Heewon Chang
Eastern University
U. S. A.

Globalization and Multicultural Education
Textbook Analysis and Approaches to Global Concerns
Globally Responsible Citizenship
Conclusion
Endnotes
References

From everyone who has been given much,
much will be demanded: and
from the one who has been entrusted with much,
much more will be asked.

(New International Version, Luke 12:48) 

Globalization is an undeniable fact of the 21^st century.  The world is increasingly interconnected and interdependent as communication technology advances and transnational migration becomes easier and more frequent.  The advanced telecommunication technology brings news from other parts of the world to people’s living rooms and work places in a blink of an eye.  Multinational corporations and transnational organizations facilitate the mobility of their workers and families; affordable air transportation makes personal travels easier.  A romantic image of a “global village” is created to illustrate the close connection of the world.  At the same time, the benefit of this advancement is not experienced equally by developed and less developed countries.  The harsh reality of globalization is also manifested in the labor market competition between nations, causing gains in some parts and losses in other parts of the world, and the asymmetric power structure in the world trade.  Political, economic, and cultural influences spread speedily through the interconnected network across national borders, making the world more interdependent for better or worse. [paragraph 1] 

Scholars of multicultural education have responded to globalization in different ways.  Some have advocated education to help students appreciate different cultures of the world and gain cross-cultural competencies to become functional in other societies; others have taken a comparative approach to study multicultural issues in different countries.  Yet, another league of scholars have critically analyzed the impact of globalization on various countries and have recommended education that can prepare students to act responsibly toward global justice.  In this paper, I will explore various approaches that scholars have taken in dealing with global issues by analyzing textbooks published for teacher education courses in the field of multicultural education.  I will critically examine the depth and breadth of each approach addressing global issues and argue for global citizenship education as part of multicultural education. [paragraph 2]
 

Globalization and Multicultural Education
 

Global connectivity as a result of human mobility is not a new phenomenon to the world.  People groups traveled and migrated to other parts of the world for various reasons throughout human history².  Some were motivated by geo-environmental changes (e.g., Irish “exodus” to the United States during the potato famine in the early 1800s) and others by military conquests and colonialism (e.g., Ottoman Empire over Europe during the 17th Century and European colonialism over African and American continents during the 18th through 20th Century).  Some migrated voluntarily (e.g., immigrants to the United States since the 17th Century) and others involuntarily (e.g., African slaves to American continent in the 17th and 18th Century).  Some were inspired by political reasons (e.g., Southeast Asian refugees dispersed to various countries after the end of the Vietnam War in 1975) and others by economic pressure (e.g., Mexican El Norte migration to the United States in the 20th Century).  Migration is often determined by a set of interconnected factors.  Regardless of the initial cause, culture diffused and changes spread with the movement of people, impacting local, national, and global communities. [paragraph 3]

Yet, global connectedness in the 21st century is unique in three ways: (1) it does not always involve physical relocation of people, (2) its magnitude has increased with the advancement of communication technology, and (3) it is driven by capitalism that supports the principles of minimalist government, privatization of public institutions, and free trade.  Gibson-Graham defines this new phenomenon called “globalization” as “‘a set of processes by which the world is rapidly being integrated into one economic space via increased international trade, the internationalization of production and financial markets, the internationalization of a commodity culture promoted by an increasingly networked global telecommunication system’” (cited in Stromquist and Monkman, 2000, p. 4). [paragraph 4]

Globalization has had a profound impact on the world in many different arenas.  Stromquist and Monkman deliberate on the multiple “faces” of globalization:

In the area of economics, practices favoring free trade, private enterprise, foreign investment, and liberalized trade prevail.  In the social area, new consumption patterns and lifestyles with consequences for migration, family relations, and social organization have arisen.  At cultural levels, the flows of people, goods, information, and images reflect the influence of communication processes… and new identities and imaginaries are taking shape.  At the political level, there is increased acceptance of pluralistic systems, multiparty democracy, free elections, independent judiciaries, and the call for human rights…. (p. 4)

Carnoy (2000) also notes the “profound impact [of globalization] on the transmission of knowledge,” which resulted from “internationalized and fast-growing information industries [producing] knowledge goods and services” (p. 43).  The quality and quantity of information available to the world is unprecedented. [paragraph 5]

