Social Justice Education in European Multi-ethnic Schools: Addressing the Goals of Intercultural Education 2018033000, 2018045661, 9781351057301, 9781138482623

Citation preview

Social Justice Education in European Multi-ethnic Schools

Europe is a multi-ethnic society experiencing a rise of anti-immigration, racist, ­xenophobic discourses, and right-wing political rhetoric and movements proposing legislation to further solidify structural inequality and institutionalized systems of oppression that fuel educational inequities. Social Justice Education in European Multi-ethnic Schools brings together researchers in the fields of sociology and education to examine debates in multicultural education. Drawing on critical theory, the book takes an indepth look at how these challenges are being addressed (or not addressed) in educational contexts and in the proposed framework of intercultural education adopted as a conceptual and educational framework by the European Union over the last two decades. The book begins with an analysis of the sociological models and theories of migration and their connection to multiculturalism and interculturalism. It engages in the current debate between multiculturalism and interculturalism, bringing to light the “political rhetoric” that fueled narratives about the “failures” of multiculturalism, which ushered in the intercultural framework. It puts forth a critical analysis of interculturalism, linking it to neoliberalism, and policies of civic integration and the concept of govermentality. Advocating for a transformative framework informed in social justice education that aims to promote more equity in schools, it critically analyzes and discusses intercultural education, the pedagogical extension of interculturalism, as per the European documents highlighting its goals, pedagogies, tensions, and challenges. Social Justice Education in European Multi-ethnic Schools will be of great interest to academics, researchers, and scholars in the fields of intercultural, multicultural, and transformative education. Cinzia Pica-Smith is an Associate Professor in both the Department of Human Services and Rehabilitation Studies and the Education Department at Assumption College in Worcester, Massachusetts in the United States. Rina Manuela Contini is an expert in Welfare Theories and Social Intervention in the Department of Management & Business Administration at the University of Chieti-­Pescara in Italy and is certified at the Associate Professor level in sociology of communication and cultural processes. Carmen N. Veloria is an Associate Professor in both the Department of Education and Department of Sociology at Suffolk University in Boston, Massachusetts in the United States.

Routledge Research in International and Comparative Education

This is a series that offers a global platform to engage scholars in continuous academic debate on key challenges and the latest thinking on issues in the fast-growing field of International and Comparative Education. Titles in the series include: Testing and Inclusive Schooling International Challenges and Opportunities Edited by Bjørn Hamre, Anne Morin and Christian Ydesen Higher Education and China’s Global Rise A Neo-tributary Perspective Su-Yan Pan and Joe Tin-Yau Lo Actionable Research for Educational Equity and Social Justice Higher Education Reform in China and Beyond Edited by Wang Chen, Edward P. St. John, Xu Li, and Cliona Hannont Cooperative and Work-Integrated Education in Asia History, Present and Future Issues Edited by Yasushi Tanaka and Karsten E. Zegwaard Reforming Education in Developing Countries From Neoliberalism to Communitarianism Izhar Oplatka Social Justice Education in European Multi-ethnic Schools Addressing the Goals of Intercultural Education Cinzia Pica-Smith, Rina Manuela Contini, and Carmen N. Veloria For more information about this series, please visit: https://www.routledge.com/ Routledge-Research-in-International-and-Comparative-Education/bookseries/RRICE

Social Justice Education in European Multi-ethnic Schools Addressing the Goals of Intercultural Education Cinzia Pica-Smith, Rina Manuela Contini, and Carmen N. Veloria

First published 2019 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2019 Cinzia Pica-Smith, Rina Manuela Contini and Carmen N. Veloria The right of Cinzia Pica-Smith, Rina Manuela Contini and Carmen N. Veloria to be identified as authors of this work has been asserted by them in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Pica-Smith, Cinzia, author. | Contini, Rina Manuela, author. | Veloria, Carmen N., author. Title: Social justice education in European multi-ethnic schools : addressing the goals of intercultural education / Cinzia Pica-Smith, Rina Manuela Contini, and Carmen N. Veloria. Description: Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY : Routledge, 2019. | Includes bibliographical references. Identifiers: LCCN 2018033000 (print) | LCCN 2018045661 (ebook) | ISBN 9781351057301 (E-book) | ISBN 9781138482623 (hbk) | ISBN 9781351057301 (ebk) Subjects: LCSH: Multicultural education—Europe. | Social justice— Study and teaching—Europe. | Minorities—Education—Europe. | Immigrants—Education—Europe. Classification: LCC LC1099.5.E85 (ebook) | LCC LC1099.5.E85 P53 2019 (print) | DDC 370.117094—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018033000 ISBN: 978-1-138-48262-3 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-351-05730-1 (ebk) Typeset in Bembo by codeMantra

To the memory of my father, Raffaele, who supported my childhood passion for justice and solidarity and never made me feel it was too idealistic or childish to work toward liberation. And to my mother, Cynthia, who with her strength, determination, labor, competence, and love, provided for our family in every way so that we could grow and prosper. I owe you both for everything I am.  Cinzia Pica-Smith To my father, Ernesto, and my mother, Nicoletta, with boundless love and gratitude, and to my children, Ernesta Maria and Mattia Giovanni, who infuse a joy that is always new to my heart.  Rina Manuela Contini To my mom, Maxima, who despite not knowing the “culture of power,” showed up at the first U.S. school that I attended and demanded that I be called by my given name, and to my support system—Alex, Elly, Lucas, and Bella, thank you for all of your love, patience, and understanding … los amo a ustedes más de lo que las palabras pueden decir.  Carmen N. Veloria

Contents

Acknowledgments Foreword by Paul Gorski

ix xi

Introduction 1 PART I

Intercultural education: Origins, current thinking, practice, and critiques

7

1 Social theories of migration, political realities, and the rise of interculturalism 9 2 Intercultural education: Theoretical model and strategies for implementation 26 3 Talking back: Critical theory and critical pedagogy 46 4 Intercultural education in Italian schools: A case study 63 PART II

Theory in practice: “Us and them,” intergroup friendships, intergroup dialogue, and the promise of social justice education

81

5 “Us and them,” the social construction of race, intersectionality, and the importance of discussing race 83 6 Intergroup relationships in school, intergroup contact, and prejudice reduction: Is it enough? 102

viii Contents

7 Social justice education and anti-colonial educational frameworks and pedagogy with Molly Keehn

121

Final thoughts 141 Afterword by Maurizio Ambrosini 146 References Index

149 177

Acknowledgments

First and foremost, we would like to acknowledge each other, and the contemplative friendships forged and strengthened with one another as a result of the countless hours of chats, debates, and theorizing. This project would not have been possible without the truly collaborative space we co-created engaging in the type of dialogue Freire stated could not be reduced to the act of one person “depositing” ideas into another, nor by a simple exchange of ideas to be consumed. Instead, as Freire would say, we created it from different points of entry, social and physical locations, and with our own set of history and knowledges. Any one of us, alone, could not have written this book. Only the three of us, together, building our understanding from our lived experiences, areas of study and expertise, worldviews, ways of making meaning, and sharing these, together, could complete this project. We shared our understanding, we discussed our knowing, we sometimes argued, sometimes agreed, sometimes disagreed, sometimes agreed to disagree, we reached consensus, we held our points of tension, we wrestled with challenges. We wrote separately and together, we had hour-long transatlantic phone conversations. We did all of this while juggling the primary responsibilities of our families, our mothering, as well as our full-time faculty positions in sociocultural political contexts of patriarchy and sexism. For this, we want to pause and acknowledge one another in a way that rarely happens in academic spaces. Thank you with heart and mind for our minds and hearts have expanded for knowing and working with one another. Throughout this we learned to trust one another while leaning on the steadfast love and support of our loved ones, both past and present. We would like to express deep gratitude to Dr. Paul Gorski and Professor Maurizio Ambrosini. We are honored to include their foreword and afterword, respectively. Over the years, Dr. Gorski’s scholarship and activism have focused on deconstructing systems of inequity towards social justice and equity in education and society at large. His body of work including his work on deficit discourses, decolonizing intercultural education, and equity literacy has profoundly impacted our thinking. Likewise, Professor Maurizio Ambrosini’s thinking and careful guidance over the last year and a half greatly influenced our critical analysis of the conceptual framework of

x Acknowledgments

interculturalism and aided us in making critical connections in our work. Professor Ambrosini is an expert in the field of immigration and refugee studies, and the policies and systems that exclude and marginalize migrants from society. We are infinitely grateful for his thoughtful review of our work and the suggestions he provided over the course of months. We would also like to extend a heartfelt thank you to Professor Emeritus Vincenzo Cesareo of the Universita’ Cattolica of Milano for his thoughtful guidance during the research process. Likewise, gratitude goes out to Professor Gabriele Di Francesco for his work throughout the research project as well as the Dipartimento di Lettere, Arti e Scienze Sociali dell’Università degli Studi “G. d’Annunzio” di Chieti-Pescara who facilitated and supported the empirical research project cited in Chapter 4. Furthermore, we would like to thank the teachers and administrators in those schools of the Abruzzo region who participated in our research. Thank you for your time, collaboration, and your professionalism. A special deep-felt thank you for Dr. Molly Keehn, a social justice scholar, an intergroup dialogue (IGD) expert and facilitator for her contribution to Chapter 7, for which she should be cited as co-author. Molly co-wrote this chapter with us and generously and enthusiastically shared her work and expertise as an experienced IGD facilitator. We are thankful for her contribution. Many thanks go to Arianna Valocchi who provided us with the invaluable work of translation. Arianna translated three chapters from Italian to English. Her work was essential to the completion of this project. Her work was precise, timely, and absolutely essential to our project as we were writing the first draft of the book in two languages, and the final draft, of course, had to be completed in English only. Arianna, we owe you much, and we wish you a long and productive career as a translator! Last, and absolutely not least, we would like to thank the Routledge Press for their support and believing in our project. We have had many supporters along the way: Naomi Silverman, Heidi Lowther, and Aiyana Curtis—thank you all. And, thank you to Will Bateman, who has fielded our many, many questions and provided us with all of the support we have needed for this project to come to fruition. We are thankful, indeed.

Foreword Paul C. Gorski Founder and Director of the Equity L iteracy Institute

I feel no investment in labels. I care little about what we call the frameworks, theories, and conceptual tools that help us build and sustain just and actively anti-oppressive schools and school systems. Call it interculturalism, multiculturalism, social justice. Attach the word “critical” to the label to make sure everybody knows we mean business. Whatever language we choose, eventually it will be appropriated, anyway, sprinkled into strategic plans and school web sites, an illusion of transformative intentions. What matters in my view is not what we call what we do, but rather the anti-oppressive, pro-justice integrity and impact of what we do. At various times, I have used all of these terms—intercultural education, multicultural education, social justice education, educational equity. Now I often use the term equity literacy to emphasize the importance of strengthening educators’ literacy related to how equity and inequity, justice and injustice, operate in schools and society. Whatever language I use, I’m always driven by one grounding principle: the path to equity and justice begins with a direct confrontation with inequity and injustice. We cannot transform conditions we refuse to name. We cannot fix educational disparities if we refuse to acknowledge how they are rooted in structural societal disparities. If we cannot, or choose not to, recognize how those structural injustices inform everything we do in schools and how everything we do in schools affects the most marginalized students, we cement our complicities with the injustices intercultural education ought to destroy. Unfortunately, in my experience working with schools and school systems around the world, intercultural or multicultural efforts commonly look like dances, carefully choreographed by whoever is in power to keep intact the conditions that landed them in power. I have witnessed educational leaders and other powerbrokers gently tiptoe around any serious confrontation with the ways racism, transphobia, xenophobia, and other oppressions operate in schools. In place of racial justice, we offer a multicultural art fair or intercultural student dialogue. In place of feminist praxis or efforts to eliminate sexism in STEM education we introduce a segregated and gender-binary-based club for young women who are interested in computer science. We are quick to jump on the anti-bullying bandwagon, but seemingly immobilized when

xii Foreword

it comes to implementing school policy to address the institutionalized roots of bullying, especially when those roots involve heterosexism, homophobia, or transphobia. We introduce initiative after initiative expecting students who are marginalized in school to participate in celebrations of diversity while refusing to attend to the ways they are marginalized. We grasp at popular concepts devised to detour us around confrontations with injustice, often based on the oppressive notion that justice is achieved by “fixing” the mindsets, cultures, or grittiness of marginalized students rather than by fixing the conditions that marginalize students. There are exceptions, of course. But in my experience, this is the state of intercultural education, multicultural education, and even social justice education as instituted in almost every school I have visited across five continents. It is astounding how efficiently we reproduce inequity by embracing the fluffiest, least transformative re-imaginings of frameworks that provide at least the potentials for progressive change. Our first responsibility as people committed to transformative, just education, then, is to examine on our own complicities, despite our commitments—­ how we recycle injustice under the guise of intercultural education. Yes, people and institutions that are reactively resistant to any consideration of ­social justice or interculturalism pose a significant, insidious threat to the possibility of educational justice. Perhaps more significant and insidious, though, is the threat we, the supposed champions of educational justice, pose when we choose to operationalize these commitments in non-­t ransformational, unjust ways. In fact, there are times I have grown more frustrated attempting to overcome the supposed champions’ obsession with long debunked “common sense” diversity initiatives—cultural competence training, pedagogies revolving around fictitious learning styles, attempts to adjust a mythical “culture of poverty,” grit, growth mindset, or simplistic “celebrating diversity” activities—than to engage with educators who openly declare their disgust with educational justice efforts. We can be a stubborn lot. “Baby steps,” we say. “Meet people where they are,” we insist. “We don’t want people to disengage because we make them uncomfortable,” we explain, imagining we are being inclusive when we are dumping the ramifications of our lack of will onto the backs of marginalized families. When our intercultural, multicultural, or social justice work prioritizes these concerns—the feelings and interests of the most privileged people—over observable movement toward more just means and ends, we are complicit. When we use language like “intercultural education” to describe all we do to avoid direct confrontations with injustice, we undermine more serious attempts at educational justice. Over time, our stubbornness, avoidances, and insistence on clinging to fluffy or ineffectual approaches begin to look purposeful. For those of us with privilege-bearing identities, they begin to look like expressions of privilege and entitlement. We become the problem we pretend to abhor.

Foreword  xiii

Let me clarify something. I am not arguing that cultural competence has no role in educational justice efforts or that we should ban intercultural exchanges and cease celebrating diversity. What we must avoid is the temptation to embrace cultural competence and intercultural exchange in place of justice. School policy and practice will not suddenly become more economically just because we facilitate dialogue between economically marginalized and wealthier students. A scarcity of dialogue among students with different identities did not cause educational outcome disparities, much less disparities in educational access, across socioeconomic status, ethnicity, or religion. A dialogue initiative by itself is no threat to these disparities. The good news is, cultural competence and intercultural exchanges become infinitely more meaningful after we prioritize racial, economic, gender, ethnic, religious, queer, language, and other forms of justice. A “both/and” is fine. It’s the “either/or” that gets us into trouble. This, to me, is the most important contribution of Social Justice Education in European Multi-ethnic Schools. The book is full of important, often critical, framing. Pica-Smith, Contini, and Veloria nudge us toward a deeper, more sophisticated, more transformative view of intercultural education, multicultural education, or whatever we choose to call what we do. They wrap a critical view around frameworks and practices that tend to be de-politicized in schools prior to implementation, urging us toward integrity despite all the possible detours. The most profound illustration of this contribution can be found in the transition from Chapter 6, “Intergroup Friendships,” to Chapter 7 “Social Justice Education.” The authors spend Chapter 6 describing the potential influences of intergroup contact, friendships, and dialogue on individual students—­how these experiences can help transform students’ perceptions of difference, strengthen students’ learning, and contribute to the cultivation of welcoming learning spaces. All good. They could have stopped there. Many intercultural education scholars and practitioners do. We produce reams of books and articles about programs designed to gather, say, Palestinian students together with Israeli students in the name of interculturalism. We describe how valuable it is when they hear one another’s stories and practice civil discourse. We use pre- and post-test assessments to measure spurts of empathy. In most cases the books and articles extol the virtues of these programs in ways that obscure the questions we would ask impulsively if our intercultural education was grounded in transformative principles of justice: how is power distributed among the participants and facilitators? What are the institutions hosting these dialogues doing to address the structural oppression that led them to deem the dialogues necessary? Is it socially just or even “intercultural” to invite marginalized students into an intergroup dialogue with no guarantee that their participation will result in less oppression leveled against them, their families, and their communities?

xiv Foreword

These are the questions, or at least my interpretation of the questions, Pica-Smith, Contini, and Veloria challenge us to consider in Chapter 7. We appreciate your enthusiasm for intercultural dialogue, they say, in essence, because we think it has some good potential. But it only has good potential in a bigger context of a social justice commitment. Intergroup dialogue is not the path to meaningful social justice progress. Instead, social justice progress is the path to meaningful intergroup dialogue. That is the sort of understanding that undergirds an intercultural education built with integrity—an intercultural education worth advocating. I encourage you, the reader, to open yourself and your intercultural practice to this sort of interrogation as you read the entire book. If you are willing to do so—if we all are willing to do so—we broaden and deepen the potential for profound shifts in how we conceptualize and operationalize intercultural education. We prepare ourselves to envision and enact an intercultural education that can be a threat to the existence of injustice rather than a threat to the possibility of justice.

