Understanding the Real Social Meaning of Mobility - Essay Example

?Multiculturalism versus cosmopolitanism: Impact on and of education. Australia, with its multicultural society, has been practicing the official policy of multiculturalism since the 1970s, mostly as a tool to remediate its history of racism and denied pluralism (Ang and Stratton, 1998, p.22). This policy has been instrumental in redefining the national identity and became part of the political rhetoric (Ang and Stratton, 1998, p.22). Yet, the 1990s saw a resurgance of “populist' and “reactionary” sentiments in the political circles, resulting in public hate talk against ethnic minorities and aboriginal people (Ang and Stratton, 1998, p.22). Leaders like Pauline Hanson and the extreme positions taken by the like, have brought to the fore a suppressed wish to see Australia as a united strong nation that is homogenously white (Ang and Stratton, 1998, p.24). As everyday politics always tend to swim with the tide, the government in power has also been putting up a weak fight against this propaganda against multiculturalism, though this propaganda has so far remained in the margins of social discourses (Ang and Stratton, 1998, p.24). The result is that a question is newly raised whether multiculturalism is the right term to explain a government policy that deals with “cultural diversity” (Ang and Stratton, 1998, p.24). A heated debate is going on. It is a way of any society that cultural diversity will eventually find its most dangerous enemy in cultural identity. Humans need to belong to a culture and through that, identify with a group. Often, coexistence of different cultures would be understood as a threat to cultural identity by such groups. The extent of cultural diversity in Australia has been such that “150 different cultures, 80 religions and 90 languages” co-exist inside this country (Ang and Stratton, 1998, p.25). As Ang and Stratton (1998) have pointed out, the recent, widespread dissent being expressed against the term, multiculturalism, can be seen as a sign of the partial failure of the ideological build up that happened around this term in favor of it, in the past (p.26). It has to be accepted that certain arguments against the term are valid, for example, the way the “Anglo-Celtic” white community were deprived of their ethnic status by this term while the aboriginal people were rightly imparted the same (Ang and Stratton, 1998, p.26). The “historical memories” of a people, when goes unaccounted for, in this manner, are bound to give rise to dissent (Ang and Stratton, 1998, p.22). In the eager attempt to undo the injustice done to the minorities, what happened is that the majority had to let go of its priviileges and even a few, just rights. The two-decade long discourse on multiculturalism in Australia has thus, though being successful in incorporating this ideological project into the national ethos, failed to make the majority feel secure and ready to accept their place in the society and culture of the nation. This issue arises also in the specific cultural context of Australia. Racial purity has been a core concern in the history of Australia since it came into existence as a nation state (Ang and Stratton, 1998, p.28). There existed a strong self-identity among Australian people in history as a “white nation” (Ang and Stratton, 1998, p.28). Then started the anti-tacist discourse bringing in the policy of assimilation first and upon its failure, multiculturalism (Ang and Stratton, 1998, p.32). By glossing over the racist tendencies and failing to really face the racial realities, the term, multiculturalism, proved to be lacking the courage to lead the society towards a balance between cultural diversity and cultural identity (Ang and Stratton, 1998, p.37). When it comes to the specific instance of education within a multicultural policy framework, research have shown many issues of compatibility and culture (Leeman and Reid, 2006, p.57). Studies from Australia and Netherlands provide evidence to this (Leeman and Reid, 2006, p.57). Scientific studies have also proven that a new paradigm for education that resolves these issues can be developed if approached from the angle of cosmopolitanism (Sobe, 2009, p.6). It is observed that cosmopolitanism imparts a new dimension to education through “the ways that solidarities are formed, identities are developed, and principles of inclusion and exclusion are elaborated amidst local and global assemblages” (Sobe, 2009, p.6). It has been suggested that cosmopolitan social theory might be a way forward. It is in this context that cosmopolitan social and political theory have been considered useful in replacing multicultural approach and resolving the problems caused by it (Delanty, 2006, p.25). This theory is based on the view that cosmopolitanism is the “revolt of the individual against the social world, for to be a 'citizen of the world'” (Delanty, 2006, p.26). Thus it allows a person to revolt against one's own cultural limitations as well as to see cultural diversity from a totally different frame of reference. This is a frame of reference that develops a sense of commonness in experiences among all individuals of a society, by making them party to a shared experience of movement and change. Cosmopolitanism thus becomes a concept that replaces also the territorial and closed nature of the nation state with an openness that allows a new world culture. It has to be reminded here that cosmopolitanism is a social phenomenon that pre-existed nation states, and not a new concept. It is only being reinterpreted in a modern enhanced vision of democracy. As Rizvi (2008) has rightly stated, “global mobility has become one of the defining characteristics of our age” (p.13). It is for the people caught in this mobility bandwagon either by their own mobility or by being surrounded by such mobile segments of global population that cosmopolitanism becomes a real and unique experience. They feel that they are becoming cosmopolitan (Rizvi, 2008, p.13). The factors identified in a society that have the potential to turn them cosmopolitan have been 1) aspirations raised by the travel narrative among the native people, 2) the new media introduced into the local community by the mobile segment, 3) The impact of money brought in by the mobile segment, and 4) changes in social order and structure brought in by the above cited factors (Rizvi, 2008, p.18). Thus “mobility of just a few people has the potential to transform the entire community” (Rizvi, 2008, p.18). In other words, the entire community is becoming party to a shared socio-cultural experience, thereby making them members of a common