The impact of globalization is not always positive or neutral.  A negative side of globalization is the widening wealth gap caused by the shift from a welfare state to a minimalist state that favors the entrepreneurial minority rich and reduces social benefits for the majority poor (Currie and Subotzky , 2000, p. 126).  Globalization is also criticized for causing cultural homogenization toward Western-dictated values and alienating non-Western countries from local knowledge and empowerment.  Cultural "standardization" through education reform is also noted. Hickling-Hudson (2000) critiques how North American and European influences dominate the educational reform in Caribbean countries. The criticism implies that, while the world becomes closer through globalization, the socio-economic pecking order within a wealthy country is replicated at the global level as wealthy, powerful nations subjugate poor, weak nations in multiple dimensions including education.  Even though Western influences may be negotiated and “recontextualized” in some national settings, such as Malaysia (Lee 2000, p. 318), where the countries develop their own version of educational responses to globalization, the impact of the Western countries on the world is undeniably powerful and profound. [paragraph 6]

In this hierarchical world order, educators of a powerful Western nation, founded on democratic principles, are challenged to reflect on their extraordinary duty to help their students respond responsibly to the 21^st century phenomenon of globalization.  Multicultural education is one of the sub-disciplines of education that could help teachers be prepared to face this challenge effectively because the discipline has been dedicated to dealing with justice issues within national borders. [paragraph 7] 
 

  Textbook Analysis and Approaches to Global Concerns
 

Addressing global concerns is not new to multicultural education.  Yet, the depth and breadth of its coverage are varied.  To determine ways in which multicultural education addresses global concerns, I decided to analyze “textbooks” published in the field of multicultural education.  Textbooks here are casually defined as books that survey the disciplinary field of multicultural education. Since I was looking for introductory books to multicultural education as the objects of my analysis, monographs or ethnographies published in single volumes were not included in the final analysis.  I first identified books by searching various bibliographic databases with two key terms for their titles or subtitles: the key terms are “multicultural” and “education.”  I do not doubt that this narrowly focused search has precluded many fine books in multicultural education, nor do I claim that the search is exhaustive.  Currently I have identified 130 books published since the 1970s.  This work-in-progress will continue to include more books for a future analysis.  For this paper I began with 50 books physically available to me at this time (see the list of the books by clicking here). I initially examined the table of contents and index of each book to determine if it addressed any global issues and concerns.  Then I applied content analysis to the sections that were identified with my research focus. [paragraph 8]

First of all, I discovered that most of the books include a discussion of the concept of culture, which is originated from anthropology and is drawn upon studies of people in the world.  Some discussions of this concept are more anthropologically sound and comprehensive than others.  Banks’ book (1989; 1993; 2003), which is considered as a classic in the field, gives a full-chapter treatment to the topic of culture.  In the most recent edition, for example, Erickson (2003) provides a comprehensive coverage in a chapter thoroughly discussing the definition and aspects of this anthropological concept.  Bennett’s most recent edition (2003) also contains anthropological and sociological definitions of culture by Tylor, Geertz, Spradley and McCurdy, Goodenough, LeVine, and Triandis (pp. 42-43).  Some others give a cursive treatment to the concept and quickly move on to apply it to the cultural diversity issues in education, most frequently concerning the United States (Campbell, 2000; Hernández, 2001; Tiedt and Tiedt, 2002).  No matter how broadly or thoroughly the concept is applied, authors or editors of the books intentionally and unintentionally acknowledge the global presence of cultural diversity by grounding their work on this originally global concept. [paragraph 9]

Beyond this undercurrent of global awareness, some textbooks address global issues more intentionally, adopting one or more of the four approaches: (1) cultural sampler approach, (2) cross-cultural competency approach, (3) international comparison approach, and (4) global citizenship approach. [paragraph 10]  