Introduction

Several European nations have a long history of immigration; however, in recent years, and as this book goes to press, immigration has dominated the headlines of European media and has grown exponentially, even in countries where it was previously relatively unknown. Waves of refugees fleeing war zones, violent conditions, and areas in which climate change has created water and food insecurity have left their homelands in search of a safer life elsewhere. Furthermore, globalization and migration from African and Asian countries is creating remarkable shifts in European nations’ demographics. The European landscape is changing rapidly, Europe is becoming an increasingly multi-ethnic, multiracial, and religiously diverse society; these changes are shaping sociopolitical and institutional contexts. Immigrants are facing interpersonal, institutional, and cultural oppression. Every day the media reports on violence against those who are, or are perceived to be, non-­ Europeans. Institutionalized racism and xenophobia are evident, and among many other indicators, is the rise of right-wing and populist movements, who often join forces on anti-immigration political platforms. Observable economic and educational inequities in the lived experiences of immigrant and second-generation people are forcing European Union countries to reflect on these social dynamics and inequities to find new solutions, in society at large, and especially in the context of education. In this context, then, interculturalism emerges as a contemporary solution to “manage” diversity in a new, multi-ethnic and increasingly “super-diverse” Europe. Fueled by popular, political, and academic discourses around the “failures” of multiculturalism and a multiculturalism backlash, it has branded itself as the best iteration of policies for a multicultural Europe. Its foundational principles are that by valuing diversity, engaging in intergroup dialogue and fostering social cohesion, a pluralistic Europe is possible. Through intergroup dialogue, intercultural competence and prejudice reduction will be achieved, and this, in turn, will move society towards social justice. Interculturalism’s pedagogical extension, intercultural education, aims to supplant multicultural education as a new and improved theoretical and pedagogical framework for education in a diverse school context.

2 Introduction

The aim of this book, then, is to contextualize intercultural education in its sociopolitical context, critically analyze the theoretical framework and its pedagogical extension, point out its strengths and problematic blind-spots, as well as offer some re-orientations that may support scholars and educators interested in creating more critical educational spaces that are more equitable for all students. To this end, we have organized the book in a manner that helps the reader to contextualize intercultural education in a sociocultural and political context. As critical scholars and educators we would be remiss to avoid noting that delving deep into the European documents on interculturalism and intercultural education, our analyses brought us to unavoidable connections between these political and educational theoretical frameworks and neoliberal ideologies and policies of governmentality and civic integration, that serve to promote social cohesion to the benefit of the nation-state. Thus, while dialogue, diversity and social cohesion are both the foundational concepts and goals of interculturalism as well as the means towards the acquisition of intercultural competence, the goal of intercultural education, they are also a means to maintain social order in the nation-state. As a framework it is problematically uncritical in its lack of an analysis or examination of power. Its focus on intergroup dialogue and intercultural competence is limited. Therefore, we offer a window into critical theory and critical pedagogy as well as social justice education and anti-colonial approaches and practice that may be a helpful way to deepen and transform intercultural education. In order to provide context, analysis, and offer a reorientation, the book is organized into seven chapters. Chapter 1 begins with an analysis of the sociological models and theories of migration processes: assimilation theory, which considers assimilation as a necessary process for better social and economic growth; segmented assimilation theory, which analyzes the integration paths of immigrants in three ways—upward, selective, and downward assimilation; multiculturalism, which embraces and values cultural differences, accenting the needs and rights of minoritized populations; and interculturalism as a response to multiculturalism that aims at the creation of a society informed in mutual cultural dialogue. We highlight the current debate between multiculturalism and interculturalism, bringing to light the “political rhetoric” that fuels narratives about the “failure” of multiculturalism, which, in turn, is ushering in a new intercultural framework. Finally, we complicate the discourse by putting forth a critical analysis of interculturalism itself linking it to neoliberalism and policies of civic integration and the concept of governmentality. In Chapter 2 we mirror Chapter 1 by demonstrating that multicultural education, having its origins in the political movements that fueled multiculturalism policies, and born as a response to assimilationism and neo-­ assimilationism is informed in critical ideologies. Intercultural education, having its origins in the political movements that fueled interculturalism policies and born as a response to a multiculturalism backlash, rising right and

Introduction  3

far-right, and nationalist movements, is informed in neoliberal ideologies. This significantly impacts both the theoretical frameworks and the pedagogy of multicultural and intercultural education (while we also believe that multicultural education as it is most often practiced is not critical or transformative at all). We discuss intercultural education as per the European documents and orientations highlighting goals and pedagogies, strengths, and challenges. We conclude the chapter discussing various European countries’ approaches to integration measures (towards the goal of intercultural education) as these are understood as fundamental if immigrant children are to be integrated into the school and community. In Chapter 3 we posit that critical theory is needed in order to critique, understand, and move to action. Critical theory offers a theoretical foundation that helps undergird the relationship between language, power, and ideology that leads to power, domination, and oppression. Without critical exploration, educators may be blinded to the lived-realities of their students and the material effects of their practice. Critical pedagogy offers a practice intent on creating a just society with the focus on uncovering systems of power and social inequities, transforming relations of power and humanizing and empowering learners. The attention to language and dialogic encounters in the classroom challenge educators to move beyond reproductive approaches and move towards critically understanding students, and the context in which they make meaning of who they are and who the world says they are. We believe this framework is one of the re-orientations we can offer as scholars and educators begin to evaluate this new educational framework of intercultural education in the European context. In Chapter 4 we use a case study to offer an opportunity to understand how intercultural education is being understood, interpreted and implemented “on the ground.” Italy is a particularly significant case study because while Italian educational policy has been focused on intercultural education and Italian sociologists of education and theorists have as well, there still exists a lacuna between this theory and its implementation in schools. This chapter, then, reports the findings of a qualitative research study on educators’ conceptualization, reflections, meaning-making, and attempts to implement interculturalism and intercultural praxis. We seek to address the current debate regarding the gap between the theoretical conceptualization and policies of interculturalism as well as their translation into actual educational practices in schools. The criticism of the framework is that it is often too abstract and ambiguous, and from our perspective, that it is not critical or aimed toward social justice or social change. We found that the ambiguities, abstract nature, and the tensions within the framework were reflected in the teachers’ reported practice of intercultural education. Most troubling to us were the ways in which intercultural education became a practice of colonizing education in which immigrant children became objects of learning for dominant students to practice intercultural competence. Racial and social justice initiatives were never mentioned. Instead, multicultural art displays,

4 Introduction

cultural literacy, or music festivals took the place of engagement on issues related to justice and equity. In Chapter 5 we take on a particularly courageous conversation in the European context. While “race” has a long academic tradition and theory in the U.S. context with a rich critical race theory, it has been both avoided and highly contested as a legitimate conversation in the European context. We thought it impossible to write a book on intercultural education, multi-ethnic schools, exponentially diverse schools in a time of increasing immigration, rampant racism, without discussing race. We acknowledge that race is not a scientific or biological construct. Yet, we know that racism is all too real. Like in the United States, we can surmise that within a few generations, white Eastern European children will be more likely to assimilate into the European host countries and contexts into which they migrate, while immigrant children from Africa and Asia may experience more difficulty as they are “othered” on the basis of their physical appearances. As immigration from these regions is only expected to rise, this is an important area of scholarship. This section of the book will guide readers into a discussion about why it matters to talk about race and racism, power and privilege, and issues of social justice to support youth who are marginalized in schools and society at large. Grounded in intergroup contact theory, Chapter 6, synthesizes the literature on intergroup friendships, their benefits, challenges, and potential for prejudice reduction. Because of the robust link between intergroup friendships and a reduction in out-group anxiety and prejudice, these relationships have become the focus of psychologists, sociologists, and educators interested in creating structures to support intergroup dialogue, relationship and community-­building, and collaboration between children, adolescents, and adults of different ethnic, racial, cultural, linguistic, and religious background in an increasingly diverse European context. Indeed, intergroup contact that leads to prejudice reduction and valuing diversity is the stated framework of intercultural education. For this reason, we review this literature on these relationships as well as the individual and institutional determinants that support these friendships. We also introduce the concept of “contact readiness” and a theoretical model, “confidence in contact,” that responds to some of the limitations of intergroup contact theory. In addition, embedded in the chapter is the literature on the systems (integral to the theory but often omitted in the intercultural education literature) that must be in place to support these important intergroup friendships in schools, some of the same systems that would support equity education and access for all students. Finally, and most importantly for us, we propose that while these relationships are instrumental in prejudice reduction, and, therefore, necessary to think about in school contexts, focusing exclusively on these individual bonds between young people is simply not sufficient if we are committed to social justice and social change as these special individual bonds between people will not dismantle systems of inequity. Rather, dismantling systems of inequity would create more opportunities for these friendships.

Introduction  5

Finally, Chapter 7 will introduce readers to the theoretical framework of social justice education and anti-colonial pedagogical frameworks. It will provide readers with an understanding of the foundational sociopolitical concepts of these frameworks with their focus on understanding systems of oppression and privilege and how these shape the lived experiences of children and adults who develop and live in contexts of inequity. Finally, the chapter will express the vision of education for social justice, which includes ways that educators can bring critical and difficult conversations into the classroom to promote deeper learning and action towards positive social change. We conclude the chapter with a discussion of intergroup dialogue (IGD) as a social justice pedagogy and how it could be modified as a potential practice of intercultural education which places dialogue at the center of its framework as dialogue is a chosen foundational framework of intercultural education. While dialogue alone is not sufficient as an equity pedagogy, we contend that informed in an anti-colonial framework, taught within a comprehensive social justice education curricula, it can be transformed from a simple interaction between students of diverse backgrounds to an intentional liberatory practice, which we believe has to be practiced in the context of an institutional commitment to social justice (not simply to intercultural dialogue and cultural exchange).

Part I

Intercultural education Origins, current thinking, practice, and critiques

1 Social theories of migration, political realities, and the rise of interculturalism1

Introduction Increasingly, people around the globe, especially people from the Global South, are moving, crossing national borders, and settling outside of their countries of birth. Pécoud and de Guchteneire (2007) assert that this transnational movement is now structurally embedded in the economic realities of most countries. This migration is not only a lived historical reality and experience of each individual or family that migrates; rather, as Castles and Miller (2012) point out, migration is a “collective act” that affects the nations at both the departing and welcoming end. Indeed, these movements affect the infrastructure, social, political, and cultural institutions, and labor and economic systems of both departing and welcoming countries (Cesareo, 2015). Another consequence of mass migration has been the growing visible diversity of European nations, which, in some cases, had previously been more ethnically and racially homogeneous. Hence, a first conceptual innovation in the sociological analysis of migration policies has been a focus on diversity, which has meant something different for multiculturalists, who focused on the rights of ethnic and religious minority groups, and interculturalists, who have focused on diversity as a concept related to each individual’s multiple identities and intersecting group and individuals’ diversity. This is a concept that can be traced back to the idea that identities are not siloed but rather connected to one another, as American black feminist scholars have phrased “intersected” with one another so that, for example, race, gender, class are inextricably linked (hooks, 1984, 1989, 1990; Crenshaw, 1989). Regardless of the conceptualization and understanding of what diversity means from these two frameworks, in societies that are becoming increasingly diverse, the question is no longer how to live with but rather in diversity (Antonsich, 2014; Antonsich & Matejskova, 2015). That is to say, European societies are grappling with cultural pluralism and the creation of culturally diverse contexts that focus on both the rights of ethnic and religious groups, which have been essentialized and marginalized, as well as those of individual people, whether they are members of ethnic and religious minoritized groups or “native,” who have been marginalized by their gender, sexual, or disability identities 1 Overall, Chapter 1 draws on Contini & Pica-Smith (2017) and Contini (2017). Portions of the section, Multiculturalism and the Multiculturalism Backlash, as well as all of the Interculturalism versus Multiculturalism section were previously published in Contini and Pica-Smith (2017).

10  Intercultural education

(Ambrosini, 2014). In many ways, this interculturalist shift on the concepts of diversity from the rights of ethnic and religious minority groups to the individual reflects the disaffection towards multiculturalism in the European sociological and political debate and the obfuscation of an increasingly rightwing politics of migration in a neoliberal Europe (Prins & Slijper, 2002). Questions tied to immigration are a priority in the political agendas of governments and political parties. In various European countries new political actors are gaining importance, requesting higher restrictions for new arrivals, less tolerance for cultural and religious diversity, stricter measures against irregular immigration, and less social benefits for new arrivals (Ambrosini, 2016). A common trait of European policies regarding immigration is identified in the growing shift regarding the request of civic requirements towards migrants (Goodman, 2010). The concept of civic integration tends to blur the distinction between the “national models” of immigrants’ inclusion (Ambrosini, 2016; Joppke, 2007). At the same time, European institutions assert the necessity to move from multiculturalism to interculturalism as a new method of governmentality and of governance of the complex phenomenon of diversity in society. This chapter intends to rebuild the sociological and political debate on the principal models of analysis on the migration and integration processes and the ways with which countries try to face the dynamics of diversity. In particular, this chapter analyzes theories of assimilation and neo-assimilation, multiculturalism as a framework that responded to the ethnocentrism and colonizing ideology of assimilationism, and interculturalism, which grew out of a multiculturalism backlash. We conclude the chapter by focusing on the political rhetoric and debate between interculturalism and multiculturalism (Kymlicka, 2016) as well as an analysis of the relationship between interculturalism, civic requirements, and governmentality.

Assimilation and neo-assimilation To date, the theoretical underpinnings regarding much of the study on the process of integration is based on the paradigm of assimilation. Informed by the School of Chicago (Park & Burgess, 1924), this framework gained strength in the American context between the two World Wars when steady immigration was shaping the American landscape. It was further bolstered by the prominent functionalist sociological approach of the times. This model considers assimilation to the culture and society of the welcoming country as a process that happens inevitably on an intergenerational level to those who immigrate from one cultural context to another. The theory of assimilation derives from the universalist epistemological perspective and is characterized by the foundational idea that all differences can be traced back to only one human structure. Encounters with the “other” are progressively and inevitably resolved as individuals grow closer to the dominant cultural model. This linear development progresses towards a common, universal horizon:

Social theories of migration  11

humankind, which is able to contain all difference. In such a vision, assimilation is considered an organic, univocal, and linear process by which immigrants assimilate to the new social context, and social order, and become similar to “natives” acquiring their mental habits and lifestyles. Yet, according to the classical definition of assimilation, this process is intended as “a process of interpenetration and fusion in which people and groups acquire memories, feelings and attitudes of other people and groups and, sharing their experiences and their history, they are incorporated with them in a common cultural life” (Park & Burgess, 1924, p. 735). Cultural assimilation, therefore, is instrumental for social mobility. It follows that assimilation is not only inevitable, but also desirable and, to a certain extent, obligatory. Only when immigrants assimilate and lose their sociocultural practices can they be accepted, and progress along the welcoming country’s social ladder, which they must do without disrupting the political, sociocultural context, and balance of the receiving society. With this in mind, assimilation becomes the responsibility and duty of the immigrant, and not a commitment of the receiving society to accommodate or change for the benefit of newly arrived persons. This normative, descriptive, and prescriptive process has constituted the most critical aspect of the concept of assimilation. By the end of 20th century a neo-assimilationist paradigm was prevalent in the literature of sociology of migration, especially in the North ­A merican literature. This new iteration abandoned the normative and ethnocentric components of a more traditional assimilationist formulation yet reaffirmed that assimilation takes place as a dominant pattern (Alba & Nee, 1997). Brubaker (2001) re-proposed the concept of assimilation, sanitizing it from its prescriptive components and from assumptions of the superiority of the White Protestant American cultural norm. In other words, new generations of immigrants assimilate themselves by becoming more similar to the autochthonous population for linguistic use, matrimonial ties, collocation on the job market, and so on (Ambrosini, 2008; Brubaker, 2001; 2005). Jung (2009) proposed an important critique of these paradigms based on race that, despite Alba and Nee’s (2003) assertion of residential integration and intermarriage with whites being more available for Asians and “light-skinned Latinos” than “other groups” (thus, acknowledging racial differences and patterns), they mostly ignore and exclude native-born blacks and argue that assimilation is still a dominant pattern. Distancing themselves from the positions of Alba and Nee (1997) as well as from Perlman and Waldinger’s (1997) re-proposed, linear assimilation paradigm, Portes and his team proposed the theory of segmented assimilation (Portes 1995; Portes & Rumbaut, 2001; 2006; Portes & Zhou, 1993) focusing on the children of immigrants (the second generation) and the contexts in which their integration occurs. These scholars highlight the importance of understanding the ambit and trajectory in which young people assimilate. They posit that the process of integrating into “mainstream American society” for young people of immigrant origin is fragmented along trajectories of