cultural identity though they actually belong to different cultural identities. How cosmopolitanism differs qualitatively from multiculturalism is the key question here. It can be simply explained by saying that multiculturalism is a concept imported upon any given society by the intellectuals and the governing agencies while cosmopolitanism is a social phenomenon evolving and growing on its own. This comparison can be a perfect example of two diametrically opposite approaches to social phenomena- the first one, to invent a term and then try to find it in the social realm; and the second, to find a name for a social discovery being made. This core difference in approach can be crucial for a society. The first approach caused a widening of pre-existing divides while, the second approach provides an opportunity now to rectify that. This is the context where globalization also needs to be redefined. For the first time in history, it is reminded that “globalization is not simply the name for a new epoch in the history of capital or in the biography of the nation state, but is marked by a new role for imagination in social life” (Rizvi, 2008, p.18). The totality of this imagination can help individuals and communities adapt in a creative manner while multiculturalsm has been instead found to cause a “tendency towards social agnosticism among teachers and teacher education students” (Leeman and Reid, 2006, p.57). This can be seen as a consequence of incompatibility of identity with the concept of multiculturalism whereas cosmopolitanism remains more flexible in resolving such cultural dilemmas. Terminologies like vernacular cosmopolitanism have gained acceptance in social science discourses especially in the context of education. Vernacular cosmopolitanism has also been called by critics as an “oxymoron that join contradictory notions of local specificity and universal enlightenment” (Werbner, 2006, 496). It is clear that cosmopolitanism and its variant forms are still evolving and it is possible that in yet another social juncture in future, this term will also become as obsolete as multiculturalism. Yet, this does not mean that the term has no relevance today. It is only natural that concepts evolve as notions of human ethics, equality and democracy evolve. Many have raised the question whether “the local, parochial, rooted, culturally specific or demotic may co-exist with the translocal, transnational, transcendent, elitist, enlightened, universal, and modernist” (Werbner, 2006, p.496). It is the reconciliation of the above discussed and more seemingly contradictory concepts that imparts a certain openness and a sense of hope with respect to cosmopolitanism. This was what exactly multiculturalism was lacking as well. The beauty of cosmopolitanism has been that cultural identity and cultural diversity, as discussed in the beginning of this essay, could at least attempt co-existing within it. With respect to education, cosmopolitanism is observed to influence it as well as get influenced by it. It is observed that “the cosmopolitan imagination entails a view of society as an on-going process of self-constitution” (Delanty, 2006, p.40). It can be seen that education that is becoming more fluid than ever before with new communication and learning platforms like internet, has the potential to facilitate this process of self-constitution (Sobe, 2009, p.12-13). Consequently, education will be influenced by it as it transforms the hierarchy, access, reach, formats, and other dimensions of education (Spisak, 2009, p.87). Education thus becomes a key partner of cosmopolitanism as “without a learning process, that is an internal cognitive transformation, it makes little sense in calling something cosmopolitan” (Delanty, 2006, p.41). The approach is very clear here as all know that once the fixed nature of any social phenomenon is rejected theoretically, the act itself necessitates constant learning and updation. In simple terms, linking cosmopolitanism with education means enabling the students to learn about other cultures as well as imparting them a paradigm of knowledge that makes them feel that they inherit a world culture (Werbner, 2006, p.497). Yet, there are more dimensions to this process. Education becomes a vehicle of universalism, human rights, democracy and inter-cultural sense of belonging under cosmopolitanism. Education being a bridge to future and all its aspirations held by humanity, incorporating cosmopolitanism into it, is a crucial act. Critics (Rizvi, 2008) have called for the development of certain “epistemic virtues” so as to facilitate cosmopolitan learning, which is actually seen as an epistemological shift that understands knowledge, the process of acquiring it and the identity created by it as an life long process (p.32). Such a process of education drinks from the rich fountain of the cosmopolitan society itself and also help its evolution (Rizvi, 2008). This is an educational paradigm that essentially has strong local anchorage and universal outlook (Rizvi, 2008). In specific terms, cosmopolitan education has been seen as requiring an “educational vocabulary that transcends the binary between the global and the local, while promoting an understanding of global connectivity that is both empirically grounded and ethically informed” (Rizvi, 2006, p.21). In the context of Australia, this could mean different things including cross-cultural understanding, understanding the real social meaning of mobility, addressing race and skin color from a humanitarian perspective, and asserting all cultural identities as against a universal shared culture. References Ang, I. & Stratton, J. (1998) Multiculturalism in Crisis: The New Politics of Race and National Identity in Australia. Topia: Canadian Journal of Cultural Studies 2, 22-41 Delanty, G. (2006). The cosmopolitan imagination: critical cosmopolitanism and social theory. The British Journal of Sociology, 57(1), 25-47. Leeman, Y. & Reid, C. (2006). Multi/Intercultural Education in Australia and the Netherlands. Compare: A Journal of Comparative Education, 36(1), 57-72 Rizvi, F. (2008). Epistemic Virtues and Cosmopolitan Learning Radford Lecture, Adelaide Australia 27 November 2006. The Australian Educational Researcher, 35(1), 13-35 Sobe, N. W. (2009). Rethinking "Cosmopolitanism" as an Analytic for the Comparative Study of Globalization and Education. Current Issues in Comparative Education, 12(1), 6-13 Spisak, S. (2009). The Evolution of a Cosmopolitan Identity: Transforming Culture. Current Issues in Comparative Education, 12(1), 86-91 Werbner, P. (2006). Vernacular cosmopolitanism. Theory, Culture & Society, 23(2-3), 496-498 Read More