The first approach, cultural sampler, tends to dominate books introducing multicultural lesson plans.  The lessons are often concerned with material culture (e.g., food, music, holiday celebration, clothing, and arts) from different countries with a spoken or unspoken assumption that students need to raise their appreciation of cultures of other countries.  For example, Baker (1994) suggests to “show students photographs of circular homes, such as the tipi of the Native Americans the Great Plains, the yurt of Central Asia, the Inuit (Eskimo) igloo, and around houses in Africa” as part of a mathematics lesson on space (p. 243).  Tiedt and Tiedt’s idea for a language arts lesson follows the same pattern of cultural sampling.  They argue,  “Making origami [Japanese paper-folding art] fits well with writing such Japanese forms of poetry as haiku” (p. 59).  In both cases, culture merely represents decontextualized knowledge bits.  It is expected that such cultural learning will be transformed into global cultural awareness.  Learning about other countries is sometimes compelled by the acknowledgement of immigrants in the United States (Tiedt and Tiedt, 1999, p. 21).  Baker encourages multicultural lessons to connect U. S. immigrants with the world by suggesting to “[p]resent to the class some historical facts about Puerto Ricans in the United States.”  She continues, “Explore with the class the differences between Puerto Ricans, African, Japanese, and Mexican Americans….  Under what conditions did each group come to the United States?” (p. 349).  This approach to the world is certainly “safe” and non-committal in a sense that exotic elements of the world are brought for students to taste with little personal transformation.  Banks’ (2002) “contributions” and “additive” approach of multicultural curriculum would describe this cultural sampler approach at a global level.  The cultural sampler approach tends to trivialize and fragment cultural knowledge by lifting bits of information out of its cultural context for a utility purpose.  Without properly understanding the cultural meanings of different house forms presented in Baker’s lesson and Japanese haiku mentioned in Tiedt and Tiedt’s lesson, students could easily "consume" the fragments of the world. [paragraph 11]

The second approach, cross-cultural competency, emphasizes the importance of helping students develop knowledge, attitude, and skills to function in different cultures.  Banks (1994) argues that an important aim of global education, which is closely connected to multicultural education, is “to help students to develop cross-cultural competency in cultures beyond our national boundaries and the insights and understandings needed to understand how all peoples living on the earth have highly interconnected fates” (p. 17).  In other writing, he also encourages ethnic education to reach the ultimate goal of producing an individual who “has clarified, reflective, and positive ethnic, national, and global identifications and the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and abilities needed to function within ethnic cultures within his or her own nation as well as within cultures outside his or her nation in other parts of the world” (Banks, 1981, p. 133).  In this approach, culture may be presented more comprehensively than the culture sampler approach so that the acquisition of “knowledge, skills, attitudes, and abilities” could enable students to become functional in a particular culture outside their own.  Compared to the culture sampler approach, the cross-cultural competency approach requires students to become involved in the culture.  This approach, however, does not encourage students to question or critique the fundamental principles of the culture of their nation or others.  Instead, taking it in “as is” and learning from it are much emphasized. [paragraph 12]    

Some scholars of multicultural education address global issues by utilizing the international comparison approach.  They study multicultural issues of other countries and compare them with the United States. This approach is well illustrated in Banks and Banks’ statement: “Most of the immigrant and ethnic groups in Europe, Australia, and Canada face problems similar to those experienced by ethnic groups in the United States” (2003, p. 5).  In this case, it is clear that the frame of reference for the international comparison is the multicultural educational concerns of this country.  The struggles of people of color in other Western states are seen as a mirror image of the same injustice struggles of this country.  It is assumed that we can gain valuable lessons from international comparisons.  Marcias (1998) presents an example of this approach in his study of resurgence of nationalism in California and Germany.  The Californian version of nationalism is exemplified in the passage of Proposition 187, which intends to “withhold virtually all government services and benefits to ‘illegal’ immigrants in the state” (p. 184).  The German form of nationalism is similarly directed against “guestworkers, refugees, and other resident foreigners” (p. 188).  By comparing these cases, Marcias helps multicultural educators understand how the racial ideology of each case contributes to the resurgence of ethnic conflicts.  Laine and Sutton (2000) offer a similar international comparison to further our understanding of multicultural issues in different countries. These authors compared multicultural policies of Australia, Canada, and the United States.  Grown out of historical and political contexts, three countries are engaged in different multicultural public discourses:  “In the United States, the enduring legacy of slavery and racism has uniquely marked public discourse on multiculturalism.  Canadian debate, in contrast, is defined specifically by the politics of bilingualism.  For Australia, multiculturalism is treated largely as an issue of immigration and language” (p. 99).  Australia and Canada have established multicultural policies at the federal government level while the United States “has no laws of such overarching authority” in support of multiculturalism (p. 99). This international comparison enhances the understanding of multicultural issues at a global level. [paragraph 13] 

