CI: 5410 Reading Response #6

I’d like to start out this response by touching a little bit on the various definitions of multicultural literature we went over in class today. I think the first one which claims multicultural literature is that which is written by people of color is extremely limiting in that is neglects the cultural experiences of people not “of color” that still might be divergent from the norm. I think the second definition claiming that multicultural literature represents the perspectives underrepresented cultures gets closer to the truth. This allows for the introduction of perspectives from, say, the Sami people who are the indigenous people of Norway and would not be considered “people of color” yet their perspectives are outside of mainstream Norwegian culture. But I think this definition is still lacking…

The last definition adds even more to these definitions by recognizing how texts create space for presenting conflicting or overlapping cultures. I think this is interesting in exploring and understanding how we deal with encounters between and across cultures. This could mean examining how white American culture conflicts with those of immigrant cultures or how white European culture conflicts with the cultures they encounter during the post-colonial era—as in Conrad’s Heart of Darkness which I mentioned before. I think this text helps students explore their own white privilege and background within the context of its subjugation of an African country and the culture within it.

I also think that including texts that explore religion, sexuality, gender identification, and exceptionalities as Jessie presented in her powerpoint. Especially living in a country that is built upon many different cultures that have assimilated, adapted, or remained strong, I think it is important to understand how individual identity and culture overlap in the different spheres of people’s lives. For some people, their identification as a transgender individual is as much connected to their heritage in terms of culture than other aspects of their identity.

The Athanases article brings up some of the concerns people have in adding so many different pieces into multicultural curriculum by claiming that it “dilutes the focus on race and ethnicity that belongs at the heart of the multicultural agenda” (254). First of all, I think that this statement is very close-minded. I think it’s unfair to assume that the “agenda” of multicultural education is to highlight differences in race and ethnicity when it is more about presenting students with chances to explore other perspectives as they shape and develop their own understandings about the world and themselves. As Athanases goes on to say instead of detracting from these areas, broadening our definition can “deepen students’ understanding about identities and oppression and the ways in which marginal groups both share features and differ” (254). In this way, he argues that a deeper “understanding of common ground for groups divided by difference” can be achieved.

I think we need to keep working on our definition of multicultural literature and, perhaps, explore new terms that can be used to more clearly indicate the ways in which cultural identity is shaped through individual experience.