The Danger Of National Identity

Borja Ruiz Gutiérrez Lecturers: Christer Häkanson
Marianne Öberg

The Danger of National Identity

Introduction: I will try in this paper to explain why from my point of view the teaching of National Identity can be adouble-edged sword in Multicultural Education. I will begin with the conceptualization made by Feinberg of Pluralism, Multiculturalism and Multicultural Education in order to be able to refer later in the conclusion to these concepts without falling in unnecessary miss-understandings. I will explain why the national symbols explained by Roth in “The Multicultural Park” can be seen from differentperspectives depending on if we see them from inside the country or from a more international perspective and I will conclude with my opinion on what Multicultural Education should try to achieve when it comes to the teaching of a national identity.

First of all it is necessary to explain the difference between the three different concepts explained by the American philosopher Walter Feinbergin his book “Common Schools, Uncommon Identities”: Pluralism, Multiculturalism and Multicultural Education. In his idea of Pluralism, he writes, “members from different cultures should be allowed to pursue their own meanings and traditions in their home, churches, mosques, or temples and communities, while public school should actively strive to unify all children, regardless of their culturalaffiliation, under a single national identity” (Feinberg, 2000: 6). It is interesting to note that he pre-assumes that conflicts among different cultures will occur. Why the school should “actively strive to unify”, something that is in the beginning not separated? The next concept is Multiculturalism, from his writings: “Multiculturalism is different. It involves the active recognition by the schoolof cultural membership and addresses the children not just as citizens of one nation but in terms of their identity as members of different cultural groups” (Feinberg, 2000: 7). Multicultural Education is the education developed in a multicultural society and it has three main goals: “Inform students about cultural diversity; encourage respect for the practices of other cultural groups andencourage members of these groups to have pride in their own cultural heritage” (Feinberg, 2000: 123). I can see problems in two of three of the aims of the multicultural education: the second and the third: why should somebody respect a cultural practice that goes against the Human Rights, such as ablation? Why should teachers encourage a practice that they think will separate the necessary links in aclassroom? As a teacher, I will try the best solution when the problems arise, but as a writer I can´t approve the idea “every practice is respectful”. Then, are we going to allow in our schools extremist ideologies to develop, such as neo-Nazism or Islamic fundamentalism? How can a teacher encourage respect for a practice that does not respect her/his own beliefs, for instance, respecting theJews or respecting the homosexuals? However, as I explained, as a future professional in education I can think of the classroom as a space to meet all the different ideologies and the place were all should be listened, but I think some limits should be established in order to be able to conduct the dialogs. Quoting Roth, “It is also important for ethical reasons to give classroom space to theseexperiences and frames of reference” (Roth, 1999: 89)
I will try to explain Feinberg´s ideas, if I understood him right, in the problems that both concepts present –Pluralism and Multiculturalism- but I will choose one of them that in my opinion defends better what is the final goal of education: Pluralism, since it provides equal opportunities of development in a shared society to different...