The last approach, global citizenship, reminds multicultural educators of the importance of developing students’ awareness of global connectedness and sense of responsibility as global citizens.  Banks’ earlier argument for cross-cultural competency re-emerges as a plea for global citizenship education.  “To help students acquire reflective and clarified cultural, national, and global identifications,” he argues, “citizenship education must teach them to know, to care, and to act…they must acquire higher levels of knowledge, understand the relationship between knowledge and action, develop a commitment to act to improve the world, and acquire the skills needed to participate in civic action” (Banks, 2002, pp. 87-88). Valdez (1999) and Bennett (1999) include lesson samples intended to raise global and environmental awareness of the earth.  Bennett’s instructional ideas include “raising awareness of the state of the planet and global dynamics” such as “acid rain” (pp. 325-326), “chemical and biological warfare” (pp. 330-337), “global conflict and consequences” (pp. 336-340), and “global economics and the U. S. consumer” (pp. 350-352).  Sleeter and Grant’s (2003) “multicultural and social reconstructionist” approach advocates linking the diversity issues of the United States to the world.  For example, as students understand the growth of the Hispanic population in the United States, they suggest that the students be helped to understand the fact that “Mexican economy continues to suffer [and] Central America continues to be a hotbed of political unrest.”  In this context, the Free Trade Agreement with Mexico “can be viewed as an Anglo attempt to divide Third World people from Americans of Mexican descent in a competition over jobs” (p. 231).  In this approach the knowledge of the globalization is expected to serve as a motivator for social actions for change. [paragraph 14]
 

  Globally Responsible Citizenship
 

The global citizenship approach is different from the first three approaches: culture sampler, cross-cultural competency, and international comparison.  The first three approaches are based on the nation-oriented worldview in which students see themselves as citizens of their own nations, separate from the world.  With this worldview they can comfortably deal with the world from a “safe” distance; the global citizenship approach, on the other hand, forces students to see themselves as part of the world, participating in the global network as actors.  In the nation-oriented approaches students could easily perceive and assess the world matters from their ethnocentric interest and as onlookers.  Cultural knowledge of other countries is also perceived as something to be consumed.  They may come to appreciate it, utilize it when needed, and learn from it; yet, they, especially those from wealthier and more powerful countries, can afford ignoring global matters with little consequences on their own well-being.  In such a non-committal relationship to the global knowledge, its triviality, superficiality, and fragmentation may not matter much because it impacts little on the lives of casual consumers.  This casual relationship is not likely to motivate students to gain more important, profound, and holistic knowledge of the world. [paragraph 15]

The global citizenship approach treats the knowledge of the world differently.  The global knowledge in this approach is considered to be indispensable, often mandatory, for their national and global existence.  Students are encouraged to see their community broadly reaching beyond their local connection.  Since the knowledge of self and others is considered a tool for action, rather than dispensable consumer goods, critical thinking about the knowledge is much encouraged.   Students actively participate in the global connectedness, rather than passively observing it.  They are expected to act toward global justice and equality, equipped with broad and examined knowledge. [paragraph 16]

Lynch’s Multicultural Education in a Global Society (1989) is one of the earlier works in multicultural education that emphasizes global citizenship education.  He promotes a global multicultural curriculum to be characterized by “culture balance, global breadth, cultural and social equity, economic responsiveness and environmental sensitivity” (p. 32).  A major commitment to human rights at the global level is at the heart of this curriculum.  Acknowledging interconnectedness and interdependence of the world, he emphasizes education that helps students develop knowledge and skills to respond responsibly to such a world.  Lynch’s concern for global human rights resonates in Brown and Kysilka’s (2002) as well as Bennett’s writing (1999).  While Lynch discusses global multicultural education in terms of its principles, Brown and Kysilka are much more interested in applying global perspectives and concepts to multicultural instruction.  They promote infusing global perspectives into multicultural education.  Their teacher education model reflects the principle of global citizenship education.  They argue that “teachers need to be aware of international concerns and controversies, especially those involving the United States, so they can act as informed citizens and participants in the global society” (p. 4).  Their “multicultural and global education” is to empower “students to participate actively as global citizens” by celebrating diversity, honoring human rights, seeking multiple perspectives, developing interconnectedness and interdependence, practicing co-responsibility, and experiencing the global society (p. 16).  Bennett’s (1999) four core values for the multicultural curriculum model include similar principles: “(1) acceptance and appreciation of cultural diversity, (2) respect for human dignity and universal human rights, (3) responsibility to the world community, and (4) reverence for the earth” (p. 13).  To all of these multicultural education scholars, global connectedness is too pronounced a reality to ignore.  Thus, multicultural education is expected not only to impart the knowledge of this interconnectedness, but also to help students develop skills and attitudes to act responsibly toward preserving the global community. [paragraph 17]
 

