Walking the Tightrope
August 24th, 2007 by Anindita Sengupta
The NY Times asks its readers an interesting question:
A charter school in Florida has come under fire for tying its Hebrew-language based curriculum to religion. Opponents of the Ben Gamla Charter School say that it is impossible to teach Hebrew — and aspects of Jewish culture — outside of a religious context.
How do you feel about publicly financed schools that cater to particular languages or cultures?
I think the question can be broadened to how important a role culture should play in education at all, which demands a closer look at the interplay between culture and society. The Dictionary of Modern Sociology defines culture as “the total, generally organized way of life, including values, norms, institutions, and artifacts, that is passed on from generation to generation by learning alone.” So culture is both integral to a person and inherited from the past. Because it defines so much of how a person should live, it forms a crucial component of his or her identity.
But in an increasingly globalized world, people often have to learn new ways of life and unlearn what has been passed down to them. This can lead to people feeling confused, overwhelmed or unanchored from their identity — psychological conditions that can have far-reaching impact on social interaction and relationships. Increasing globalization, travel and immigration are creating more subcultures within nations, which means that questions surrounding this are assuming center-stage.
Traditionally, the tricky business of culture has been negotiated in different ways. Countries have adopted approaches ranging from monoculturalism (when in Rome be as the Romans are) to multiculturalism (be yourself even while in Rome) and melting pot (do whatever comes naturally). But the thorniest angle of culture is always values.
In a perfect world, we would all believe in the same basic values and uphold the same fundamental rights. But this is not really the case, is it? Varying rules and attitudes regarding relationships, sex, marriage, divorce and recreation prevail in different cultures. Where does one draw the line between respecting other cultures and condoning heinous practices? How far should a state go to maintain and encourage subcultures without endangering the fundamental principles of its nationhood? Walking the tightrope between respecting cultural diversity and building a world that is safe and free for all remains one of the key challenges of our times.
I tend to agree with this view on the politics of culture:
When culture is treated as nothing more than an innocent accretion of solutions and practices, and each culture is seen as something inviolate, then all cultures are accepted at face value and cultural relativism is the suggested standard. So we hear that we should avoid ethnocentrism and respect other cultures. To be sure, after centuries in which indigenous cultures have been trampled underfoot by colonizers, we need to be acutely aware of the baneful effects of cultural imperialism and of the oppressive intolerance manifested toward diverse ethnic cultures within our own society.
But the struggle to preserve cultural diversity should not give carte blanche to anyone in any society to violate basic human rights. Many patriarchal cultures, for example, are replete with “sacrosanct customs” that, on closer examination, promote the worst kinds of gender victimization, including the mutilation of female children through clitorectomy and infibulation, and the sale of young girls into sexual slavery.
If one applies to this to the debate around education, the answer seems simple enough — conditional support. But examining what these conditions should be and defining them accurately and precisely is required as a first step towards a pluralistic world that still has some basics in common.