12  Intercultural education

upward assimilation, downward assimilation, or selective assimilation. These distinct forms of adaptation can mean either “growing acculturation and parallel integration into the white middle-class,” “permanent poverty and assimilation into the underclass,” or “rapid economic advancement with deliberate preservation of the immigrant community’s values and tight solidarity” (Portes & Zhou, 1993, p. 82). Such assimilation paths, they argue, depend upon complex individual and contextual factors: “individual features,” “modes of incorporation,” and “family structure.” Individual features include financial resources of immigrants, human capital, job skills, language proficiency, and educational levels. Mode of incorporation refers to contextual factors such as government policies towards immigrants, receptiveness to immigrants, level of racial prejudice in the welcoming context, and the level of support available by already-­established ethnic communities. Finally, family structure refers to, for example, whether or not young people have one or both parents/­g uardians within their family context. In the case of selective assimilation, for example, the young children of immigrants take advantage of the support and social capital of the ethnic group and of the occupational resources offered by the ethnic network. Ethnic communities can carry out a protective function, mitigating the negative influence of the underclass. In this way, ethnic belonging can constitute a resource that favors upward social mobility. The downward mobility paths, on the contrary, are carried out towards marginalization and urban deprivation. The main indicators of this trajectory are academic drop out, early pregnancies, and incarcerations. In segmented assimilation the conservation of the culture of origin and ethnic networks are a form of “ethnic social capital” (Esser, 2004; 2010) that influence the integration processes with support and protective actions that can facilitate academic success and social mobility (Portes, & Rumbaut, 2001; 2005; Zhou, 1997). The ambiguity of “ethnic social capital” is debated and highlighted in the sociological literature because, on the one hand, it gives immigrants a network of solidarity, on the other, it risks blocking the mobility processes, limiting immigrants to the community’s traditional occupational contexts and paths, which are often unskilled labor opportunities. Therefore, social ethnic capital can be a resource or a barrier, especially in the context of the job market. Moreover, in the sociological debate the theory of segmented assimilation problematizes the linearity of the relation between socioeconomic integration and cultural assimilation. For Portes and Rumbaut (2001) immigrants can both acquire the linguistic and cultural modalities of the receiving society, and at the same time, maintain the linguistic and cultural capital of their country of origin allowing them to neither forcibly assimilate nor isolate into ethnic parallel societies. In a review and critique of these newly revitalized assimilation theories, Jung (2009) proposes an important reframing. Using a critical race lens, he argues that the analytical focus of migration theories should be shifted from a

Social theories of migration  13

discussion of “difference” in culture to one of “inequality and domination.” He writes: Specifically with regard to race, Alba and Nee stress the consequential institutional changes that the civil rights movement wrought, and Portes and colleagues chart the different routes, in large part because of racial discrimination, that assimilation can take. For all of their advances, however, assimilation theories do not adequately account for race … They [assimilation theories] engage in suspect comparisons to past migration from Europe; read out or misread the qualitatively different historical trajectories of European and non-European migrants; exclude native-born Blacks from the analysis; fail to conceptually account for the key changes that are purported to facilitate “assimilation;” import the dubious concept of the “underclass” to characterize poor urban Blacks and others; laud uncritically the “culture” of migrants; explicitly or implicitly advocate the “assimilation” of migrants; and discount the political potential of “oppositional culture.” These are important lacunae in a discussion of whether and how immigrants obtain access to institutional capital. We believe these cannot be omitted from a complex and critical understanding of migration especially as neo-assimilationist theories essentialize visibly minoritized individuals (Blacks in particular). Take, for example, the racialized deficit discourse on “downward assimilation” that proposes that immigrants who live in proximity to the “underclass” Blacks can adopt “deviant lifestyles” that will lead to economic stagnation and long-term poverty. (Portes & Rumbaut, 2001, p. 310 as cited by Jung, 2009) As one may note these notions are both informed and reproduce deficit theories. We contend that it is important to understand these theories of migration with this critical lens as we engage in a discussion of interculturalism and its educational extension in the European context at a time of increasing global migration.

Multiculturalism and the multiculturalism backlash The “three waves” that impacted the rise of multiculturalism were the global struggle for decolonization of the 1950s and 1960s, the struggle against racial segregation and civil rights in the United States in the 1950s and 1960s, and struggle for minority and indigenous rights across the globe (Kymlicka, 2010). These events resulted in the affirmation of multiculturalism as a political and philosophical movement in the West during the 1960s as these nations experienced both a rise of political movements by their historically marginalized, and minoritized citizens as well as an increase in cultural diversity due to migration from previously colonized nations (Parekh, 2016).

14  Intercultural education

Multiculturalism differentiated itself as an alternative to assimilationism proposed the importance of affirming and valuing cultural diversity and the defense of historically marginalized groups (Kymlicka, 1995; 2007; Taylor, 1994). Kymlicka (2010) understands multiculturalism as part of a “human rights revolution” that reacted to: A range of illiberal and undemocratic relations—including relations of conqueror and conquered; colonizer and colonized; master and slave; settler and indigenous; civilized and primitive; ally and enemy … that explicitly propounded the superiority of some people and cultures and racist ideologies. (p. 35) Modood (2007) defines multiculturalism as “the recognition of group difference within the public sphere of laws, democratic discourses and the terms of a shared citizenship and national identity” (p. 2). Multiculturalism is, thus, focused on structural changes that affect social institutions and minority’s access to these. For Kymlicka (1995; 2007) the term “multiculturalism” points to a particular political approach to address culturally diverse societies in which the cultural practices of minority groups receive the same recognition and accommodation as those of the cultural practices of the dominant group. A multicultural approach demands a social commitment and respect for the cultural needs of minority groups, which includes institutionalizing practices and policies that support minority groups in their continued practice of their cultural values and ways of being. Multiculturalism refutes the notion that in order to be recognized, cultural minority groups must abandon their beliefs, values, and cultural practices to assimilate themselves into the cultural practices of the dominant and majority group. In addition, non-dominant groups must gain access and become represented in social institutions and public spaces through school curricula, public media, and political engagement. The notion of “recognition” and representation is an important one so as to build a society in which minority groups are seen, understood, and valued on their own terms. Taylor (1994) recognizes the foundational role that the question of recognition assumes and proposes an analysis of the issue of recognition that stresses its legitimacy within the legal, political, ethical spheres of democratic liberalism. He connects recognition to issues of identity of individuals and groups as well as to the goals of multiculturalism. He contends that the demand for recognition is related to identity in the sense that, “our identity is partly shaped by recognition or its absence, often by the misrecognition of others” (Taylor, 1994, p. 25). Thus, he reinforces the role of institutional structures to recognize minority or non-dominant individuals and groups so that they make take up their rightful place in pluralistic societies without compromising or assimilating their authentic ways of being in order to participate in said society. Furthermore, he

Social theories of migration  15

notes the detrimental consequences of institutional non-recognition or misrecognition: A person or group of people can suffer real damage, real distortion, if the people or society around them mirror back to them a confining or demeaning or contemptible picture of themselves. Non-recognition or misrecognition can inflict harm, can be a form of oppression, imprisoning someone in a false, distorted, and reduced mode of being. (Taylor, 1994, p. 25) Hence, multiculturalists focus on the rights, needs, recognition, and representations of minority groups within our increasingly demographically diverse societies. These foci are identified as important goals in and of themselves and within a larger process of integration into a newly re-imagined socially just and pluralistic society. From this orientation, then, without accentuating these needs, rights, and recognition, at the institutional level, we will not be reshaping our societies, but merely welcoming newcomers to assimilate into existing ones. Multiculturalism asserted protections of indigenous peoples and native minorities in culturally diverse societies and, successively, extended those protections to societies characterized by high levels of recent immigration. When it comes to multicultural citizenship policies for immigrant groups, Kymlicka (2010) delineates eight most salient policy areas towards developing democratic citizenship: 1. Constitutional, legislative or parliamentary affirmation of multiculturalism at the central and/or regional and municipal levels 2. The adoption of multiculturalism in school curriculum 3. The inclusion of ethnic representation in mandate of public media or media licensing 4. Exemptions from dress-codes, either by statute or court cases 5. Allowing dual citizenship 6. The funding of ethnic group organizations to support cultural activities 7. The funding of bilingual education or mother tongue instruction 8. Affirmative action for disadvantaged immigrant groups (p. 37) Multiculturalism, then, is conceived as a political model, “relying on the recognition and positive representation of ethnic communities” (Simon & Sala Pala, 2010). This representation is meant as participation in all aspects of social and political life and as one that provides access to institutions and systems. Framed as a reaction to “aggressive assimilation of the majority” (Parekh, 2016, p. 274), multiculturalism presents a “pro-minority orientation.” This orientation has left it open to much criticism from both sides of the political spectrum. From the right, this pro-minority focus has been understood as a unilateral orientation and has created in the “majority” a “fear” of losing one’s

16  Intercultural education

“own” identity and one’s “own” country (Parekh, 2016). Another fear has been manifested in “us” and “them” discourses in which the immigrants or “minority groups” are depicted as intending to build “independent communities in the middle of ours,” or as Taylor (2012) notes, the infamous “ghettos” and parallel societies discourses, which have led to the bold assertions that multiculturalism has even led to radicalization and terrorism (Vertovec & Wessendorf, 2010). From the right and far-right, multiculturalism is attacked and criticized for weakening collective identity and communal values, of jeopardizing national identity in favor of creating “parallel societies,” and of social fragmentation. On the other hand, critics of multiculturalism on the left have argued that multiculturalism has essentialized culture and cultural identity; and has demonstrated a banal and superficial concern with cultural groups’ practices, and promoted an understanding among the public of multiculturalism as a celebratory, feel-good embrace of diversity. In the United Kingdom this phenomenon has been called the “3S” model of multiculturalism “saris, samosas, and steel drums” (Alighai-Brown, 2000). Kymlicka (2010) notes that a multiculturalism concerned with food, festivals, and clothing, cultural celebrations, and “diversity” is, indeed, merely a caricature of multiculturalism and has contributed to the post-multiculturalist “backlash” against multiculturalism, much like the attacks from the right. Rather, he notes that multiculturalists are not simply focused on noting, recognizing and celebrating “culture” and cultural differences. He reiterates that multiculturalists are focused on issues of economic and political justice, redistribution of power, on issues of equality and inequality.

Interculturalism Given a “multiculturalism backlash” (Vertovec & Wessendorf, 2010), interculturalism has emerged as an alternative to multicultural approaches in Europe. It has been promoted (especially by institutional documents) as a new form of governmentality that better responds to the call for democratic governance of cultural diversity and for the promotion of social cohesion in “diverse” societies. The first references to the term interculturalism are found in two 1981 documents, one the product of the Council of Europe and the other of Belgian origin. Outside of the European context, the first references can be found in 1985 in Québec (Bouchard & Taylor, 2008) and throughout the 1980s throughout Latin America, where interculturality and intercultural education, were born from an Indigenous People’s Rights’ Movement (Aikman, 1997). The 2008 UNESCO World Report on Cultural Diversity Investing in Cultural Diversity and Intercultural Dialogue (UNESCO, 2008) and the White Paper on Intercultural Dialogue (Council of Europe, 2008) confirmed the necessity for a shift from multiculturalism to interculturalism, given their position that multicultural approaches were no longer suitable for the “management” of diversity within contemporary societies. Foundational concepts and key words found throughout the documents on interculturalism are: a “new diversity management model,” “cross-cultural

Social theories of migration  17

dialogue,” “super-diversity,” (a concept linked to multiple, intersecting identities), a focus on the “individual” versus group rights, and “social cohesion.” Essentially, interculturalism is defined along with diversity policies as centered on the promotion of interpersonal cultural exchange, with the goal of fighting prevailing intergroup stereotypes and prejudice reduction. From the intercultural perspective, intergroup contact opportunities between individuals are considered contexts of interaction rather than areas of conflict. Interculturalism establishes itself as an approach which favors intergroup interaction and creating intercultural communities. Because it builds itself in response to a multiculturalism it accuses of only focusing on the rights of ethnic minorities to the detriment of dialogue between dominant and minority groups, it constitutes a political strategy aimed at responding to European institutional worry regarding the promotion of social cohesion. In other words, interculturalism builds itself as the policy of dialogue, creating the space and opportunity for groups to come together harmoniously. Upon a close analysis and examination of the motivations that propel the Council of Europe (2008) towards defending the intercultural approach, what emerges is both the prescriptive character of interculturalism and the multidimensionality, if not the ambiguity, of the conceptual and political framework. This framework proposes itself on the one hand, as a tool for appreciating diversity through intercultural dialogue “in equal dignity,” but, on the other hand, it functions towards the promotion of “social cohesion,” which calls for the respect of “communal values.” As a strategy, intercultural dialogue aims to develop a profound understanding of different cultural practices and beliefs, to favor cooperation, tolerance, and reciprocal respect to reduce prejudice and stereotyping and to facilitate relationships between various national, ethnic, religious and linguistic communities in a way that promotes integration and social cohesion. Intergroup dialogue will be discussed in more depth in Chapters 2 and 6. However, it is important to note that this cornerstone of interculturalism is a much contested and critiqued aspect of the framework. While bringing people of diverse cultural backgrounds together to co-construct a new culture sounds ideal, it presumes that people of different racial and ethnic backgrounds come to the table as equals, which ignores power differentials, structural systems of oppression, and historical legacies that impact the ways we interact. Even Barrett (2013), a proponent of interculturalism notes the flaws and assumptions inherent in intergroup dialogue as expressed in the framework: A more challenging criticism of interculturalism stems from the fact that any dialogue is inevitably affected by status differentials and power relations between the participants within the dialogue and so it rarely takes place on a level playing field. Coupled with this concern, it is those individuals who occupy positions of power and privilege who tend to determine the implicit rules by which dialogue occurs, and their decisions are

18  Intercultural education

typically based on their own cultural perspective. Insofar as privileged elites tend to be drawn from the majority rather than minority cultures, these implicit rules often discriminate against cultural minorities. This is a significant problem for interculturalism. (p. 31) Yet, despite this monumental assumption, intergroup dialogue remains the foundational concept of the framework, making it, from our perspective conceptually weak. Beneath the veneer of intercultural dialogue, which might conjure or imply equal access and participation by both dominant and non-dominant members of society, what can be observed is how interculturalism aims above all to generate a strong sense of cohesive society based on the sharing of “universal values.” Some forms of interculturalism propose that these values be developed through intercultural dialogue, from which a new communal culture gradually emerges. However, according to the Council of Europe, universal values at the foundation of interculturalism should be understood as human rights, democracy, the rule of law, and the recognition that all human beings have equal dignity and the equal right to respect. Within this framework of universal values, interculturalism refuses “moral relativism” based on “cultural difference” and instead adopts a contrarian position regarding the illiberal cultural practices that violate universal values. “Cultural traditions, whether of the “majority” or “minority,” cannot prevail upon the principles and values expressed in the European Convention of Human Rights or other aspects of the Council of Europe relative to civil, political, social, economic and cultural rights” (Council of Europe, 2008, p. 11). The prescriptive character of interculturalism can be observed in the White Paper’s objective, which proposes to create a conceptual framework and directive guide for all—institutions, local communities, civil societies, religious and immigrant communities—that in the near future will have to confront the democratic “governance” of cultural diversity (Council of Europe, 2008). The White Paper was written and proposed as a useful tool for fostering a culture of democratic dialogue, reinforcing participative citizenship, and an intercultural sensibility that can encourage the development of specific competencies in a society that share principles with “active citizenship” and is respectful of difference. That is, with the goal to “arrive, someday, at a society that has overcome concepts of assimilation and multiculturalism and can characterize itself as intercultural” (Council of Europe, 2008, p. 7). The British Council (cited in Phipps, 2014, p. 109) also calls for the necessity of promoting interculturalism to the end of “developing a more profound comprehension of diverse perspectives and practices, and to increase participation, the liberty and the capacity to choose, and to foster equality.” In line with these orientations was proclaimed the “European Year of Intercultural Dialogue” (EYID) with the aim to encourage “all those who live in Europe to explore the advantages of our rich cultural history and the

Social theories of migration  19

opportunities to learn from different cultural traditions” (European Commission, 2008, p. 8). In 2008, in unison with the European Commission, the Council of Europe put forth the program “Intercultural Cities,” which examines practical tools for the development of interculturalism in 11 European cities, advancing interculturalism as a policy of integration (Guidikova, 2015) and a new way of designing and managing public city spaces (Wood, 2015). It also observes that the multicultural approach is increasingly brought into discussion, from the moment that “it erodes the foundation of community cohesion, of the universality of human rights and equal dignity, and is not able to “forge” a communal identity” (Guidikova, 2014, pp. 4–5).