Conclusion
 

Globalization in the 21^st century is intensifying.  Multicultural education as a discipline that is deeply concerned about justice issues around diversity can no longer ignore the global context.  Some scholars have indeed paid attention to global issues.  Yet, multicultural education still tends to be narrowly nation-specific and ethnocentric.  Toward global issues it adopts a passive consumer attitude rather than that of an active participant, treating global cultural knowledge as an object for appreciation, utilization, and consumption.  From this perspective, understanding of other cultures from the world is neither comprehensive nor compelling for collective survival. [paragraph 18]

The global citizenship approach challenges this perspective toward the world.  As globalization intensifies, we can no longer ignore our economic, political, and cultural interdependence with the world community.   We cannot close our eyes to the impact one country’s policies make on others.  We cannot afford not acknowledging the dark side of globalization.  Especially as citizens of a powerful country like the United States, we cannot neglect our responsibility toward the world.  Some multicultural educators such as Lynch (1989) and Brown and Kysilka (2002) have pleaded with multicultural educators to pay attention to this global citizenship approach.  As transnational phenomena become prevalent, people’s consciousness as global citizens will become more imperative.  Thus, transcending national boundaries for this reason should be taken much more seriously in multicultural education. [paragraph 19]
 

Endnotes
 

1.      This paper was initially presented at the 102nd American Anthropological Association Annual Meeting in November, 2003.

2.      The examples listed here are not in any way exhaustive.  My intent of listing a few is only to illustrate the point.
 

References
 

Baker, G. C. (1994). Planning and organizing for multicultural instruction (2^nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Banks, J. A. (1981). Multiethnic education: Theory and practice. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Banks, J. A. (2002). An introduction to multicultural education (3^rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Banks, J. A., and Banks, C. A. M. (Eds.) (2003). Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives (4^th ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.

Brown, S. C. and Kysilka, M. L. (2002). Applying multicultural and global concepts in the classroom and beyond. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Campbell, D. E. (1996). Choosing democracy: A practical guide to multicultural education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

Carnoy, M. (2000). Globalization and educational reform. In Stromquist, N. P. and Monkman, K. (Eds.). Globalization and education: Integration and contestation across cultures (pp. 43-62).  Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

Currie, J. and Subotzky, G. (2000). Alternative responses to globalization from European and South African universities. In Stromquist, N. P. and Monkman, K. (Eds.). Globalization and education: Integration and contestation across cultures (pp. 123-148). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

Erickson, F. (2003). Culture in society and in educational practices. In Banks, J. A. & Banks, C. A. M. (Eds). Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives (4^th ed.) (pp.31-58). New York, NY: Wiley.

Erickson, F. (2003). Culture in society and in educational practices. In Banks, J. A. & Banks, C. A.M. (Eds). Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives (4^th ed.) (pp.31-58). New York, NY: Wiley.

Hernández, H. (2001). Multicultural education: A teacher's guide to linking context process, and content (2^nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Laine, S. W. M. and Sutton, M. (2000). The politics of multiculturalism: A three-country comparison.  In Ovando, C. J. and McLaren, P. (Eds.). The politics of muliculrutralism and  bilingualeducation: Students and teachers caught in the cross fire (pp.82-103). Boston, MA: McGraw Hill.

Lynch, J. (1989). Multicultural education in a global society. New York, NY: Falmer Press.

Marcias, José (1998).  Resurgence of ethnic nationalism in California and Germany: The impact on recent progress in education.  In Schultz, F. (Ed.). Annual editions: Multicultural education 97/98. pp. 184-192. Guilford, CT: Dushkin/McGraw-Hill.

Tiedt, P. L. and Tiedt, I. M. (1999). Multicultural teaching: A handbook of activities, information, and Resources (5^th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Stromquist, N. P. and Monkman, K. (2000). Defining globalization and assessing its implication on knowledge and education. In Stromquist, N. P. and Monkman, K. (Eds.). Globalization and education: Integration and contestation across cultures (pp. 3-26). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

Heewon Chang, Ph. D. is Associate Professor of Education at Eastern University and the Editor-in-Chief of Electronic Magazine of Multicultural Education (EMME).  Her scholarly interests include multicultural education, anthropology and education, qualitative and ethnographic research, and global education.  (Contact the author at hchang@eastern.edu; contact the editors of EMME at emme@eastern.edu.)

Recommended Citation in the APA Style: