Preface

    I would like to first point out that some issue could very well be taken with the phrase in my title, "monocultural classrooms."  Some scholars might argue that there is no such thing as a monocultural classroom.  Even I would warn that the phrase is a dangerous one, but I use it to refer to classrooms where the majority of students share the same race, class, and ethnic background.  As I compiled my bibliography, I tried to develop an understanding of the area of multiculturalism, to examine how the concept is implemented in the classroom, and then consider what relationship(s) and effect(s) it would have upon the classrooms within which my colleagues and I find ourselves. The works below help us understand that even classrooms such as these aren't perhaps so homogenous. Even if they are, perhaps it is possible to challenge them through language, writing, and critical thinking.

    It is apparent through a perusal of the texts selected for the following bibliography that some directly reflect the ideals of multiculturalism while others challenge them, and some are by educators with very diverse classrooms while others are in homogenous classrooms.  At the very least, the bibliographical works are concerned with both theory and with practice, some posing questions and challenging us for solutions and some providing proposals for action.

Annotated Bibliography

Kanpol, Barry.  Critical Pedagogy. Westport, Connecticut: Bergin and Garvey, 1994.
[See particularly chapters 3-5, "Tensions of and between Cultures,"  "Coming to Terms with Difference," and "Multiculturalism and the Politics of a Democratic Imaginary" 61-136.]

Kanpol illustrates the idea of critical pedagogy through his case studies.  Indeed his work may well be distinguished by his presentation. This presentation seems to be addressed to readers who are unfamiliar with the concept(s) of critical pedagogy, for the style is rather simple, the text is (perhaps too) simply mapped with each chapter introduction, subheadings, conclusions, classroom activities, and questions for discussion.  With this in mind, it appears that Kanpol works to explain critical pedagogy to anyone interested and establish its importance by reaching a larger audience than a more theoretical approach potentially would.  The consideration of the multicultural classroom appears primarily in chapters 3-5, chapters devoted to understanding difference and its significance in the classroom.  The chapters are in essence a unit, a unit of "three case studies about teachers" (61), and in this unit Kanpol asserts that "the reader will witness a natural progression of the types of questions" that are significant in the examination and understanding of the multicultural classroom, questions that ultimately lead Kanpol to argue that "multiculturalism and understanding of the other is about understanding differences as well as similarities within a democracy" (133).

Kanpol's work is especially significant in that it is indeed readable for the instructor unfamiliar with critical pedagogy and the multicultural classroom.  Not only does Kanpol's approach address a large audience, but Kanpol's case studies allow readers to see how he developed his theories about the classroom, and his activities and questions allow his readers to work through the complexity of the issues and reach their own understandings.

In this short book (90 pages), Klopf and Thompson assess the problem of communication in the multicultural classroom and propose solutions to the communication barriers. Educators themselves, Klopf and Thompson find it important to educate other instructors about the significance of the multicultural classroom in light of the fact that "Planet Earth is shrinking," thus creating a complex global community.  The authors state in their preface that the book "is designed to open the doors to the interculturalcommunication process, a process much more complex than one book can cope with" (viii).  In other words, "the book is meant to be a start," and a start it is.  The book takes what could be considered an elementary approach to communication in a multicultural setting, first by identifying the key terms/ jargon of current intercultural communication conversation. The book's elementary approach suggests that it is meant for novice teachers or "Educators preparing to teach in the multicultural  classroom" (3); these readers are further aided by the short, clearly indexed sections, by the "consider this" sections located at the end of each chapter, and by the accompanying workbook.

This text is especially interesting in that the authors happen to educators at the same university at which I teach.  Though they perhaps have more diverse classes, they do indeed address the homogeneity of some classrooms, "even in the remotest corners of the country where the population is culturally identical, teachers will benefit from training in intercultural communication"  (3).  At the very least, developing such communication skills would enable us to empower our students with the same skills, better enabling us to communicate with these "more homogenous groups" (3).

 Leverenz here explores the concept of a dissensus pedagogy, a pedagogy that allows for multiple voices/ views in the classroom.  It is beneficial in that it allows students to be challenged, thus to be forced to examine their own ideas.  This type of pedagogy reflects the idea(l)s of the multicultural classroom, the valuing of difference.  Unfortunately, as Leverenz points out, many such multicultural courses "embody an irreconcilable tension between the institution's goals" for teaching the status quo and simultaneously accepting divergence (169).  Leverenz "reads" a peer response group in a minority lit class, but while the university was comprised of mostly white students, "in a typical class of twenty-five, it is unusual to find more than two students of color" (169), the class Leverenz analyzes is predominately black.  It makes for an interesting analysis and yields valuable information, but Leverenz essay could have been improved, could have resonated louder with teachers in more "typical" classrooms had she analyzed a "typical" class.