Interculturalism versus multiculturalism Parekh (2016) asserts that because multiculturalism was born in reaction to aggressive assimilationism, it accents and coalesces on pro-minority and pro-diversity positions. According to the author (Parekh, 2016) the receiving society’s response to cultural diversity should be guided by the three principals at the heart of liberal democracy: liberty, equality, and unity. Minority groups, therefore, should not be subject to forced assimilation but free to choose their own ways of living within the host country and maintaining their cultural identities. Secondly, minority groups should expect equal treatment, respect for their cultural traditions, and be free of discrimination. Finally, the host society’s stability and cohesion are connected to minority groups’ integration and full participation. Multiculturalism’s focus on the legitimacy and rights of minority groups is at the root of the critiques of the framework, which has been blamed in academic, political, and public forums for everything from social fragmentation and “ghettoisation” of minority groups, to the cementing of social divisions, and even to the bold assumption that it leads some groups to terrorism. Because of this rhetoric, interculturalism has been gaining ground as an alternative to multiculturalism and is touted as a new way for countries to “deal” with “diversity dynamics.” Throughout Europe interculturalism has become prominent as a “distinct alternative” (Cantle, 2012, p. 2), “a gain over multiculturalism” (Maxwell et al., 2012, p. 429), and a “lifeline” to deal with the perceived negative consequences of multiculturalism (Zapata-Barrero, 2016, p. 5; 2011). Interculturalists claim that their conceptual innovations focus on “cross-cultural dialogue,” “diversity,” and “social cohesion.” They put forth that interculturalism is a system of policies for diversity based on the promotion of cross-cultural interaction between people of different cultures and national backgrounds towards the goal of dismantling stereotypes by disconfirming prejudices and supporting a more positive perception of “the other” (Zapata-Barrero, 2015; 2014). Hence, interculturalism focuses on the individual and the micro and meso level to promote integration. Within this shift of focus from the macro level, which multiculturalists focused upon, towards the individual and micro level, which interculturalists focus upon:

20  Intercultural education

Diversity now appears more accepted in the political discourse than multiculturalism: it shifts the attention from the collective (ethnic group) to individuals; it creates links with other types of diversities; and it seems more acceptable from a neoliberal point of view, also because it may be seen as a resource for organizations, marketing and service delivery (diversity management). (Ambrosini, 2016, p. 2) Interculturalism is proposed as an approach that favors cross-cultural interaction, which interculturalists believe was neglected by multiculturalists, who they state, focused their policies on the needs and rights of immigrants to the detriment of dialogue and interaction between newcomers and natives (Zapata-­Barrero, 2015). This co-construction of community through dialogue and focus on prejudice reduction constitutes a new form of “governmentality” (a democratic “governance” of cultural diversity) and constitutes a policy to address ubiquitous concerns across European institutions related to supporting and maintaining “social cohesion.” However, scholars point to the fact that much of the critique of multiculturalism has always come from a perceived threat to “national identity” by dominant groups. In France, for example, Simon and Sala Pala (2010) note that the French were always skeptical of multiculturalism and saw it as antithetical to their assimilationists policies and aggressive doctrine of integration. They write that the French political establishment perceived multiculturalism as a threat to social cohesion and as a danger for its potential towards “the political mobilization of ethnic, racial or sexual minorities,” (p. 92) and they argue that “the obfuscation of the division of society along ethnic or racial lines—French colorblindness—draws on a long tradition of assimilation discourse and techniques (p. 93). Hence, opposition to multiculturalism is not a response to the so-called “failure” of multiculturalism; rather, multiculturalism has always threatened the power structures of dominant groups, causing pushback and backlash. One of the most important objections that multiculturalists put forth about the critiques of multiculturalism by interculturalists is that they have simplified and diminished the framework, which has been iterative over decades of research and scholarship and has become increasingly critical in its understanding of itself. Multiculturalists respond to the rhetorical aspects of the critiques of the model highlighting that social fragmentation and “ghettoisation” happen in a larger social context of inequities, inadequate access to education and the labor market, marginalization and physical segregation of immigrant communities, and more (Taylor, 2012). They point to the fact that blaming multiculturalism for parallel societies is a rhetorical ploy (Cameron, 2011) and point out that multiculturalism always understood itself in relation to immigrants, “as a way of staking a claim to belonging and to membership in a larger society, and as a mode of contributing to it. It was a way of staking a claim to citizenship in a multicultural nation-state - in effect, a claim to multicultural nationhood” (Kymlicka, 2016, p. 170). Furthermore,

Social theories of migration  21

we find the narrative that blames multiculturalism for social fragmentation also lacking in historical context as it largely ignores European nations’ pasts as colonial powers and the impact of this history on current migration patterns and social dynamics between citizens and immigrants as dominant and marginalized people. Moreover, it is important to note that interculturalists ignore issues of power in their framework, and that this is a major oversight as focusing on intergroup relations alone at the micro and meso systems level does not change societies towards justice; rather, cross-cultural dialogue supports social cohesion and leaves social structures of inequities in place. While both multiculturalists and interculturalists claim their frameworks promote social justice only multiculturalists place great importance on the issue of power, structural, and systemic change while interculturalists focus on individual citizens’ changes in intergroup perceptions and prejudice. While prejudice reduction is of the utmost importance, alone, it will not lead to social change and social justice, which require structural changes in institutions. As Parekh (2016) affirms, multiculturalists and interculturalists have differing starting points: “one is primarily concerned with social unity and stresses the centrality of the majority culture … [while] the other is primarily concerned with justice to minorities and stresses their freedom to explore and express their identities, and is more hospitable to diversity” (Parekh, 2016, pp. 278–279). Meer and Modood (2016) weigh in and respond to the critiques of multiculturalism by questioning the notion that interculturalism is an alternative or a more advanced framework than multiculturalism and propose that interculturalism may represent, at best, a “critical friend” of multiculturalism (Meer & Modood, 2012). Modood (2007) defends multiculturalism as both a theory and a system of policies, while admitting the need to learn from some of the critiques posed by interculturalists such as, for example, the importance of intergroup contact (Cantle, 2015) and concepts such as “super-diversity” (Vertovec, 2007). Kymlicka (2016) responds to this debate by stating that the differences between these theoretical paradigms is largely exaggerated and denounces the “largely ignorant rhetoric of anti-multiculturalism” (p. 162), reminding us that there are substantial similarities at the ground level between multicultural and intercultural policies towards prejudice reduction and the integration of immigrants into society. Kymlicka (2016) concludes that the “interculturalism-­as-a-remedy-for-failed-multiculturalism-trope” (p. 162) is not an objective account in social science, but, rather, a dangerous “new narrative,” or a new myth that can be used for political motivation by xenophobes who refute both theoretical concepts. Furthermore, Meer and ­Modood (2016) criticize this new anti-multiculturalist narrative as historically erroneous and conceptually weak. Meer and Modood (2016) contend that the literature on “good interculturalism vs bad multiculturalism” is merely a rhetorical device and not a scientific debate. This new narrative against multiculturalism is not based on a systematic empirical comparison of the actual policy outcomes associated with the two approaches. Furthermore, defenders of interculturalism

22  Intercultural education

rarely make clear how their policy recommendations differ from those defended by multiculturalists. As a result, Meer and Modood (2016) argue the “good interculturalism vs bad multiculturalism” literature is essentially rhetorical rather than analytical. While we agree that prejudice reduction and integration of immigrants are common denominators to both frameworks, we do believe these frameworks are fundamentally different and align more with Parekh’s analysis, as we believe that multiculturalism challenges dominant narratives and structures, which may be the reason it has been abandoned by the European Union; while interculturalism attempts to support conflict resolution and maintain the status quo by creating conditions of social cohesion between groups with unequal access to power. Throughout this book we will argue our position that interculturalism is not conceptualized as a framework to address imbalances of power; rather, it is formulated to maintain the dominance of European elite and Eurocentric cultural values and norms in an increasingly neoliberal Europe.

Interculturalism and civic integration It is interesting to observe how alongside a distancing from multiculturalism and a defense of interculturalism (both evident in European documents), many European countries are also simultaneously exhibiting a reorientation of immigration policies towards the reinforcement of border control, “managed immigration,” and of identity values and national patronage (Ambrosini, 2016; Balibar, 2012; Wihtol de Wenden, 2009). These shifts are accompanied by policy changes towards “civic requirements” regarding immigrants (Goodman, 2010) such as the acquisition of the host country’s language, cohesion and conformity to dominant values, norms, and political loyalty (Antonsich, 2016; Entzinger, 2003). These are promoted through courses on “civic integration,” obligatory tests for neo-immigrants, and citizenship ceremonies ( Joppke, 2007); they are characterized by the shift in focus from “rights” of immigrants to their responsibilities and the “requirements” they must fulfill (King, 1999). These new “civic integration” policies evident in countries such as the Netherlands, Finland, Denmark, Germany, France, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, and the United Kingdom are more similar among them than they are to their own, original, national models, which differed from country to country depending on the country’s predominant framework ( Joppke, 2007). Thus, while the United Kingdom’s policies used to be more informed in multiculturalism than, for example, France’s policies, which were informed in an assimilationist framework, they are now coalescing to a more homogeneous European policy of strict civic requirements. It is important to note that these civic integration policies do not stem from illiberal sources; rather, they are inherent in liberalism itself. Joppke (2007) points out that freedom and equality, cardinal principles of liberalism, presume that “members of the polity possess the necessary reasoning powers or ability to … plan for their future” (King, 1999, p. 8, cited by Joppke, 2007,

Social theories of migration  23

p. 14). In other words, in a competitive, increasingly globalized liberal state, the individual must be independent, self-sufficient, and un-reliant on the state. This gives rise to narrow-minded tendencies when presented with those, especially new immigrants, who, facing language barriers and little access, may not function competitively in their new homes. Like neoliberal workforce policies, that increasingly shrink the state’s responsibilities to workers, civic integration constitutes an example of repressive liberalism and of “illiberal social policy” in a liberal state that, in a competitive context tied to globalization and the shrinking welfare state (Handler, 2004), responds to the necessity of creating autonomous and self-sufficient people through illiberal means. Thus, these civic integration policies should be analyzed and explored in the context of the literature on the Foucauldian concepts “power and disciplining,” “governmentality,” (Dean, 1999) and “neoliberalism” (Rose, 1999). As Joppke’s (2007) critical analysis elucidates, in Western Europe immigrant integration is impacted by “two opposite, perhaps contradictory types of liberalism” (p. 15). He goes on to explain that Rawlsian liberalism emphasized and advocated for the state to provide a “modicum of equality” and support individual rights, parity, and neutrality. On the other hand, in Foucauldian liberalism: The contemporary state, hollowed out by economic globalization, is coercing individuals, as well as the “communities” of which they are a part, to release their self-producing and regulating capacities, as an alternative to redistribution and public welfare that the fiscally diminished states can no longer deliver. “Civic integration” is the equivalent on the part of immigrants to the “workfare” policies that the general population is subjected to in the context of a shrinking welfare state. ( Joppke, 2007, p. 16) One can glean an expression of this orientation in European integration policies and institutional documents, both in the agreement of “common basic principles” on immigrant integration policy signed by the Council of the European Union (Council of the European Union, 2004) and in the White Paper released in 2008 (Council of Europe, 2008), which puts forth and connects the need for governmentality as foundational to the defense of interculturalism. An initial aspect that emerges in the Council of the European Union document (2004) is the contradictory characteristics of integration policies, presented as “broadly if imperfectly inclusive” (Freeman, 2003, p. 3) within generally hostile contexts of increasingly populist and anti-immigration national electorates who consistently align against large scale immigration. Secondly, the inclusivity—common in liberal Western democracies and tied to the recognition of human rights granted to “all persons” regardless of citizenship status (Soysal, 1994)—is conceptualized by the metaphor of “two-way” integration (Council of the European Union, 2004, p. 19). This metaphor echoes the focus on intercultural dialogue and the co-construction of new

24  Intercultural education

culture, or interculture, at the heart of interculturalism; the idea that peoples will come together in intergroup contact, share, influence one another and co-construct culture (hence, “two-way” integration). Joppke (2007) considers this metaphor and concept a “platitude” and reminds us that it is “unheard of ” that a dominant society has changed in this significant way in response to the arrival of migrants. In other words, while it may sound ideal that newcomers with little access and power and long-time citizens with access and power would undergo “two-way” integration that significantly shifted the receiving society and culture, it has no basis in history or social science analysis. Another common and basic principle of immigrant integration policy is that integration implies a respect for the basic values of the European Union, formulated in terms of “the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights, fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law” (Council of the European Union, 2004, p. 19), which constitute “not substantive ethical values” but “political values” that reign in all liberal democracies ( Joppke, 2007, p. 3). In this regard, one can note the similarities between this language in the Council’s document (Council of the European Union, 2004), which denotes a reorientation towards policies of civic integration and the narrative on interculturalism in the White Paper (Council of Europe, 2008). Both narratives converge on values formulated in the Western liberal tradition, essential for social cohesion, and named as the foundation of the rationale for interculturalism as a framework that will unite (as opposed to multiculturalism, which with its focus on the rights of minoritized groups, is narrated as a framework that promotes segregation, parallel societies, discord, and even radicalization). Also, within the second of the European Union’s common basic principles, is the affirmation of “full respect for the immigrants’ and their descendants’ own language and culture” (Council of the European Union, 2004, p. 20). In this case “full respect” is not institutionalized in policy or practice by the state through, for example, educational policies or initiatives to safeguard immigrants’ mother tongue. Rather, “full respect” is meant as a universal statement of individuals’ respect towards each other across cultural and linguistic differences ( Joppke, 2007, p. 4). This reformulation of principles from institutionalized ones to guidelines and values for individuals to adopt indicates a shifting emphasis on cultural recognition. While consistent with the principles of liberalism this exhibits a reorientation of European states’ immigrant integration policies. In the same vein as the European documents on civic integration, the White Paper (2008), a document on interculturalism, moves away from the right to native language and culture conservation to the request for the acquisition of the host country’s language as a requisite for integration: “the intercultural approach recognizes the value of language used by minority groups, but retains the necessity that the members of these groups learn the predominant state language where they live in order to become, in this way, fully-fledged citizens” (Council of Europe, 2008, p. 30).

Social theories of migration  25

This shift is bolstered by the fourth of the EU’s ‘common basic principles,’ which clearly refers to this new policy of civic integration and its obligatory character (Joppke, 2007). It states: “basic knowledge of the host society’s language, history, and institutions are indispensable to integration” (Council of the European Union, 2004, p. 20). Therefore, language requirements, civic education requirements, and accompanying tests are becoming widespread requisites to legal residence and citizenship. This push towards civic integration policies becomes an instrument of immigration control, allowing states to restrict the entrance of low-skilled workers and their relatives (Joppke, 2007), while the elites that devise these policies increasingly make up the majority of professional transnational and cross-border networks and affiliations (Slaughter, 1997). Joppke (2007) notes that it is precisely the need for the state to present itself as a competitive global player that fuels this neoliberal focus on the individual, on one’s “autonomy” and “self-sufficiency” that is gaining power over the “old narratives” of multiculturalism, which held the state responsible for providing rights and opportunities for its most marginalized people. On a subtler level, this presents a new iteration of “integration” intended as “social inclusion,” for whom, as Joppke (2007) points out “the main purpose of social inclusion is social cohesion, that is, order, not justice.” And that this distinguishes social inclusion, like the Foucauldian liberalism, from Rawls’ liberalism of “equal opportunity,” which had been the “lode star of the classic welfare state” (p. 17).

Conclusion In this chapter, we reconstructed the fundamental characteristics of sociological theories related to immigration and the integration of immigrants into receiving societies as these theories inform and contextualize our understanding of the national and international policies related to immigration. We discussed assimilation and neo-assimilation and their continued influence on integration policies, multiculturalism as a response to neo-assimilationism, and interculturalism as it proposes itself as a response to the multiculturalism backlash. We underscored how all of these frameworks were (and are) responding to cultural diversity in contemporary society. We highlighted the facile and limiting “interculturalism vs. multiculturalism” debate, framing it within sociological and political contexts. We analyzed the theoretical framework of interculturalism and contextualized it in a neoliberal ideology and politics of governmentality. Finally, this chapter has shed light on the internal tensions within these conceptual and political frameworks and made connections between the current push towards civic requirements and interculturalism. We stress the importance of beginning our book on intercultural education with this macro view of the sociopolitical, economic, and cultural context in which education takes place as we understand that what happens in the classroom, in schools, and in the institution of education is inextricably linked to this larger picture.

2 Intercultural education Theoretical model and strategies for implementation

Introduction Global migration patterns are creating an increasingly ethnic, cultural, religious, and linguistically diverse European context, and schools represent a rapidly changing institution where children of diverse backgrounds come together to learn and socialize. This diversity represents both an opportunity to construct a truly pluralistic society and a challenge, given that it is happening within the larger context of increasing conflict between groups, racism, xenophobia, Islamophobia, and other systems of oppression that affect immigrant youth and families across Europe. Both through explicit and hidden curricula, schools are spaces that inform young people of society’s values, organizing principles, structures, and institutions. Schools are also spaces young people spend a great deal of time in and represent “sites of identity” (Steinitz & Solomon, 1986), places where young people develop a sense of self and self in relation to others. These educational contexts are where young people learn what society thinks, values, and expects of them. Potentially, these are important spaces in which to institutionalize values of pluralism, democracy, equity, and social justice. Understanding the importance of this social institution, key European Union organizations have identified the system of schooling as the main driving force and mechanism of dissemination of their new political orientation and ideological framework, interculturalism (Commission of the European Communities, 2008; Council of Europe, 2014a; European Council & Commission, 2008; European Commission, 2008; EriCarts, 2008; Eurydice, 2004; 2009; Nesse Network, 2008) through its pedagogical extension, intercultural education. In this chapter, we discuss multicultural and intercultural education focusing on how intercultural education is both informed in—and intersects with—multicultural education and differs from it. Furthermore, we observe how the political rhetoric on interculturalism has informed European documents on schooling (and its adoption of intercultural education). We conclude the chapter with a focus on European guidelines for implementing intercultural education for all students as well as directives focused on immigrant

Intercultural education  27

students that pertain to the goals related to their immediate social and educational integration so that they may more fully participate in schooling. We conduct a critical analysis of the conceptual framework of intercultural education as well as its political-ideological theoretical underpinnings to both highlight its connections to and departures from multicultural education, its strengths, its conceptual weaknesses, ambiguities, and tensions, as well as to offer conceptual and practical areas of growth so as to strengthen both its theoretical frame and pedagogical implications.

Multicultural education: the key role of the critical analysis of systems of power and oppression in the framework Because intercultural education, as it is defined and written about in the European documents (Council of Europe, 2008; 2014a; 2014b), is concerned with education for global and democratic citizenship, we find it useful to use the four ideologies for global citizenship education (Martin & Pirbhai-Illich, 2015). We chose this frame of reference to contextualize our critical analysis of both intercultural and multicultural education as we understand intercultural education to be informed in liberal and neoliberal ideology while multicultural education is informed in critical ideology. Literature exhibits an intense debate presenting arguments both for intercultural education (Kincheloe & Steinberg, 1997) and against it (Stables, 2005). There is a search to conceptualize the goals of intercultural education and to distinguish them from those of multicultural education (Banks & ­McGee Banks, 2009). In real-life situations, within development and implementation attempts at a national level, these frameworks overlap. In this section, we briefly review some important foci of multicultural education in so much as they differ from those of intercultural education. Like in the political framework of multiculturalism discussed in ­Chapter 1, which arose from social movements for the human and civil rights of marginalized groups across the globe in the 1950s and 1960s, and where the focus of policy was on the rights of these groups and communities (Kymlicka, 2010; Parekh, 2016), so too, multicultural education shares this history and critical framework and is concerned with educational equity and justice for marginalized children and students (Banks, 2004a). The overarching goals of critical multicultural educators are to create schools informed in educational equity practice, to challenge dominant discourses and deficit ideologies, to deconstruct oppressive hierarchies in schools, and to highlight and change the systems of inequitable distribution of power and privilege. Multicultural education foregrounds systemic racial and economic inequities in society at large as contributing to systemic inequality in schools. The sociopolitical context, discussions of inequity and equity education, power and privilege, and examination of race/racism as a major framework of inequity are front and center in multicultural education theory and practice as well as what is discussed in the

28  Intercultural education

classroom (Banks & Banks, 1995; Nieto, 2003). Most recently, in the United States, for example, Brooks, Knaus, & Chong (2015) point out that multicultural education remains a key framework with which to re-frame individualist discourse of the killings of black men by the police and to discuss them as a part of a social, historical and systemic issue of segregation, inequality, and racism. In the United States, this critical orientation is based on an extensive literature of the harmful effects on both academic achievement and social-­ emotional well-being of students of color when “color blind” ideologies and teaching practices are adopted and when pedagogy is not grounded in ­anti-racism and critical multicultural frameworks (Delpit, 2006; Gay, 2000; Ladson-Billings, 2005a; 2005b; Lewis, 2003). Since the inception of multicultural education, we have learned that all children have benefited from this pedagogy both in terms of improved academic achievement and improved intergroup relations in schools. However, the framework was and is designed to deconstruct systems of inequity, rectify these in the curriculum and in the systems of educational governance so as to improve the academic achievement of students of color and other marginalized and minoritized students, and improve intergroup relationships between students, teachers and staff (Zirkel, 2008) towards the goal of a socially just institution of schooling. As a framework, then, multicultural education is informed in critical ideology as it aims to transform the institution of schooling from an inequitable one to one informed in social justice through policy, teacher re-education and curriculum development (Banks, 2004a). Banks’ (2004a) seminal conceptualization of the five foundational dimensions of multicultural education are: 1. Content integration—designing a diverse curriculum. 2. Knowledge construction—making explicit how cultural frames contribute to the interpretation of educational content. 3. Prejudice reduction—efforts evidenced in policies and programming by teachers and administrators that support prejudice reduction and reduction of stereotyping in schools as well as positive intergroup experiences. 4. Equity pedagogy—pedagogies (like cooperative learning) that create more equity among students and which are intentionally adopted to increase academic achievement and participation of marginalized students. 5. Empowering school culture—changing school policies and structures to support access for all students, eliminating institutionalized racism in school policies, and empowering all students towards truly inclusive schools. Multicultural education is not merely presenting young people with a few examples of multicultural literature; rather, it is a comprehensive restructuring

Intercultural education  29

of curriculum, classroom practice and pedagogy, school policies, processes, and structures towards equity in education. As an educational theory, then, this is a framework that is informed in a critical political ideology. Yet, multicultural education is practiced on a continuum and differently across communities and schools. It is often practiced so differently, that a taxonomy has been delineated for different attempts: contributory, additive, transformative, and social action multicultural education (Banks, 2006a). Most educators have only been introduced to banal approaches to the framework that can be characterized as contributory at best. The approaches labeled as “contributory” and “additive” suggest that cultural content and contributions from minoritized groups are simply added to the curriculum, leaving the curriculum’s structure unmodified. In these two approaches, social inequities and systems of oppression are not discussed in the curriculum and outside of the curriculum, institutional practices, structures, policies, and procedures related to student supports, discipline, school climate, etc. are not impacted. Hence, while there is a sprinkling in the curriculum of diverse voices, there is not a critical examination of the marginalization of people of color, women, LGBTQ people, working-class and poor people, people with disabilities, and other minoritized people in the curriculum, in the institution of schools, nor in the larger social context. While many educators will appropriate the language and terminology of multicultural education and practice, this is by no means what the framework conceptualizes multicultural practice to be. Multiculturalists themselves often call this a “heroes and holidays” or “fun, food, and festivals” approach to multicultural education that essentializes minoritized groups, trivializes multicultural and anti-racist educational practice, and causes harm. This is so commonplace that some multicultural educators have written textbooks and guides such as, Beyond Heroes and Holidays, to combat this trivialization of the framework (Lee, Menkart, & Okazawa-Rey, 2011). A transformative approach is one in which a skilled teacher is able to put forth multiple perspectives in the discussion of a particular subject. The curriculum is completely transformed bringing in diverse ways of knowing, making meaning, and understanding into the classroom. In this approach, there is a critical examination of the material often prompting students to discover and “unlearn” dominant and master narratives previously taken for granted. Teachers will often analyze the very textbooks used in the classroom in an effort to discover the dominant narratives present in those texts. In a social action approach to multicultural education, educators include all of the elements of the transformative approach and support students in a citizenship education that prepares them to be social actors, to participate in social movements, to be active participants in democracy. In this approach, systems of oppression and injustice are analyzed and critical consciousness and critical tools towards social change are envisioned and practiced. Transformative and social action multicultural education means

30  Intercultural education

to disturb the status quo and ask that students critically and skeptically question the dominant discourses and narratives in our society. Critics argue that the social action approach is beyond the scope of what teachers can accomplish (Kincheloe & Steinberg, 1997). Yet, transformative and social action practices refer to systems’ wide practice as well as classroom practice. An extensive review of multicultural education literature and research is beyond the scope of this chapter, which focuses on intercultural education; however, one of the most important points to be made is that in her seminal empirical meta-analytic research study on the influence of multicultural educational practices on student outcomes and intergroup relations, Sabrina Zirkel found that multicultural education practice was “only effective to the extent that issues of race and power are explicitly and thoroughly addressed” (2008, p. 1149) both in the curriculum and in school policies and procedures. Thus, multicultural education must be focused towards equity, it must be critical, it must be explicitly examining and rectifying imbalances of power. To simply engage students in “diversity” curriculum providing them a sprinkling of diverse literature and history and introducing them to some “diverse” cultural practices does nothing to address the goals of multicultural (or intercultural) education for social change. It is important to note that in our review of the literature on multicultural education in Europe, multicultural education is often understood as what we would describe as additive or contributory. For example, in a review of the literature, Irina Sikorskaya (2017) noted little difference between multicultural and intercultural education, but a careful review of what was being described as multicultural education revealed a superficial and non-critical additive and contributory multicultural education practice. Therefore, while multicultural education is conceptualized as a critical theoretical framework of education, in its application, it is often watered down and then reviewed and written about as such by those who study these versions and implementations of the framework. Therefore, we must be cautious as we translate theory into practice. Table 1  Ideologies and educational aims Ideology

Educational aims

Neoliberal

To produce citizens who are economically productive, mobile and able to successfully compete in a global economy To produce national citizens who have gained cultural knowledge and are able to be nationally integrated autonomous subjects To produce citizens who are personally autonomous, compassionate, able to think for themselves and to act for the betterment of the world To produce citizens who are oriented towards change of a radical kind, being critical of systems that reproduce injustice and seeking to destabilize the status quo

Classical Liberal Critical

Intercultural education  31

Intercultural education: the key role of culture in the framework As discussed in Chapter 1, European political rhetoric as well as European Union policy documents, fueled by a multiculturalism backlash (Vertovec & Wessendorf, 2010) are re-orienting toward interculturalism and its educational extension, intercultural education, as a form of governmentality in an increasingly neoliberal, competitive, and globally minded Europe. Hence, where we see that multicultural education is aligned with the critical political framework of multiculturalism and critical ideology, we see intercultural education aligned with both liberal and increasingly neoliberal political ideologies (see Table 1 above) and the political framework of interculturalism and civic integration. While intercultural education has a long history that spans the continents and precedes its contemporary practice in Europe (Aikman, 1997; Montalto, 1982), the focus of our book is only on contemporary intercultural education in Europe and on how it is responding to the sociopolitical demands of an increasingly multi-ethnic society. According to European documents, a pluralistic and multi-ethnic intercultural society is one characterized by “diversity,” “intergroup dialogue,” and “social cohesion,” (Zapata-Barrero, 2015). Intercultural education prepares students to live successfully in an increasingly diverse, international, and intercultural society by teaching intercultural competence, which encompasses prejudice reduction and promotes social cohesion and social harmony in a culturally diverse, multilingual, and pluralistic democracy (Barrett, 2012; 2013; Council of Europe, 2014a). As is the case with multicultural education, there are several interpretations of the goals and orientations of intercultural education, yet: Although intercultural education might be conceptualized in various ways within different educational contexts, it generally aims at enabling pupils and students from diverse cultural backgrounds to learn how to transcend their cultural borders and engage in dialogue and action with people and peers different from them in significant ways. (Palaiologou, Georgiadis, Evangeolou, & Zisimos, 2012, p. 361) In other words, intercultural education supports students to become competent “global citizens,” able to successfully live, coexist, and navigate an increasingly multilingual, multicultural, international social context by acquiring intercultural competencies. This competency, which encompasses “plurilingual” skills, cultural knowledge, the capacity to adapt in different cultural milieus, and carrying out projects with people of different cultural backgrounds, to name a few, will be necessary in the global economy of our present and future (Council of Europe, 2014a). For this reason, intercultural competence is the foundation of global citizenship in the intercultural education framework.

32  Intercultural education

Intercultural competence is acquired, over time, through intercultural encounters (face-to-face encounters or virtual, social media or literary media encounters) with a person or persons of a different cultural group affiliation from oneself. This competence is a: Combination of attitudes, knowledge, understanding and skills applied through action which enables one, either singly, or together with others, to: 1) understand and respect people who are perceived to have different cultural affiliations from oneself; 2) respond appropriately, effectively and respectfully when interacting and communicating with such people; 3) establish positive and constructive relationships with such people; 4) understand oneself and one’s own multiple cultural affiliations through encounters with cultural “difference.” (Council of Europe, 2014a, p. 16) An intercultural education, then, is one that enables students to learn about themselves and themselves in relation to others. The key focus of the framework is culture, an examination of, understanding of, awareness of, and engagement with culture on the individual and interpersonal level. Culture, interculture, interculturality, and intercultural competence feature prominently in the literature (Barrett, 2012; 2013; Cantle, 2012; 2015; 2016; Council of Europe, 2008; 2014a; 2014b; Zapata-Barrero, 2011; 2014; 2015; 2016). Absent from the framework is an examination or engagement with issues of power on the interpersonal, institutional, and systemic level. Hence, while systems of oppression and discrimination separate and segregate many marginalized groups across Europe, both within schools and in communities at large, the framework ignores these structural issues and proposes measures to build interpersonal skills, which are no doubt important, yet not sufficient to create an equitable and pluralistic society. The exclusive focus on teaching and learning about culture to impact the individual and interpersonal spheres (cultural exchanges, interaction towards intercultural competence) is the most significant difference between intercultural education and multicultural education (as the latter’s focus is on an examination of systems of power, privilege and oppression, and how they impact individuals and communities through institutionalization so as to orient students towards social action and social change). In both frameworks, culture is discussed and is not defined as static. In both frameworks attention is paid to issues of multiple and intersecting identities. Gender identity, sexual identity, ability/disability, class, religious identity, language identity, national identity, ethnic, and racial identity and others are considered in discussions of culture; hence, culture is not “boxed” into fixed conceptualizations tied to national or ethnic group cultural identities. Young people are encouraged to explore the fluidity of their identities. De-centering one’s meaning-making processes and practicing multiperspectivity is valued in the intercultural framework.

Intercultural education  33

In Developing Intercultural Competence through Education (Council of Europe, 2014a), the Council underscores the importance of intercultural competence and its connection to living in a democratic society. They write that “intercultural competence is vital for achieving the core objectives of the Council of Europe” (p. 10). Intercultural competence, is defined as a set of attitudes (“valuing cultural diversity, respecting people of different cultural background, being “open and curious” about people of different cultural ­backgrounds, being able to empathize, being “willing to tolerate ambiguity and uncertainty”), knowledge and understanding (communicative awareness, “understanding the internal diversity and heterogeneity of all cultural groups,” knowledge of beliefs, values, and practices of people of diverse cultural orientations, etc.), and skills (multiperspectivity, plurilingual skills, critical thinking skills, cognitive flexibility, “skills in interpreting other cultural practices,” etc.). In turn, these attitudes, knowledge and understanding, and skills must be applied to demonstrate competence. Intercultural competence “has strong active, interactive and participative dimensions, and it requires individuals to develop their capacity to build common projects, to assume shared responsibilities and to create common ground to live together in peace” (pp. 19–20). For example, students are encouraged to intervene and express opposition to expressions of prejudice or acts of discrimination against individuals or groups or challenge “cultural stereotypes or prejudices” or mediate “situations of cultural conflict” (p. 21). It is important to note that the Council advocates that students take “action.” This action is a type of standing up against discrimination, bullying, an individual action against acts of prejudice, or racism and echo the liberal ideology (cited in table 1 above) of supporting students to becoming “citizens who are personally autonomous, compassionate, able to think for themselves and to act for the betterment of the world.” The framework, therefore, encourages the development of students who are critical thinkers, able to understand issues from multiple perspectives and able to take action and interrupt expressions of discrimination when they witness these. In this way, this framework resonates with bullying prevention models that support students to be accountable to one another and act when they encounter individual acts of injustice. On the other hand, while this personal accountability is commendable, we fail to note a focus on systemic analysis or action towards social change on an institutional level. The framework is designed on the micro level with a focus on each individual student’s personal responsibility on her/his sphere of interpersonal influence. In this way it resembles anti-bullying curricula that fails to act on the roots of bullying such as issues of institutionalized racism, heterosexism, homophobia, and more. In her important review of the literature on critical thinking and critical inquiry, Angela Bermudez (2008), concludes that there are four tools of critical inquiry for civic education: problem-posing, reflective-skepticism, multiperspectivity, and systemic thinking. Without teaching systemic thinking and exposing the underlying social structures related to social issues, especially related to issues of inequities, teachers and students will engage in facile

34  Intercultural education

discourses and deficit narratives that will harm marginalized and minoritized students (Bermudez, 2014). As Paul Gorski (2008) writes, “despite unquestionably good intentions on the part of most people who call themselves intercultural educators, most intercultural education practice supports, rather than challenges, dominant hegemony, prevailing social hierarchies, and inequitable distributions of power and privilege” (p. 515). For this reason, we encourage a reconceptualization of the framework towards a “decolonization of intercultural education” (Gorski, 2008) that would include applying a critical lens to the framework to go beyond culture towards a theory of social justice education. While personal accountability and responsibility along with interpersonal skills are important, what is most salient are systemic solutions and teaching on a systemic level of analysis versus an individual level of analysis.

