Goals of Multicultural Education P H I L O S O P H Y O F E D U C A T I O N 1 9 9 6 182 The Goals of Multicultural Education: A Critical Re-evaluation Walter Feinberg The University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign INTRODUCTION Pluralism and multiculturalism come from the same source — liberal political and educational theory — but they lead in different directions and represent distinct social visions. Pluralism seeks a society in which people from different cultural formations and orientations are allowed, if they wish to do so, to express their way of life within a separate cultural sphere, and are treated as equal individuals in a common public sphere. Pluralism wants equality of opportunity in the public sphere and freedom of association in the cultural sphere. Unlike the assimilation position, pluralism does not seek to destroy past memories and to obliterate cultural diversity. It does, however, allow for the dissolution of that identity should an insufficient number of individuals choose to pursue it. For the pluralist, society has no special obligation to maintain or support cultural structures. It must simply maintain the individual conditions which make choice possible. It must assure, for example, that children are not brainwashed or indoctrinated and that they develop an awareness of various alternative forms of life and the skill required to assess them. Thus unlike the assimilation position, pluralism is not hostile to cultural expression, but there is, as one commentator puts it, a certain quality of benign neglect. 1 In contrast, multiculturalism values cultural difference and authenticity, and seeks to maintain it in ways that are not solely dependent on the momentary interests of individuals. Indeed, one concern of multiculturalist theory is that access to dominant, hegemonic, and unchallenged cultural forms may work to the disadvantage of local cultural affiliation. Multiculturalism thus differs from pluralism in a number of ways. First, it holds that the public is already cultural. Its business is carried out in English, not French, not German, not Spanish; its institutions are shaped by the traditions of some groups and not others, and its educational and employment benefits are distributed unequally according to factors of ethnicity, race, and social class. Unlike pluralists, multiculturalists do not envisage even the possibility of a culturally neutral public sphere. Their ideal of cultural fairness is not to maintain a wall of separation between culture and public, but to assure that no group dominates the public sphere in a way that serves to exclude from it the bearers of other cultural forms. Hence, the public sphere is viewed as an arena for cultural negotiation where the goal is inclusion, culture and all. The public looks more like an open bazaar than a Whig courtroom. Second, whereas pluralism allows cultural identity to flourish, the multicultural ideal encourages it to do so. In other words, benign neglect is not sufficient for the multiculturalist. Nor is it adequate to exhibit cultural diversity simply to teach lessons about the inclusive and benign character of the American nation — that is, as a means to a larger national goal. American policies of exclusion are as important to expose as are its policies of inclusion. Hence multiculturalism seeks to give expression to the experiences of cultural groups, not from the point of view of some