Leverenz closely aligns herself with collaborative education, a field too vast for the scope of my research, but I find her peer response and dissensus views helpful in understanding difference within the classroom. I must admit, however, that had she focused more upon a "typical" class, I would have more to work with.  Adapting research on a truly multicultural classroom and ideas on difference is one thing, but having actual analyses of more a homogenous class would have served me better.

Lu's essay involves a fresh look at multiculturalism in the classroom, particularly through an examination of student writing.  Lu is particularly interested in students and their relationship to academic discourse:
 
Aside from increasing the student's knowledge of and experience in reproducing these official forms, I am most interested in doing three things: (1) enabling students to hear discursive voices which conflict with and struggle against the voices of academic authority; (2) urging them to negotiate a position in response to these colliding voices; and (3) asking them to consider their choice of position in the context of the socio-political power relationships within and among diverse discourses and in the context of their personal life, history, culture, and society. (448)
Lu is able to do this through "contact zones," places where cultures often clash due to power relationships.  These contact zones can very well be the differing approaches to writing in the classroom.

Lu's essay forced me to consider how contact zones could be used in the classroom, even a fairly homogenous one.  I believe it is quite useful in considering how best to initiate students into the idea of multiple voices and perspectives.  I am not quite sure how best to deal with her invocation of David Bartholomae's idea that there is no need to import other cultures through the use of anthologies because multiple cultures "are there, in the classroom, once the institution becomes willing to pay attention" to particular student writing.  At present, the anthologies are a necessary, albeit insufficient, means of introducing contact zones into the classroom.

In this essay, Mahala and Swilky explore the possibility that multiculturalism, as it is being used in current composition studies, may actually promote essentialist views by emphasizing the necessity to accommodate diversity rather than how the differences have been historically created.   After deconstructing the theories of Spellmeyer and Bizzell on the grounds that both fail to sufficiently critique the problems within and outside the multicultural classroom, Mahala and Swilky come to the conclusion that "teachers may seek common ground with students and with each other in our study of difference, but such common ground" may not share much with the world outside of academia; therefore, "it is more useful to look for common ground that we, our students," and the outside world currently "share, rather than in any hypothetical common good we might some day share" (204).  Though quite theoretical, Mahala and Swilky recognize that many instructors' means of uniting with students may in fact be detrimental, thus they suggest that "teachers might promote a struggle for a new consciousness by focusing on the ways in which all of us identify with the dominate culture" and how we accept or attempt to change the hegemony.

Mahala and Swilky's work is significant in that it questions the standard attempts to connect with our students in a multicultural classroom.  Quite interesting for my work is the consideration of how it would be possible to connect the homogenous group's struggles with others. Though the relation would not be exactly equivalent, there is indeed some
possibility in creating an association, an association that may not be possible through simply reading and thinking about a multicultural text.

McCoy examines the possibilities within the "current explosion of discourses representing cultural differences as a 'problem' of epidemic proportions" (333).  Grounded in a well-informed theoretical framework (Foucault, Singer, Butler, Barthes, and Zizek), McCoy is obviously addressing a well-informed audience.  With this audience in mind, McCoy attempts to understand multicultural education before then presenting her study on pre-service teachers and ultimately her conclusions.  She points out that multicultural education is to address four major problems: (1) social realities; (2)psychosocial attributes of students, their families, and their teachers; (3) schooling; and (4) representation, but never really goes attempts to propose any solutions.  McCoy then describes the significance of "white noise," both representing the media's significant role in promoting the "crisis" of difference as well as the "noisiness of the postmodern condition" (337), the noisiness of fragmentation.  Her examination of white noise leads her to accept the "staticky medium"  as an atmosphere for her research on pre-service teachers, the same medium in which she constructs poetry from the research subjects' journals and final papers in order to understand how they analyzed social worlds.  McCoy doesn't offer any answers, but instead leaves the reader with the indication that "pedagogical attention to issues of representation" is a necessary means to open up possibilities for social critique.

McCoy's essay is both interesting and problematic.  While I applaud her research and her recognition of the crisis of multiculturalism, I am not quite certain how her research date, presented in the form of poetry, informs me.  I admit that it realizes her goal of creating white noise, an atmosphere of confusion and uncertainty, and perhaps that's enough.