Intercultural education: pedagogy and dialogue In the UNESCO Guidelines on Intercultural Education (2006) the goal of intercultural competence is achieved through “the four pillars” of intercultural education as identified by the International Commission on Education for the Twenty-First Century. These are: 1. Learning to know: education brings a person into contact with other languages and areas of knowledge, and … makes communication possible; 2. Learning to do: in order to acquire not only an occupational skill but also, more broadly, the competence to deal with many situations and to work in teams … In the national and international context, learning to do also includes the acquisition of necessary competencies that enable the individual to find a place in society; 3. Learning to live together: by developing an understanding of other people and an appreciation of interdependence and carrying out joint projects and learning to manage conflicts – in a spirit of respect for the values of pluralism, mutual understanding … peace and cultural diversity; and 4. Learning to be: so as to better develop one’s personality and be able to act with ever greater autonomy, judgement and personal responsibility. In that respect, education must not disregard any aspect of a person’s potential. (pp. 19–20) Pedagogical approaches that support intercultural education for intercultural competence are experiential and cooperative learning in which young people work collaboratively on project work to discover, analyze, compare, and implement (Council of Europe, 2014a). Conducting ethnography projects, role plays and simulation dramas, theater and poetry, using social media and multimedia projects in the classroom are encouraged (Council of Europe, 2014a; UNESCO, 2006). These pedagogies are quite innovative in most European contexts and may be difficult to adopt in many countries where there are long-standing traditions of lecture-based teaching and

Intercultural education  35

learning. However, these pedagogies are equity pedagogies long connected to critical multicultural practice (Zirkel, 2008). One of the points of agreement between multicultural and intercultural educators is that both of these frameworks have to be applied comprehensively throughout the curriculum and cannot be sprinkled throughout (as is the case with contributory or additive approaches to multicultural education). In addition, the content of the curriculum must change as should the pedagogy, evaluation methods and teacher preparation processes (Council of Europe, 2014a; UNESCO, 2006). Despite great differences in what education should be and how it should serve young people, both frameworks are conceptualized as re-imagining education all together, and not simply as adding to existing educational frameworks. The most important mechanism through which intercultural competence is acquired, and both a means and a goal of intercultural education, is dialogue. Dialogue, along with diversity and social cohesion are the foci of interculturalism for a pluralistic Europe and feature prominently in the political conceptual framework of interculturalism (discussed in Chapter 1) and in the educational conceptual framework of intercultural education. According to the framework, it is through dialogue that students will learn new ways of being, acquire knowledge, skills, challenge stereotypes and practice multiperspectivity (Council of Europe, 2014a). Informed in intergroup contact theory (Allport, 1954; Pettigrew, 1998; Pettigrew & Tropp 2006; 2008), interculturalists propose that cultural exchanges will provide the experiences young people need to challenge racism, xenophobia, homophobia, etc. In turn, by acquiring intercultural competence students will gain the skills they need to participate fully in democratic life (Council of Europe, 2014a). We will discuss intergroup contact theory, intergroup dialogue, and intergroup relationships extensively in Chapter 6, so we will limit our discussion here to observations about the conceptual limitations of the argument that intergroup dialogue will necessarily lead to equitable participation in social-­political life, leadership and decision making towards institutional, social change as we also began to do in Chapter 1. First, as we argued in Chapter 1, it is an assumption to presume that ­people of diverse racial, ethnic, gender, class, national, cultural, etc., identities come together in dialogue as equals. Scholars, including interculturalists, themselves, have noted deep sociopolitical and historical legacies which have created power differentials between groups that rarely allow dialogue to take place on a level playing field (Barrett, 2013). Secondly, while intergroup dialogue is the conceptual centerpiece of intercultural education, it is not conceptualized beyond intergroup contact. In other words, the literature on intercultural education does not address the conditions or frameworks within which to “dialogue.” Intergroup dialogue, then, is meant to be understood as, simply, intergroup contact or interaction. In fact, Zapata-Barrero (2016), one of the major proponents of interculturalism, states that “interaction among people from different backgrounds matters” and this is the “lifeline” that

36  Intercultural education

interculturalism offers. This is particularly problematic since social science research has highlighted the fact that not all intergroup contact has positive outcomes. Without careful attention paid to the conditions that support equal status, access and equity among people in the contact situation, negative consequences can occur (Pettigrew, Tropp, Wagner & Christ, 2011) and inequity cannot be challenged or addressed. If dialogue in school is simply meant as intergroup contact by virtue of the fact that young people will be in the same spaces with one another, this will not support the development of intercultural competence. More problematic, however, are the contradictions within the Council of Europe’s (2014) own documents. In Developing Intercultural Competence through Education, they explain that intercultural competence and intergroup dialogue are a necessary to build a democratic society: To ensure that the human rights of individuals from all cultural backgrounds are fully acknowledged, respected and protected under the law, and to ensure that all individuals are included in the public sphere and are able to play a full participatory role within the democratic life of the societies in which they live. (pp. 9–10) The Council’s view is that the development of intercultural competence through the practice of intergroup dialogue will guarantee this participatory role within the democratic nation-state. Yet, later in the document, the Council concedes: Many individuals are unable to enjoy equality of opportunity and to engage as full democratic participants because they suffer from socio-­ economic disadvantage and forms of discrimination which exclude them or confine them to the margins of society. While these individuals require intercultural competence to engage in intercultural dialogue, this competence may not always be sufficient to ensure their participation in such dialogue. (p. 11) Therefore, the Council proposes the acquisition of intercultural competence as the cornerstone of building a pluralistic democracy informed in “equality” and “human rights for all” while acknowledging that for “many” this competence may not be enough to participate as equal members of society. They acknowledge that power and access are necessary, and, yet, discussions of these or policies to address these are not part of the conceptual framework of intercultural education. As in the political framework of interculturalism, intercultural dialogue is at the center of the educational framework and assumes that intercultural contact will lead to understanding of the “other,” reduced prejudice,

Intercultural education  37

increase empathy and understanding, and, therefore, augment social cohesion in our society at large. Nowhere in the literature on intercultural education that we reviewed was there an emphasis on minoritized groups’ rights or educating young people towards critically analyzing existing power structures of inequity that lead to racism or other forms of institutionalized discrimination. The focus of all of the documents on intercultural education we reviewed are on developing intercultural competence to promote social cohesion, societal harmony, and supporting conflict resolution among diverse groups. While we acknowledged a language related to creating democratic and pluralistic societies where all members of society can thrive without racism or xenophobia, what is noticeably absent is a critical analysis of the structures of power and inequity that maintain inequality that we believe would have to be identified, studied, understood, analyzed, and deconstructed by students towards the goal of transformative education for social change. While we have not seen evidence that intercultural education is a progressive or transformative framework, other scholars, interpret intercultural education as more progressive and connected to the ideals of social transformation and change, citizenship education, anti-racism education, and critical pedagogy. Zembylas & Iasonos (2010) suggest that social justice and equity values inherent in intercultural education mobilize teachers towards the transformation of their pedagogy and curriculum in order to empower their marginalized students. Tiedt and Tiedt (2010) state that the intercultural model provides that teachers promote an education that challenges power relations, promotes social change, and that permits each individual to strive for social emancipation. According to Leclerq (2002), intercultural education aims to reveal the “hidden” educational processes that perpetuate discrimination and goes above and beyond the simple understanding of those processes, furnishing students with the tools for the formulation of skills that presuppose the transformation of these processes. While it may be the case that a few scholars have conceptualized the framework this way, we do not see any evidence in the European documents that it is being proposed in this manner by European educational institutions.

European educational approaches and measures on intercultural education When it comes to the research on intercultural educational implementation and outcomes, the findings are mixed. Some studies illustrate that ­European directives, and the cultural diversity present in contemporary school systems, have contributed to the transformation of educational approaches and educational programming on the national level towards an intercultural model (Schissler & Soysal, 2005). Other studies, however, maintain that despite a rhetoric of “unity in diversity” a “common pan-European culture” is still intrinsic in educational systems and that the European Union “still adheres

38  Intercultural education

to some of the key components of the nationalist discourse it seeks to evade” (Hansen, 1998, p. 15). As the central repository of information on educational systems and their developments in Europe, the network Eurydice (Eurydice, 2004; 2009) has created a framework of the organizational practices adopted regarding the integration of immigrant children. European countries have a very diverse history and experience with migratory history. In some countries, measures of scholastic integration in favor of children of immigrant families have been developed in the context of an extensive migratory history and experience. Other countries have only recently undergone this experience and immigration is a recent phenomenon. These countries have only just begun to discuss the ways in which their educational system might be adapted. In the next sections, we analyze how European educational institutions are reorganizing in relation to three dimensions: intercultural approach in curriculum, measures for the support of the language and culture of immigrant students, and measures of support for the integration of immigrant children at school (Eurydice, 2004; 2009).

Intercultural approach in curriculum As discussed earlier in this chapter, intercultural education proposes itself as a framework that encourages contact, interaction, and dialogue between cultures towards the goal of creating school contexts and classroom spaces informed in developing respect for cultural diversity. Formally, the majority of European educational institutions accentuate these goals in their mission statements. However, whether and how these abstract goals of “valuing and respecting diversity” are concretized into curriculum, school governance, and national level evaluations conducted to determine the application and effectiveness of intercultural education strategies has not been widely studied. The document, L’intégration scolaire des enfants immigrants in Europe (Eurydice, 2004) reports that, in general, national educational documents offer suggestions to infuse intercultural aspects to be developed across the curriculum, or note possible scholastic content that could include intercultural themes. According to Eurydice’s (2004) research, some countries pledge to increase an intercultural approach, considering it a fundamental element of a global education for the 21st century and for the functioning scholastic collective. More than half of the countries in the European Union that assert their commitment to intercultural education will go beyond revising curricular material to integrating intercultural approaches to extracurricular activities. By intercultural education extracurricular activities, they mean activities organized on the basis of dialogue and encounters between members of different cultural groups represented at school, events that highlight cultural diversity, and exchanges between immigrant communities, as well as international student exchanges. In the majority of European Union countries, an

Intercultural education  39

intercultural approach is inserted amongst general objectives of national curricula and/or in other official documents regarding instruction. Only in very few countries (Italy, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands) does this approach appear in other official documentations: Ministry of Education Directives in Italy, scholastic manuals in Luxembourg, and educational decrees in the Netherlands. Regarding Pre-Kindergarten education, instructions and recommendations of experts in the field of intercultural education usually note a general goal in terms of values that must be developed in children and/or proposals to introduce them to the concepts of linguistic and cultural diversity. Generally, EU countries agree that the intercultural approach should be trans-curricular and not be added on to the standard curriculum as a separate subject. Acting autonomously, countries specify, for each subject, intercultural content that could be included, provide didactic instructions for teachers, or indicate competencies, values, and objectives associated with interculture. The subjects most frequently nominated as best suited for an intercultural redesign are history and geography, followed by foreign languages, religion, and, finally, the language of instruction (L1). It is particularly interesting to note that while intercultural education is most easily situated alongside citizenship education, in only a little over one third of EU countries are the intercultural approach included in courses related to social issues, civic education, politics, or sociology.

Measures for the support of the language and culture of origin of immigrant students In the past ten years European countries have adopted various approaches and procedures towards supporting native languages of students who speak a different language than the language of instruction of the host country. Research demonstrates that strengthening a student’s native language skills can have a positive impact on academic achievement (Gaudet & Clément, 2005; Portes & Hao, 2002; Zhou, 1997). Optimal knowledge of the mother tongue is important for developing cultural capital and reinforcing the self-esteem of migrant children and could constitute a decisive advantage for their future (Commission of the European Communities, 2008). Historically, European states more strongly affirmed the integrity of native language and culture, adopting measures for protecting them, yet these practices are quickly shifting towards those of civic integration. Specifically, two principal methods can be identified regarding the organization of mother tongue language courses for immigrant students: bilateral agreements following the directive 77/486/CEE, and management by the national educational system. In countries with bilateral agreements, responsibility for resources allocated to the institution of the language courses is shared by two countries that draft an agreement. Generally, teachers are procured from the native country and benefit from substantial didactic autonomy, while the

40  Intercultural education

infrastructure is provided by the host country. Courses supported by bilateral agreements include cultural elements of the host country as well. These lessons occur, in most cases, outside of normal school hours. Nevertheless, in almost half of the EU states, the organization and the financing of native language courses is at the expense of the host country’s educational system. Generally, the official documents recommend that schools offer mother tongue courses to all students of immigrant origins. Some countries, such as Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Lithuania, and Norway have specified the categories of immigrant students that can benefit from mother tongue language courses. However, the decision to launch these courses depends on the request and availability of human and economic resources. Furthermore, in Spain, Italy, Hungary, Slovakia, and Iceland the organization of mother tongue courses rests on the initiative of schools and local authorities. Ordinarily, foreign language courses, in the few cases in which they are organized, are financed by national educational systems and are held outside of normal school hours. These efforts are becoming increasingly rare in nation-states informed and fueled by competitive ideologies of globalization and neoliberal policies. In many countries, the topic of whether or not to provide native language instruction and programming for immigrant children and its educational policy implications are currently at the center of political debate. Emphasis placed on the conservation of the native language has clearly been scaled down in European documents. As extensively discussed in the first chapter and earlier in this chapter, in the agreement on “common basic principles” for immigration integration policy (Council of the European Union, 2004), one notes a neoliberal reorientation and a compromise position known as “ full respect” adopted by the European Union stating that the conservation and integrity of native language, culture, and lifestyle should be at the discretion of the individual families and does not constitute a responsibility of the nation-state. In this vein, the White Paper (Council of Europe, 2008) and the Green Paper (Commission of the European Communities, 2008) pairs the affirmation of migrant rights and the preservation of native culture and language with the ever-increasing requirements to acquire the language of instruction and understanding of the history and institutions of the receiving country. Hence, as observed in the first chapter, immigration policies in ­European countries increasingly focus on civic integration ( Joppke, 2007) and want to instill values and dominant norms of the host country in new arrivals (Ambrosini, 2014), following the primary goal of promoting social cohesion.

Support measures for integration of immigrant students into schools Integration of immigrants into society, and in particular, the ways in which to integrate children into educational systems, is a growing concern for

Intercultural education  41

European political decision makers. In some European countries, the phenomenon of immigration is recent, while other nations have experienced a longer history of social and educational integration methodologies. This is another level of complexity when as it relates to implementation in contextualized spaces. Nevertheless, in all countries, immigration is a growing reality and supporting immigrant youth is an important goal of a pluralistic democratic society. It is important to think about immigrant youth’s academic potential and achievement. If educational systems fail these young people and these youths are not successful at school, do not develop the academic, social, cultural skills, and capital to succeed, lack the resources to gain a better social standing than that of their parents, cannot find work in their field, they risk social exclusion, further discrimination, and marginalization by the receiving society and its institutions (Dalla Zuanna, Farina, Strozza, 2009; Contini, 2012; 2014). This “new youth presence” (Besozzi et al., 2009) presents questions regarding equal access and opportunities for social advancement. Two models have been proposed and utilized by European countries in their attempt to integrate youth into European educational systems: integrated schooling models and separated schooling models (Eurydice, 2004; 2009). The integrated model provides that students of immigrant origin be integrated into ordinary classrooms of their peers. Support services (primarily language instruction) are established on an individual basis, based on assessment, and provided both during normal school hours or as extracurricular activities. The separated model can be implemented either as a temporary measure, where immigrant children are organized into separate groups for a limited period of time, or as a long-term model in which specialized classes of cohorts are formed for one or more academic years. In general, the two principal models are not mutually exclusive and often coexist in the same country. However, a small group of countries provides only direct integration within ordinary classes with added support for new immigrants (Ireland, Italy, and the United Kingdom). Integrated teaching and learning, which neutralizes tendencies towards segregation, is the explicit objective of some school systems. In practice, however, the tendency toward segregation is still strong in many integrated school systems. Students with migrant parents are often concentrated in neighborhood schools creating de facto segregation and isolation in comparison to the rest of the local school system. The 2007 OECD and 2006 OECD-PISA studies demonstrate that student test results are lower in schools where there is a large concentration of immigrant children (OECD, 2007; OECD-PISA, 2006). In turn, these lower test scores contribute to the deterioration of the schools as they become increasingly segregated when parents of native-born students self-select out of these institutions. Segregation is also a reality within schools: grouping or tracking systems of students based on their perceived academic potential result in the funneling of a comparatively high number of immigrant children towards courses that require a lower linguistic aptitude (Eurydice, 2009). Scholastic segregation weakens a school’s

42  Intercultural education

capacity to accomplish one of its principal intercultural education goals: the development of social integration, and intergroup collaboration, friendships, and social bonds. In general, the more educational policies manage to neutralize the segregation of migrant students in its various forms, the better the scholastic experience will be for both those children and native children (Eurydice, 2009). Segregation, however, is difficult to eliminate once it has been institutionalized. Countries that have recently faced large waves of immigration might be interested in designing and applying policies to prevent segregation by class and racial/ethnic/cultural/religious identity. To this end, school districts and community groups in geographic areas may collaborate for a more equitable placement of immigrant students and distribution of resources in order to avoid a phenomenon of class or racial/ethnic/cultural/ religious segregation.

