Praxis Essay 2 (Revised) - Respond

Colin Nowierski

Praxis Essay 2: Respond

30 January 2019

Revised 11 March 2019

Multiculturalism vs. Tokenization

Social liberty has been on the rise across the globe since the turn of the century. One of the most notable societal shifts over the past twenty years has been a renewed agreement of belonging on behalf of individuals who would have been oppressed and marginalized had they been born just a generation earlier. Since the year 2000, “more than two dozen countries have enacted national laws allowing gays and lesbians to marry, mostly in Europe and the Americas” (Liu). Individuals of traditionally non-normative sexual and gender identities have acquired a stronger voice now than perhaps any other time in history. This is a triumphant movement in the realm of social diversity, and will likely continue to shape the state of social power structures throughout the rest of the twenty-first century. Meanwhile, the leader of the free world has decided that ruining international relationships is of such tremendous importance that it warrants a thirty-five day government shutdown (Turner). Evidently, there are still a great many people who fail to grasp the facets of inclusion and multiculturalism.

The world is diverse, and it is important that this diversity and multiculturalism exists in education. In her article, “Contact Zones” and English Studies, Patricia Bizzell puts forth a strong case for why English courses ought to put a spotlight on issues of diversity within their curriculum. From a general standpoint, the aim of this article is spot on - diversity should indeed find its place in the classroom setting. However, I am concerned that the vague techniques that Bizzell suggests might fail to convey the intended message in practice. When diversity is treated as a tacked-on item in a lesson plan, its meaning and intended message become lost. Simply including diversity for diversity’s sake will not be enough to set into motion broad social changes. Diversity and the issues therein deserve a center-stage role in the lesson plan. Careful consideration about how to portray groups and individuals is an important part of a diverse lesson plan.

The core of Bizzell’s argument centers around teaching communication and diversity through contact zones, which Bizzell defines as “social spaces where cultures meet, clash, and grapple with each other, often in contexts of highly asymmetrical relations of power” (166). The intent of studying contact zones is to observe how members of different cultures interact at these intersectional points and learn from the interaction as a whole. I agree that utilizing these contact zones as focal points for classroom discussion and lesson planning is an effective tool in learning about cultural conflict and resolution. Contact zones can highlight positive moments of unity among differing peoples (take, for instance, the deconstruction of the Berlin wall), or can demonstrate the darker moments when cultural differences lead to conflict (the diary of Anne Frank comes to mind here). Whether a force for good or a force for evil, both varieties of contact zones offer valuable life lessons that are worthy of study.

My primary concern with this approach is whether or not the articles selected to represent the cultures at hand will be appropriately representative. It is all too easy to shoehorn diversity into an existing context, and incidentally paint the respective culture with a broad brush while doing so. The problem lies in the fact that readers tend to internally compartmentalize the information they take in. As Mike Rose describes it, when studying theory, there is the “tendency to diminish cognitive complexity and rely on simplified cognitive oppositions: independent vs. dependent, literate vs. oral, verbal vs. spatial, concrete vs. logical” (268). Rose is specifically discussing perspectives on cognitive ability here, however this method of thinking persists across a variety of studies, and might highlight important problems with a poorly constructed lesson about a contact zone. My fear is that students will inevitably fall into a “them vs. us” mentality during a debate about a controversial intersection of culture. It is a natural, easy way of thinking to compartmentalize the combattants into groups. On its own, this collective mentality might not impede the lesson in any serious way, but I am concerned that the takeaways might be extrapolated to represent the entirety of the compartmentalized culture in areas beyond the contact zone of study.

