the multifarious human experience from which

they emerge. It is just by documenting the range of these differences, and by putting them into a

comparative framework, that we can acquire a better understanding of what culture is and of how it

relates to ethnicity and other forms of subcultural variation. Also, this knowledge can provide

insights into the factors triggering intercultural conflict, thus facilitating the development of the

skills necessary for its early detection and successful diffusion.

Apart from bypassing the solipsism of the postmodem perspective, this approach would also

stimulate a better understanding of what is culture- specific in scientific practice itself (see Cerroni-

Long 1996), and thus encourage the establishment of a cross-cultural intellectual dialogue among

anthropologists involved in multicultural education worldwide. Finally, and perhaps most

importantly, rooting the study of diversity in a better understanding of the overall characteristics of

our species would implicitly contain the ethnocentric, divisive tendencies of some current forms of

multi-culturalism. Certainly, it would call attention to what many still consider the mission of

multicultural education: finding a way to positively respond to the impact of intracultural variation

on democratic governance.

Multiculturalism and the State

While cultural differences may catalyze intergroup animosity, the major source of societal conflict

is the perception of discrimination. Discrimination, in turn, has to do with unequal access to social

acceptance and respect, and to the channels through which a good quality of life can be gained and

maintained. A better understanding of the dynamics of cultural membership and intercultural

relations may not, in itself, be sufficient to resolve inter- group conflict until and unless it is

combined with the redress of structural inequalities and a fairer distribution of resources, both

within each state organization and at the level of the global economy.

If contemporary states attempt to solve the problem of internal heterogeneity through forms of

multiculturalism that do not involve the dismantling of cultural hegemony they are not likely to

succeed. On the other hand, if no attempt is made at linking multiculturalism to the definition and

establishment of some form of “civil consensus”, few of the some two hundred politically sovereign

states now internationally recognized will survive the impact of internal fragmentation. Perhaps, as

the new century begins, the state may need to re-invent itself.

12

The development of anthropologically-inspired programs of multicultural education, along the lines

discussed above, may also facilitate the ‘Ye-invention” of the state, by providing very concrete

examples of the different types of governance adopted by various cultures throughout the history of

our species, and by describing the adaptive needs they fulfilled, the problems they created, and the

cultural practices to which they were correlated. Anthropological evidence can also help assess the

. level of tolerance for diversity characterizing the various types of political organizations that have

4 addressed cultural pluralism (see Smith 1986, Walzer 1997). Finally, and perhaps most importantly,

anthropological reflexivity can provide insights on the particular cultural frameworks that need to

be adjusted along multi-cultural lines. While cultural heterogeneity is perhaps growing everywhere,

the historical and cultural characteristics of different nation-states vary dramatically, and responses

to multiculturalism need to be sensitive to them.

It must also be acknowledged that, at the global level, the trend toward the fragmentation of large-

scale nation-states along regional or ethnic lines is counterbalanced by the development of wider

consociational frameworks, especially geared toward economic and political cooperation. In a way,

each of these frameworks may be moving toward the realization of the ancient concept of

oecumene: a loose sociopolitical organization gathering a number of culturally heterogeneous units

around some unifying symbol of commonality, but allowing each unit to operate independently in

most of the areas affecting the every-day life of its members.

It remains to be seen if the pressure of population growth, and the increasing interdependence of the

world economy, inexorably pushing these emerging sets of units in closer and closer contact, will

truly lead to a decrease in cultural diversity - and perhaps catalyze the emergence of a global

culture - or will trigger instead a tragic “clash of civilizations” (Huntington 1996). Historians point

out that the world has experienced other transitional phases during which cultural diversity became

an agent of momentous change. In fact, it has been hypothesized that human consciousness itself

may actually have emerged from one such phase (Jaynes 1976). If multiculturalism is indeed

setting the stage for another major evolutionary development of this kind, it seems that the

anthropological approach to multicultural education may provide us with the best preparation for it.