Guaranteed right to an education The majority of European countries have introduced prescriptive regulations to their legislations to guarantee the right to education for all students. At the European level, Chapter II of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (signed and endorsed by the presidents of the European parliament, by the Council and by the Commission of the European Council at Nice on December 7 2000) establishes that 1) everyone has the right to education and to obtain professional training; and 2) this is constituted by the right to receive “obligatory free education.” Almost all European countries fully respect this fundamental right, granting it to all immigrant children. Immigrant children also have the same rights as children of citizens to benefit from scholastic services or any financial aid allocated by the educational authorities. These “scholastic services” include the use of scholastic infrastructure such as cafeteria meals and services, didactic materials, extracurricular activities, health services, and scholastic transportation services (Eurydice, 2004). Welcoming and orienting immigrant students and families In relation to welcoming and orientation programs, schools generally take the initiative to help immigrant students and parents with the registration process, placement within the educational system, and to gain access to information regarding opportunities offered by the school. These efforts often hinge on the efficacy of the communication and information exchange between school and home, particularly through the use of languages different than those usually used at school. Seeing that parental involvement is fundamental for educational success, measures adopted to guarantee a fluid exchange of information between school and families are of particular importance.

Intercultural education  43

The Eurydice report (2009) identifies three strategies to improve communication between schools and families: 1. ensuring that information is provided in multiple languages; 2. use of language interpreters; and 3. use of designated school-to-home reference personnel. In almost two thirds of the countries’ school systems publish school materials in some of the native languages of immigrant families present in their schools (Eurydice, 2009). This information generally refers to all levels of education, from preschool to high school, and is published by a central agency. For example, information in Ireland is published by the Reception and Integration Agency, an agency specializing in reception and integration. In L ­ uxembourg, information in Portuguese for children completing elementary school is produced by the Centres de Psychologie et d’Orientation Scolaire. In Austria, the federal ministry of education publishes a series of pamphlets and flyers on school registration and on the educational opportunities for immigrants. In Portugal, the informational literature is published by the Organization of Asylum and Immigration Policies (ACIME), while in Finland it is the entities in charge of education at the municipal level that publish information online or produce brochures (Eurydice, 2004). These publications cover a limited variety of languages, corresponding to the native languages of the immigrant groups of numerical majority and greater density in the territory. In Spain, Ireland (National Educational Welfare Board—NEWB), The United Kingdom (North Ireland) and Norway, information about the school system is available in more than ten languages (Eurydice, 2009). The use of interpreters for communication between schools and immigrant families is common in various countries of Europe at the elementary and secondary school level. In each country this procedure can either be a right stipulated by law for the benefit of families, a recommendation to the schools from the central government, or a locally adopted initiative. In the majority of countries, the use of interpreters, which is not obligatory, is often strongly encouraged by the central authorities. In some countries that recommend the use of interpreters, it is the national or regional authorities that provide schools with the necessary services and resources. However, in the absence of central or local recommendations to use interpreters, the expense of interpreter services fall on the schools themselves. Some schools have activated community networks to take advantage of cultural-linguistic mediation projects with the goal of offering translation services. In some countries, schools benefit from the services of volunteer interpreters, such is the case in the French communities in Belgium, or by non-governmental organizations, for example in Ireland. These services can also be offered by school teachers that have knowledge of requested languages (Austria) or by other immigrant parents (Ireland).

44  Intercultural education

The assignment of reference personnel for the reception and orientation of immigrant students, who are also responsible for supporting school-to-family relationships, is a very common approach in Europe, even if the legislation and recommendations that provide these procedures are very recent. These staff can be designated amongst the school personnel and can be part of the local structures for immigrant support, or they can be provided to the schools by the central or local authorities. In the orientation phase there is a need to determine the appropriate level of education for the child, to evaluate competence in the language of instruction, as well as to assess knowledge in key curricular areas. This person can act as both a case manager and student, family, and school mediator and facilitator. Teaching of the language of instruction Mastery of the language of instruction is an essential goal for academic success (European Commission, 2008). The literature on language of instruction is vast and beyond the scope of this section and chapter. Yet, it is clear that language mastery can facilitate the integration of both children and adults who immigrate, and a lack thereof can constitute an obstacle to both a students’ success at school, a parents’ success in the labor market as well as the relationship between families and schools. National educational authorities are aware of the necessity of providing specific strategies to immigrant students, supporting them to exercise their right to education in the same way as other citizens do. Therefore, they consider the acquisition of the host country’s language as fundamental for integration, and linguistic support systems as a priority, so that newly arrived students can overcome initial problems that impede a rapid integration at school. Thus, the majority of efforts are pointed to language courses for students who have recently immigrated. Other practices favor learning the language of instruction as early as possible: linguistic evaluations for all children, language learning starting in primary school, training of instructors, and teaching of the host country language as a second language (Eurydice, 2004; 2009). In general, “second language” instruction (L2) is based on the “linguistic immersion” method, which provides that students be directly exposed to the host country’s language and receive intensive lessons during the normal school day, both individually and in small groups.

Conclusion Given the multivocality of the directives reviewed above as well as limitations of the intercultural education framework as it is conceived in neoliberal ideology, how can educators implement these practices in their classrooms? How can one multi-pronged and arguably ambiguous and uncritical framework be implemented in vastly different contexts given local histories, localized bodies of knowledge, and power relations? We argue that in the backdrop of the

Intercultural education  45

ambiguities and tensions embedded in the educational frameworks, scholars and educators need to engage in self-conscious critique of their educational practices and develop a discourse of social transformation. As one may note, creating a multi-ethnic diverse classroom space is a balancing act that involves the logistics of welcoming practice, setting up the language environment, creating systems of support, inclusive curricula all while attending to the sociopolitical context of schooling. Critical theorists argue that schools are more than socializing institutions. Instead, they are vehicles of economic and cultural reproduction that mediate social practices and cultural beliefs necessary to maintain the dominance of certain groups and power structures (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977a, 1990; Bernstein, 1977, 1990; MacDonald, 1977). By taking a critical stance, we aim to uncover the insidious ways political ideology seeps into the classroom and impacts the instructional practices teachers take up and implement. For this reason, we look to critical theory to inform intercultural education as we see a lack of criticality. In this chapter, we built a critical analysis of intercultural education and connected it to neoliberal ideologies and citizenship education closely related to governmentality, immigration policies, civic integration, and maintaining social cohesion for the nation-state. In the next chapter, we introduce critical theory and critical pedagogy and build an argument to re-orient intercultural education towards an anti-colonial social justice education that has the potential to decolonize European education toward the goal of building a socially just and transformative educational institution of schooling.

3 Talking back Critical theory and critical pedagogy

Introduction Educational debates occur without serious attention to their direct connection to worldwide economic restructuring, the increasing polarization of wealth, and the subsequent racialization of populations, especially immigrant populations that may or may not be assimilating as predicted or even desired (Darder, 2002). These political and ideological narratives play out in national and international contexts that intensify in school spaces which are often microcosms of larger societal structures. Critical theory provides a discourse and mode of critique for deepening our understanding of the nature and function of schooling, and provides modes of analysis that help us uncover the ideologies and interests embedded in educational policies that inform educational frameworks, curricula and instruction, and school-based interactions that take place in the everyday business of schooling (Giroux, 1983a). For example, globalization and glocalization have become buzz words for economic imperialism and its ruthless mechanisms to maximize capital accumulation (McChesney, 1999). Yet, schools play an important role in the process of capital accumulation as they organize student populations in economic hierarchy and officially carry out an unfair system of meritocracy that ultimately functions to legitimate the ideological formation necessary for the reproduction of inequality (Apple, 1995). Therefore, how educational frameworks are taken up and implemented matters as schools are not just instructional sites, but rather “arenas of contestation and struggle among differentially empowered cultural and economic groups” (Giroux, 1983a, p. 74). This chapter builds on the notion that irrespective of the ongoing debates among multiculuralism and interculturalism, dominant and politically motivated ideological seeds are planted into government and school-sanctioned documents that will ultimately inform pedagogical practices as carried out by school-based educators who work within the confines of institutionalized structures yet can and should exercise a great deal of agency. Critical exploration provides an avenue to uncover the latent principles that shape the deep grammar of the existing social order (Giroux, 1983a). Giroux (1983a) argues that ideology is often dissolved into “objective knowledge” which

Talking back  47

gets translated and transmitted devoid of a deeper understanding of the relationship between socialization and the reproduction of class, gender and racial inequalities (p. 74). The outcome and tendency become the teaching of objective knowledge in predetermined ways that often results in schools that operate in the interests of the dominant culture. Like Gorski and Swalwell (2014, 2015) we posit that along with critical theory and critical pedagogy, “equity literacy” is needed to move beyond directives and predefined methods of instruction in order to acquire the skills and disposition that enables educators to recognize, respond, and readdress oppressive conditions. This entails taking a courageous stance that goes beyond cultural competencies, especially as Gramsci (1971) reminds us that culture refers to processes that involve lived antagonistic relations among different socioeconomic groups with unequal access to the means of power. Just like in society, this results in an unequal ability to produce, distribute and legitimize shared principles and lived experiences. We, then, contend that educators and scholars can position themselves in agentic ways to name, critique and work to transform structural injustices.

The time is now Never before has the need for more humane and inclusive pedagogical practices been greater. Education is occurring at a time where the world is connected in ways that are at once promising and challenging. The relationship of diasporas with the homeland/other lands fall under the broader domain of international relations as it involves at least two countries that formally permit their subjects to interact. Nowadays, however, such diasporic communities go beyond the host nation-state and motherland to networks with communities dispersed around the globe. This networking process is referred to as “transnationalism” which implies the migration of people across the borders of one or more nations (Sahoo, 2013, p. 33). Faist (2010) argues that while the impact of globalization is often assumed to be universal and worldwide, approaches linked to the concept of diaspora and transnationalism refer to the phenomena that occur within limited social and geographic spaces. Thus, while the process of transnationalism enables us to think/see across boundaries, to observe connections between places and people, to consider links people have outside the nation, and to look at the impacts of these in term of identities, actions, and structures; this process occurs in contextualized and situated spaces where people struggle for belonging, power, and voice. Rapid developments in technology are increasingly expanding these networks and other modes of communication by making information readily available in ways that have contributed to both social cohesion and social disconnection. Cohesion is usually what educators strive for, but increasingly social disconnection is what emerges when educators fail to recognize, acknowledge, and act on ideological structures embedded in so-called neutral language and the social and communicative practices of diverse students and families.

48  Intercultural education

As identified earlier, global migration patterns are creating increasingly diverse societies that have led to animated debates, especially at the level of the mass media, political arenas and in the realm of public opinion (Koser, 2007). This issue is complicated when increasing migration across the globe is negatively depicted as having economic, demographic, social, and cultural impacts and is perceived as weakening the institutions of the receiving countries. Demographers and human geographers have spent the last few decades exploring and studying these complex patterns to understand the historical, economic, political and social impact of these trends (O’Reilly, 2009). While methodologies and theories abound, the field of migration studies has become increasingly interdisciplinary with an underlying theory about human behavior and social life. This is because scholars like Hein de Haass (2010) suggest migration theory would benefit from drawing on more general social theory and concepts, in order to address what Nicholas Van Hear (2010) calls the “continuing apparent isolation of the field from wider social science concerns” (in O’Reilly, 2009). As O’Reilly (2009) comments that apparently some consensus that migration studies would benefit from drawing on broad social theory, and from being linked to wider social science concerns, and some form of structuration or practice theory seems to be the best way forward. For instance, spaces where cultural debates travel across borders, how might other theories help in working across difference, both real and imagined? Like other social institutions, schools have generally struggled to put theory into practice. This is compounded when educational policy directives are broad and do not account for implementation issues. British sociologist Anthony Giddens (1979) identified the central problem in modern social theory as a dualism between agency and structure that recurs across the whole field of the humanities and the social sciences (Chouinard, 1997). He viewed structure as implicit in every moment of action thereby constraining or enabling it. For example, structures are enabling, and thus give the “knowledgeable” agent the capability to work in creative or formative ways (Giddens, 1979). For example, educators have a degree of agency with respect the educational practices that they implement in a given context even when working within the confines of a unified set of directives. Therefore, “Structures must not be conceptualized as simply placing constraints on human agency, but as enabling” (Giddens, 1976, p. 161). Thus “the duality of structure” as “both the medium and the outcome of the practices which constitute social systems” this is because people shape structure, but structure determines what people do (Sewell, 1992, p. 4). According to Sewell, “Agents are empowered to act with and against others by structures: they have knowledge of the schemas that inform social life and have access to some measure of human and non-human resources. Agency arises from the actors’ knowledge of schemas, which means the ability to apply them to new contexts” (p. 20). Some salient points include: (1) Capacity for agency is inherent in all humans, but the specifics of the

Talking back  49

type and quantity of agency comes from a person’s’ social milieu; (2) Actors vary in their transformative capacity, but all members of society exhibit some measure of agency in their daily lives; and (3) Agency can be collective as well as individual. Transposition implies communication with others. From a critical perspective, are agents always empowered to act with or against structures? The capacity for agency is present, but do the structures permit it? Freire (1970) eloquently stated, “If the structure does not permit dialogue, the structure must be changed” (p. 93). When working under rigid structures, educators can organize and work towards changing inequitable and confining structures. He regarded dialogue as the basic item in the construction of knowledge, as being complementary to human nature. When viewed this way, dialogue is not just a simple education technique, but rather a democratic stance whereby relational opportunity is created through mutual learning. This stance requires a deep love for the world and the human condition, modesty based on humility, faith, hope, and lastly courage. All of these are characteristics of being human (Durakoglu, 2013). Along with Freire (1970), we propose a critical stance that asks us to examine, question, analyze, speak-back-to and resist dominant, ubiquitous narratives of power and hegemony. Rather than facile and banal spaces of interaction, we call for humanizing practices that allow us to enter into dialogic encounters that can be experienced by all, including those most alienated by society.

Why critical theory? Given the impact of immigration on students’ cognitive, emotional, and linguistic development in migrant and receiving communities (Suarez-Orozco & Suarez-Orozco, 1995; 2007), how can schools function at sites of liberation and hope for all children? How might schools be structured to encourage and include multiple voices and perspectives? How can educators promote the development of social agency? In society as a whole, but especially in the context of multiracial and multi-ethnic schools, O’Reilly, (2012) points, that migration cuts to the very heart of who “we” and “they” are, and to notions of identity, home, and belonging. Instead of sites of struggle, can schools become spaces where students feel affirmed and develop a strong sense of belonging regardless of the identities that mark them as different, other, and “they?” What languages do educators use to describe them? What discursive practices do they draw on to critically engage all students? There is no doubt that we are living in interesting and challenging times where accelerated traffic of capital is transforming cultural values and economies worldwide, where cultural identities blend and collide as migrants respond to demographic, economic and cultural impulses (Suarez-Orozco, 2007). All of this plays out in schools in interesting ways. Coupled with the demands of schooling and the project of educating students, educators grapple with ways to respond to students’ needs and attend to the project of teaching. The

50  Intercultural education

reality is that education takes place in a social context where power, domination, and subordination seep into educational spaces in insidious ways. This warrants attention as teaching and learning then constitutes a political act tied to the ideological forces of the dominant class, and those in power (Freire, 1993). Critical Theory attends to these preoccupations by providing a “school of thought” and a process by which to ask hard critical questions and pose critiques (Giroux, 1997a). As a theory, it refers to a legacy of theoretical work developed by some members of “the Frankfurt School.” Giroux (1983a) points out that it was never a fully articulated philosophy, but rather a common attempt to assess the newly emerging forms of capitalism along with the changing forms of domination that accompanied them (p. 7). This ever-changing, iterative theoretical framework is particularly salient at this particular moment in time given global migration patterns, transnational movement of peoples, and changing societies. Although not a unified approach to cultural criticism, it is, rather, a conversation during which Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, and Hebert Marcuse engaged the German tradition of philosophical and social thought, especially that of Marx, Kant, Hegel, and Weber (Steinberg and Kincheloe, 2010). During the early years of its formation, the concern was primarily with an analysis of bourgeois society’s socioeconomic substructure, in the year 1930 its prime interest lay in its cultural superstructure ( Jay, 1973 in Giroux, 1983a, p. 10). However, Adorno and others recognized that the relationship between theory and practice is, “Not settled once and for all, but fluctuates historically” (Giroux, 1983a, p. 11). Thus, the strength and weaknesses of the Frankfurt School project become intelligible only when considered in the proper cultural, socio, economic, and historic context (Giroux, 1997a). While an extensive review of the historical background of the Frankfurt School is beyond the scope of this book, it still behooves us to briefly explore “abstract categories” and “modes of analysis” (Giroux, 1997a, p. 36) in order to understand why critical theory has entered the domain of schooling, how educational theorists have connected it to practice, and how the theory is being reconceptualized to explore “more sensitive modes of domination” (Steinberg & Kincheloe, 2010 p. 140). An important concept to consider is that critical theory attends “to the nature of self-conscious critique and the need to develop a discourse of social transformation and emancipation that does not cling dogmatically to its own doctrinal assumptions” (Giroux, 2009, p. 27). Critical scholars working from this tradition demonstrate and simultaneously call for a sustained critique, one in which theory must always be confronted with the distinction between the world it examines and portrays, and the world as it actually is. In Pedagogy and the Politics of Hope: Theory, Culture, and Schooling, Giroux (1997b) comments on rationality, theory and the critique of instrumental reason that the emphasis on positivistic approaches to science and research represented, “Not the high point but the low point of the Enlightenment. Rather than being the agent of reason, it became its enemy and emerged in the 20th