Take, for instance, a rhetorical lesson that involves studying the works of a white author and a black author in segregated 1960’s America. There is a wealth of information to be learned from examining civil discourse in such a contact zone of extreme power discrepancy. That being said, the professor of this lesson takes on the important task of how to best represent both sides, and how to balance that representation with the lesson plan at hand. It is difficult to fully and accurately represent the diversity within both of these generic presets. The “white author” could be a level-headed social advocate who sympathizes with the cause of integration, or alternatively could be a flaming racist who writes with the technical capability of the average fourth-grader. The “black author” could be Martin Luther King Jr. himself, and the text one of his speeches, eloquently advocating for peace and change, or instead the author could be a radical proponent of extreme violence against the whole of society for the injustice brought upon him based solely on the color of his skin. Though extreme, these examples illustrate my point that there is a sort of diversity within diversity - an amount of disagreement in practice and style between members of the same mentally compartmentalized group. In the end, if only one paper is selected from both sides, that selection automatically becomes an overarching representation for the entirety of the group it is meant to represent, and the accuracy of this representation may vary. When an already marginalized group is misrepresented in this way, teaching diversity simply for the sake of inclusion loses its intended meaning, and accidentally perpetuates the imbalances of power it seeks to eliminate. This feeds into the ongoing problem of tokenization, where minority groups are used as props to create the illusion of diversity. Additionally, there is the lesson of rhetoric to be involved as well. Representative texts might take the backseat to those that instead demonstrate the specific rhetorical nuances of the lesson at hand. In this case, diversity is simply a means to a different end, and the takeaway lesson, which is focused primarily on the objectives of English coursework, loses its potency in regards to its societal value and historical significance. One possible solution to this problem might be to “organize English studies not in terms of literary or chronological periods, nor essentialized racial or gender categories, but rather in terms of historically defined contact zones, moments when different groups within the society contend for the power to interpret what is going on” (Bizzell, 167). Selecting texts with the intent of studying a contact zone from various angles might help to eliminate tokenization and misrepresentation.

In a similar context, Min-Zhan Lu describes the contact zone as “dynamic, heterogeneous, and volatile. Bewilderment and suffering as well as revelation and exhileration are experience by everyone, teacher and students, at different moments. No one is excluded, no one is safe” (456). Lu is a proponent of teaching through creating new cultural contact zones in the English classroom, and asserts that the unpredictable lessons that arise from these situations are invaluable. In this sense, the creation of a new contact zone becomes the basis for the lesson, rather than exploring an already existing contact zone sourced elsewhere. This helps to absolve the issue of representativeness across cultures, as the participating students are given the opportunity to represent themselves. This is a great counterexample of how contact zones can be utilized effectively within the classroom as a tool for broader learning goals while at the same time learning how to appreciate the differences among peers. The glaring drawback of this philosophy lies in the fact that it is poorly applicable to classes that lack diversity to begin with. In such circumstances, seeking out externalized contact zones to study might have to take precedence instead.

Utilizing the contact zone as a foundation upon which to select texts and construct a lesson might prove to be an effective means of carrying out quality multicultural lessons in the English classroom. When instituted properly, focusing on contact zones should help to combat tokenism, and promote a greater sense of social responsibility among students. Remembering that diversity is not a forced trait, but rather a natural precursor to the design of the course, ensures that the core tenants of multiculturalism will be passed on. Studying texts from multicultural authors, diving into books about important contact zones, and encouraging reading into contemporary social problems all contribute to an overarching social framework that is crucial for a cooperative and diverse world. There is a way to achieve this style of learning without incidentally producing opinions that adhere to “one-size-fits-all” models of cultural representation, so long as diversity within individual cultures remains observed and respected as well.

Works Cited:

Bizzell, P. (1994). " Contact Zones" and English Studies. College English, 56(2), 163-169. https://www.jstor.org/stable/378727?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

Liu, Joseph. “Countries That Allow Gay Marriage Around The World.” Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project, Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project, 13 Dec. 2017, www.pewforum.org/2017/08/08/gay-marriage-around-the-world-2013/

Lu, M. Z. (1994). Professing multiculturalism: The politics of style in the contact zone. College composition and communication, 45(4), 442-458. https://www.jstor.org/stable/358759?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

Rose, M. (1988). Narrowing the mind and page: Remedial writers and cognitive reductionism. College Composition and Communication, 39(3), 267-302. https://www-jstor-org.libproxy.scu.edu/stable/pdf/357468.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3Ae74450cdadf0954ffd3d4cb6771f9748

Turner, Trish. “Border Security Talks Begin with No Sign of Compromise to Avert Another Government Shutdown.” ABC News, ABC News Network, 30 Jan. 2019, https://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/border-security-talks-begin-sign-compromise-avert-government/story?id=60738609