References Cited

Anderson, Benedict

1983 Imagined Communities London (UK): Verso Editions.

13

--T ----T--- ___.-..-

Ashley, David

1997 History without a Subject Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Bodley, John H.

1994 Cultural Anthropology: Tribes, States, and the Global System Mountain View, CA:

Mayfield.

Cameiro, Robert

1970 “A Theory of the Origin of the State: Science 169(3947):733-738.

Cerroni-Long, E. L.

1986 “Ideology and Ethnic@: An American-Soviet Comparison” Journal of Ethnic Studies

14(3): l-29.

1995 (ed.) Insider Anthropology Arlington, VA: American Anthropological Association.

1996 “Human Science” Anthropology Newsletter January:52,50.

1997 “The Study of Culture after Post-Modernity” In: J. van Bremen, V. Godina, J. Platenkamp

(eds.) Horizons of Understanding:3-23, Leiden (The Netherlands): Leiden UniversityKNWS

Publications.

1998 “The Role of Anthropology in Multicultural Education” Paper presented at the UNESCO

World Conference on Higher Education, Paris, France.

Clarke-Ekong, Sheilah

1998 “Anthropology’s Interdisciplinary Potential: An Emerging Reality” Paper presented at the

14th International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences, Williamsburg, VA,

USA.

Fox, Richard G. (ed.)

1990 Nationalist Ideologies and the Production of National Cultures Washington, DC: American

Anthropological Association.

Glazer, Nathan

1975 “The Universalisation of Ethnic&y” Encounter 44(2):8-l 7.

Goldberg, David Theo (ed.)

1994 Multiculturalism: A Critical Reader Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Goldschmidt, Walter

1985 “The Cultural Paradigm in the Post-War Period” In: J. Helm (ed.) Social Context of

American Ethnology, 1840-l 984: 164-176, Washington, DC: American Anthropological

Association.

Gordon, Avery F. and C. Newfield (eds.)

1996 Mapping Multiculturalism Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

14

‘7 --- -.

Habermas, Jurgen

1994 “Struggles for Recognition in the Democratic Constitutional States” In: C. Taylor et al., A.

Gutmann (ed.) Multiculturalism: Examining the Politics of Recognition:l07-148, Princeton, NJ:

Princeton University Press.

Harris, Marvin

1989 Ourkind New York: Harper & Row.

Hunter, James Davison

1991 Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America New York: Basic Books.

Huntington, Samuel P.

1996 The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order New York: Simon & Schuster.

Jaynes, Julian

1976 The Origins of Consciousness in the Breakdown of thee Bicameral Mind Boston: Houghton

Mifflin.

James, Carl E.

1995 Seeing Ourselves: Exploring Race, Ethnicity and Culture Toronto (Canada): Thompson

Educational Publishing.

Moynihan, Daniel Patrick

1993 Pandaemonium: Ethnicity in International Politics New York: Oxford University Press.

Nieto, Sonia

1992 Affirming Diversity: The Sociopolitical Context of Multicultural Education White Plains,

NY: Longman.

Plattner, Marc E.

1998 “Liberal Democracy, Universalism, and Multiculturalism” In: A. M. Melzer, J. Weinberger,

and M. R. Zinman (eds.) Multiculturalism and American Democracy: 157-162, Lawrence, KS:

University Press of Kansas.

Schuman, David and Dick Olufs

1995 Diversity on Campus Boston: Alleyn & Bacon.

Smith, Anthony D.

198 1 The Ethnic Revival Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

1986 The Ethnic Origin of Nations Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Toland, Judith D. (ed.)

1993 Ethnicity and the State New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Turner, Terence

15

1 -----TV---.

1994 “Anthropology and Multiculturalism” In: D. T. Goldberg (ed,) Multiculturalism: A Critical

Reader:406-425, Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Wadi, Alaka and Naveeda Khan

1997 “Inserting ‘Culture’ into Multiculturalism” Anthropology Today 13(4):9- 12.

Walzer, Michael

1997 On Toleration New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Waters, Mary C.

1990 Ethnic Options: Choosing Identities in America Berkeley, CA: University of California

Press.

16