To show this, I will first explain multiculturalism and hybrid identities. By introducing nationalism and accordingly national identities in the second paragraph I will explain the points of conflict between the concepts.
At the end there is a conclusion. Hybrid identities have a strong connection to multiculturalism, because both take place and are rooted in societies that amongst others consist of different cultural groups like migrants. Ontologically, it posits the group over the individual. Multiculturalism is against dominant cultural groups and wants to expose the artificial universalism of this groups. Instead, the oppressed groups should become more important.
In often polemical debates it is said, that multiculturalism attacks the maxims of liberalism, like universalism, nationhood, citizenship and individual rights. By analyzing the work of some scholars we will see if this is true. The term multiculturalism first appeared in the s in Canada and Australia. Multiculturalism refers to multiple cultures, not to a single one. But an explicit culture is one in the singular.
It is as a product of symbols. It accompanies many approaches and values under one roof. Joppke, , p. In the mosaic the individual is only connected to the larger society and the state, through a membership in a cultural group.
Accordingly there is a disuniting social fragmentation of national societies Joppke, , p. It redirects loyalties from nation to cultural groups, while not providing an organizational alternative.
Have you created a personal profile? Login or create a profile so that you can save clips, playlists and searches. Navigating away from this page will delete your results. Please save your results to "My Self-Assessments" in your profile before navigating away from this page.
Seattle School District No. Bollinger Hazelwood School District v. Nichols Lemon v. Kurtzman McKinney Act of Milliken v. Ferguson Plyler v. It is that Third Space, though unrepresentable in itself, which constitutes the discursive conditions of enunciation that ensure that the meaning and symbols of culture have no primordial unity or fixity; that even the same signs can be appropriated, translated, rehistoricized, and read anew.
They are caught in the discontinuous time of translation and negotiation, in the sense in which I have been attempting to recast these works. They are now free to negotiate and translate their cultural identities in a discontinuous intertextual temporality of cultural difference.
The changed political and historical site of enunciation transforms the meanings of the colonial inheritance into the liberatory signs of a free people of the future. This meditation by the great Guyanese writer Wilson Harris on the void of misgiving in the textuality of colonial history reveals the cultural and historical dimension of that Third Space of enunciation which I have made the precondition for the articulation of cultural difference.
It is significant that the productive capacities of this Third Space have a colonial or postcolonial provenance. Homi K. Ashcroft, G. Griffiths, H. Tiffin, Routledge, New York , p. Atlas of Transformation.
0コメント