McLaren's work illustrates that multiculturalism is "constructed and engaged" in multiple ways (120).  He defines  four types of multiculturalism, "conservative," "liberal," "left-liberal," and "critical" (119).  Conservative multiculturalism is the reflects views that are "embedded in the self-serving, self-congratulatory and profoundly imperialist" (120) attitudes of colonialism.  Basically, this is the view that reflects the idea of the white man's burden, to educate and improve the lesser being.  Liberal multiculturalism is, as might be suggested by the name, the opposite of the conservative.  Instead of indicating a belief in the separation of races, liberal multiculturalism "argues that a natural equality exists" among racial populations (124). McLaren defines left-liberal multiculturalism as that which "emphasizes cultural difference" and that these differences are important in defining who we are (124). McLaren's critical multiculturalism is one that looks critically at how multiculturalism is constructed and attempts to deconstruct the binary of sameness and difference that seems to pervade thought on the issue of multiculturalism.  McLaren's rather theoretical would likely be interesting for anyone who wanted to do some consideration of current issues in pedagogy, though it is not a pragmatic work; however, Critical Pedagogy is important in the recognition that even a term like multiculturalism is politically charged, and that the construction of such a term is significant in understanding who it may somehow be oppressing.

McLaren's work was indeed somewhat troubling, for it challenged my conception of the term "multicultural."  As I was researching this issue, it never really once crossed my mind to consider the political ramifications of this term, how it was constructed, or even who was using it and to what ends.  I suppose I fell into the trap of believing we are all working toward a common goal, but such an assumption is dangerous, as McLaren's work points out.

Roy offers a powerful examination of the power of language in this essay.  Sparked by the debate over which word, "inclusion" or "inclusivity," should be used in a faculty handbook, Roy's essay unveils how much is really at stake in the relationship between power and language. It would be enough that language is the "set of symbols" with which we "represent our experience to ourselves and to others," but our language "also mediates that experience for us" (186).  In other words, language filters and shapes our understanding of ourselves.  The problem Roy contends with is the problem that SWE ultimately serves to maintain a power dynamic, ultimately maintains the status quo, ultimately maintains the oppression of minorities.  English moves from a broadly defined and accepting spectrum to an elitist form of language.  Though students may have a right to their own language, what are the consequences of using it?

Roy's essay is of particular interest because of the reminder it affords us about language--language is indeed power.  It places us in a unique situation in the homogenous classroom, whose language do we speak? If we promote the standard our students will likely become indoctrinated with it, which may be fine for them, but what are the consequences for the minorities with whom our hegemony-indoctrined students will encounter?

Schlesinger's work assumes a different stance than many of the other texts currently addressing the issue of multiculturalism.  In fact, Schlesinger's work seems to be an indictment of multiculturalists for the crime of being "very often ethnocentric separatists who see little in the Western heritage beyond Western Crimes" (232).  Schlesinger's argument seems to be directed toward scholars of Western Civilization, for he seems extremely troubled by the fact that "students can graduate from 78 percent of American colleges and universities without taking a course in the history of Western civilization" (233).  He has a point, understanding Western civilization, the basis of our culture, is indeed important, and in order to do this Schlesinger depicts the evil as the trend toward diversification, having "black dorms, black student unions, black fraternities and sororities," etc., with more and more ethnic groups separating from the mainstream.  Schlesinger concludes his work with a vision of Western civilization, "the ideal remains" and we are slowly working toward it (234).

Schlesinger's work is important not in the fact that it says something positive about multiculturalism, but instead because it takes an oppositional stance.  It would be tempting to attack Schlesinger for his perhaps shortsighted view, but not only is it important to hear an oppositional voice, but necessary to ensure that by promoting multiculturalism in a monocultural classroom we are not in fact promoting separatist ideas.  Schlesinger's argument, that Western civ. needs to be taught, has merit; after all, we should indeed understand the founding principles of our culture in order to examine it and how it is working with our concept(s) of multiculturalism.

Stockton establishes the Western thoughts propensity to think in binary oppositions in order to illustrate how students often "draw two thick lines" when they attempt to criticize minority texts, one a line that divides characters and themes, another that divides cultural values.  It is this second division that often leads her students to label one culture or another "good" or "bad."  In fact, this binary thinking ultimately leads many of her students to qualify good as cultures that accept American values, and bad as those with divergent ones.  An instructor at Dickinson College, Stockton indicates that the literature she teaches is  approximately half American ethnic minority.  This is quiet interesting in light of the fact that she admits "the student body here is approximately 95 percent white" (169).  Though she may not have a multicultural classroom, she is bringing multiculturalism into her monocultural class and offering valuable insight to any teacher concerned with multiculturalism in the classroom.  This is significant in that it affords her an exceptionally fresh perspective on multiculturalism, a perspective that argues that "we need to strive for a pedagogy that does not teach students how to divide the world 'objectively' into oppositional categories" without considering the perspective that is dividing them.

In a situation similar to mine, Stockton is able to articulate the possibilities of multiculturalism in monocultural classes.  Her call for pedagogies that work to allow our monocultural students to examine their own position(s) before passing judgment on others is  well received and beneficial.  Working to create an atmosphere of critical acceptance seems to offer the best hope for bringing issues of multiculturalism into our monocultural classes.