Talking back  51

century as a new form social administration and domination” (p. 38). He cites Friedman (1981) who surmises: To the Frankfurt School, philosophical and practical positivism constituted the end point of the Enlightenment. The social function of the ideology of Positivism was to deny the critical faculty of reason by allowing it only the ground utter facility to operate upon. By so doing, they denied reason a critical moment, reason, under the rule of Positivism, stands in awe of the fact. Its function is simply to characterize the fact. Its task ends when it has affirmed and explicated the fact … Under the rule of positivism, reason inevitably stops short of critique. (p. 118) One of the main functions of critique is to advance research concerned with the nature of oppression, and the possibility of transformation and emancipation. However, positivism, according to Horkheimer (1972), presented a view of knowledge and science that stripped both of their critical possibilities thus suppressing ethics in positivist research, eliminating the possibility of self-­ critique, and more problematic, “the questioning of its own normative structures.” What emerges then is a technocratic view of science which subjugated the notion of subjectivity and diminished critical thinking (Giroux, 1997b, p. 39). Critical Theory Scholars may vary in their representation of the theory and its applicability in educational context (e.g., Aronowitz & Giroux, 1993; Cherryholmes, 1980; Apple, 1979; Apple and Teitlebaum, 1985; Shor, 1980, in Adler & Goodman, 1986); however, they are united in their opposition to “technocratic” perspectives with their emphasis on individualism, efficiency, rationality, and objectivity that has perpetuated a privileging particular forms of knowledge and approaches to learning (Adler & Goodman, 1986). Diane Ravitch (2010), operationalizes these perspectives as an approach to fixing education by applying the principles of business, organization, management, law, and marketing and by developing a good data-collection system that provides the information necessary to incentivize the workforce—­ principals, teachers, and students—with appropriate rewards and sanctions. The emphasis on “fixing” in the absence of substantive dialogue where self-awareness and critique are privilege lends itself to “classifying” and “arranging facts” in clear contradiction to the Frankfurt School’s emphasis on the relationship between theory and the wider society mediations that function to give meaning not only to the constitutive nature of facts but also the very nature of theoretical discourse. The Frankfurt School recognized that the role of theory in an attempt to transform society, not to justify or legitimate or provide normative sanctions, not to rationalize it, but rather to critique, to explore possibilities for change, and to envision how things could be rather than how they are (Curtrone, 2014; Macrine, 2009). It is in this vein of thinking that schooling and schooling practices are vessels of social change. However, this requires an “unmasking function” found in the Frankfurt

52  Intercultural education

School’s notions of “immanent criticism” and “dialectical thought” which asserts difference by refusing to collapse appearance and essence and is willing to analyze the reality of the social object against its possibilities” while dialectical thought is both critique and “uncover values often negated by the social object under analysis” (Giroux, 1997b, p. 42). This line of thinking lends credence to the notion that full humanity could not be carried out in isolation or individualism, but only in fellowship and solidarity. This requires a willingness to both acknowledge difference as well as a commitment to dialectics as a revolutionary process in educational contexts riddled with rigidity and only linear ways of instruction and knowledge production (Freire, 1970, p. 73). According to Marcuse (1960): Dialectical thought starts with the experience that the world is unfree; that is to say, man and nature exist in conditions of alienation, exist as “other that they are.” Any mode of thought which excludes this contradiction from its logic is faulty logic. Thought “corresponds” to reality only as it transforms reality by comprehending its contradictory structure. Here the principle of dialectics drives thought beyond the limits of philosophy. For to comprehend reality means rejecting their mere factuality. Rejection is the process of thought as well as of action … Dialectical thought thus becomes negative in itself. Its function is to break down the self-assurance and self-contentment of common sense, to undermine the sinister confidence in the power and language of facts, to demonstrate that unfreedom is so much at the core of things that the development of their internal contradictions leads necessarily to qualitative change: the explosion and catastrophe of the established state of affairs. (Giroux, 1997b, p. 43) Based on this line of thinking, all thought and theory are tied to a specific interest in the development of society without injustice. However, theory becomes transformative when it’s explicitly political and makes a commitment to the projection of a future yet unfulfilled (Giroux, 1997b). According to Darder (2011), this perspective is applicable today where despite a blatant concentration of wealth and its harsh impact on subordinate populations, schools continue to view contemporary social conflict and conditions of inequality as if the primary causes were rooted in individuals and families as opposed to structural conditions of systemic social and economic injustice. She posits that Freire (1970/1993) saw this very clearly: He understood that in order to comprehend the pervasive nature of late capitalism and its rapidly changing cultural maps, class relations, gender patterns of discrimination, and racialized exploitation, teachers must recognize how schools function undemocratically, in complicity with the political economy. (p. 2)

Talking back  53

This perspective considers the history and production of knowledge by asking what counts as knowledge? Who has the power to produce it? Where does it reside? What is privileged and what is subjugated? From a theoretical standpoint, Foucault (1980) proposes a genealogical process that positions the problem of power and of the body (of bodies) by posing problems beginning from the imposition of power upon bodies. He vacillates between this constant interpretation of theory and practice in term of both his subject matter and method; thus, beginning with theoretical language, but always towards an awareness of practical implications (Bouchard, 1977). Often described as “politically edgy” (Leonardo, 2004, p. 11), critical theory has the potential to disrupt and agitate (Agger, 1992) institutional spaces, such as schools. Darder, Baltodano, & Torres (1997), emphasize that there does not exist a formula or homogeneous representation for the universal implementation, but comment that it is “precisely this distinguishing factor that constitutes its critical nature, and therefore its most emancipatory and democratic function” (p. 9). This would explain why recently scholars have taken to reconceptualizing critical theory to be more sensitive to modes of domination that involve race, gender, sexual orientation, and the complexities of lived experiences in more nuanced ways than in the Frankfurt School’s original articulation of the notion in 1920s Germany (Steinberg & Kincheloe, 2010). While this is a legitimate point, as unexplored or undertheorized diverse perspectives abound, we believe that critical theory known for “its propensity for criticism” (Leonardo, 2004, p. 12), still has a lot to offer as a moral construct designed to reduce human suffering (Steinberg & Kincheloe, 2010). To scholars working from this tradition, issues are not just theoretical, but practical in matter, and in the ways such practices impact the material lives of people. Therefore, the focus in on transforming practices, with active agency and subjective recognition, as opposed to merely experiencing change as something that has already happened (Curtrone, 2014). As a result, countless specific and complex expressions of these ideas have emerged in an attempt to critically explore the relationship between students, schooling, and society (Darder, Baltodano, & Torres, 1997).

Hegemony and ideology: Material practice We can no longer simply ask who speaks, but rather from where these discourses come from and what object(s) and subject(s) they produce (­Povinelli, 2005). Ideologies are closely linked to language: as a result, language is centrally involved in power, power relations, and the struggle for power (­Fairclough, 1989, 2001). According to Darder, Baltodano, and Torres, (1997), both Michel Foucault and Antonio Gramsci helped to extend the notion of power and its impact on the construction of knowledge by their writings, which strengthen the theoretical foundation upon which to conduct critical readings of culture, history, consciousness, domination, and resistance.

54  Intercultural education

In the Prison Notebooks (1971), Gramsci articulated a theory of hegemony, in order to make sense of historical changes of the time. According to Darder, Baltodano and Torres (1997), “He argued that the mechanism for social control was exercised through the moral leaders of society (including scholars and educators), who participated and reinforced universal ‘common sense’ and assumptions about ‘truth’” (p. 6). For instance, schools are not neutral spaces, but rather political arenas where those who attend it—both young and old—do so already as political agents (Freire, 1996; Giroux, 1988, 2009), and with a varying degree of control, power, and resistance. Hegemony helps explain the way in which power is maintained not only through coercion but also through the voluntary consent of those who are subjugated by it (Gramsci & Forgacs, 2000; Morrow & Torres, 1995). In the Gramscian conception, hegemony is not simply the imposition of the ideology of a dominant class upon subordinate classes; rather, it is “a mode of control that has to be fought for constantly in order to be maintained” in changing historical circumstances. For example, the notion of “intercultural cities” which focus on managing public city spaces (Wood, 2015). Williams (1977) discussion of the hegemony provides an excellent summary of the concept: It is Gramsci’s great contribution to have emphasized hegemony, and also to have understood it at a depth which is, I think, rare. For hegemony supposes the existence of something which is truly total, which is not merely secondary or superstructural, like the weak sense of ideology, but which is lived as such a depth, which saturates the society to such an extent, and which, as Gramsci put it, even constitutes the limit of common sense for most people under its way, that it corresponds to the reality of social experience very much more clearly than any notions derived from the formula of base and superstructure. For if ideology were merely some abstract imposed notion, if our social and political and cultural ideas and assumptions and habits were merely the result of specific manipulation, of a kind of overt training which might be simply ended or withdrawn, then the society would be very much easier to move and to change than in practice it has been or is. This notion of hegemony as deeply saturating the consciousness of a society seems to be fundamental … it emphasizes the facts of domination. (Apple, 1979 p. 5) The emphasis is on the saturation of consciousness which means that the educational, economic, and social world we live in and interact with, becomes the only world. In this sense, hegemony refers to the assemblage of meanings, values and action which are lived (Apple, 1979). It is through the daily implementation of specific norms, expectations, and behaviors, which conserve the interest of those in power. This is because hegemony is also maintained through discourses, which include ideas, texts, theories, language, and functions, “through the significations embedded in school texts, films, and ‘official’ teacher discourse” but also “in those practical experiences that need no

Talking back  55

discourse, the message of which lingers beneath a structured silence” (­Giroux, 1981a). This leads to societal consensus which is cultivated and acted upon though a system of institutional rewards thus reproducing ideological hegemony which functions to sustain and maintain a hegemonic process that produces cultural and economic domination (Darder, Baltodano, & Torres, 1997). This process, however, is not one-dimensional in nature or “clean and neat;” instead, is messy and complex existing as a “combination of thought and practices” (Darder, Baltodano, & Torres, 1997, p. 7). For examples, in reference to ideology, human experience, and schooling, Giroux (1997) contends the interface of ideology and individual experience can be located within three specific areas: the “unconscious and structure of needs,” “the realm of commonsense,” and “the sphere of critical consciousness” which points to an “ideological universe in which contradictions exist both in and outside the individual.” He expands on Williams’ argument that the “ideological field in any given society includes contradictions within and between what he calls emerging, residual, and dominant ideologies” (p. 77). This is evident in the ways that immigrant children are integrated into educational systems. While the call for “integrated teaching and learning” is present, the tendency toward segregation is still strong and manifests in schools in interesting ways, from de facto segregation, isolation, and in school achievement outcomes. Due to these contradictions, the overall messiness and the increasingly interconnected, yet disconnected social worlds of educators and students, educators need “to depict flux and process, ambiguity and complexity in their analyses of social worlds’ instead of trying to theorize activities in the context of isolated, static, homogenous units (Eriksen, 2002, p. 10 in O’Reilly, 2012). Althusser (1976) called for “theoreticism,” but encouraged the production and application of theory as part of the overall search for transformative knowledge. Perhaps this is where Foucault’s (1980) conceptualization of “regimes of truth” can come in handy. He questioned that which was upheld and perpetuated through the legitimization of certain types of knowledge(s) in a web of power relations in society. For Foucault, “power did not represent a static entity, but rather an active process constantly at work on our bodies, our relationships, our sexuality, as well as on the ways we construct knowledge and meaning in the world” (Darder, Baltodano, & Torres, 1997, p. 7). This may not represent domination, after all, “the trope of the imperial eye” (Hulme, 1995, p. 49) confidently insists on scientific proof to counter that which cannot be seen, but through linguistic-historical-philosophical genealogies, scholars like Povinelli (2005) are revealing how concepts like freedom are conceptualized and even “irretrievably, interwoven with myth of individual autonomy that has only been intensified by neoliberalism and (neo)imperialism” (p. 149). Her inquiry suggests that colonized subjects have been required to survive socially by performing their own distance from a metropolitan ideal of individual autonomy, that is, by claiming group identities based on ethnic or racialized forms of collectivity (Loomba et al., 2005, p. 17). Using the “language of critique,” how can educators examine the various ways in which schools and classrooms too often function as modes of social,

56  Intercultural education

political, and cultural reproduction? (Giroux, 2011). Thus, functioning as spaces where too often the same subjugation that occurs in society gets reproduced in the classroom? In writing about the important contributions to our ongoing understanding of how “culture deploys power and is shaped and organized within diverse systems of representation, production, consumption, and distribution,” Giroux (2004) comments that: … Important to such work is an ongoing critical analysis of how symbolic and institutional forms of culture and power are mutually entangled in constructing diverse identities, modes of political agency, and the social world itself. Within this approach, material relations of power and the production of social meaning do not cancel each other out but constitute the precondition for all meaningful practices. Culture is recognized as the social field where goods and social practices are not only produced, distributed, and consumed but also invested with various meanings and ideologies implicated in the generation of political effects. Culture is partly defined as a circuit of power, ideologies, and values in which diverse images and sounds are produced and circulated, identities are constructed, inhabited, and discarded, agency is manifested in both in individualized and social forms, and discourses are created, which make culture itself the object of inquiry and critical analyses. Rather than being viewed as a static force, the substance of culture and everyday life—knowledge, goods, social practices, and contexts—repeatedly mutates and is subject to ongoing changes and interpretations. (p. 59–60) The field of cultural studies has a lot to offer with respect to expanding “our theoretical understanding of the ideological, institutional, and performative workings of culture.” However, more is needed to “fully incorporate this understanding to the material practice needed for expanding the possibilities of a democratic politics, the dynamics of resistance, and the capacities for social agency” (Giroux, 2004, p. 60). Giroux (2004) also argues for a politicized notion of culture, in which “culture would be defined in terms of its functional relationship to the dominant social formations and power relations in society.” This implies the notion of class-specific cultures, rather than culture, although it is important to remember that, “Issues regarding gender and ethnicity, as well as the dynamics of nature, cannot be framed exclusively within class definitions.” But although “the link between power and culture cannot be reduced to a simple reflex of the logic of capital,” (p. 60) this link does lead directly to the concept of resistance as it relates to modes of radical pedagogy. Only when we envisage a better social order do we find the present one in many ways unendurable, and hence stir ourselves to repair it (Macrine, 2009). Critical theorists argue that despite the pervasive oppressive power operating in institutional structures, people can emancipate themselves through new discourses and practices (O’Meara & Stromquist, 2015). There are lessons to be

Talking back  57

learned from the field of cultural studies, migration studies and from the theoretical grounding of critical theory to directly apply to classroom spaces and connect theory to practice in order to materially change students’ lives. This requires an understanding that much of the suffering, much of the depravation experienced worldwide, is due to economic, political, and social injustices.

The promise of critical pedagogy Broadly conceptualized, critical pedagogy is an approach to thinking about, negotiating, and transforming the relationship among teaching, learning, the construction of knowledge(s), institutional structures, society, and the material relation of the wider community, society, and worldwide events (Breunig, 2005). It emerged out of the “building blocks” assembled by Horkheimer, Adorno, Marcuse, Fromm, and others from the Frankfurt School to provide “philosophical principles” that would become known as “critical pedagogy” which allow for a sustained critique and thus expansion of how these are employed (Darder, Baltodano & Torres, 1997, p. 9). In the 2nd edition of The Critical Pedagogy Reader, Darder, Baltodano, & Torres (1997), put forth an impressive corpus of writings that highlight the origins, movements, and turns of critical pedagogy. Although adequate coverage is beyond the scope of this work, the “philosophical principles” warrant attention as well as the “critiques” and the “future” directions. We believe these demonstrate the promise, tensions, and paths yet unexplored in a project connected by an insistence on exploring between human beings, schooling, and society (local and global): The editors highlight the following: Table 2  Critical pedagogy Philosophical principles

Critiques of critical pedagogy

The future of critical pedagogy

• Cultural politics • Political economy • Historicity of knowledge • Dialectical theory • Ideology and critique • Hegemony • Resistance and counter-hegemony • Praxis: the alliance of theory and practice • Dialogue and conscientization

• Feminist critiques • The language of critical Pedagogy • Critiques from the borderlands • The postmodern twist • The retreat from class • The ecological critique • Silencing of dissent

• Safeguard against reducing critical pedagogy to a teaching “method” • Continue the important work of learning to read the formal and informal power relationships within schools • Emancipatory efforts within school must be linked to collective efforts within and across communities • Greater solidarity among critical theorist and critical educators during perilous times • Refuse to accept conditions of suffering and alienation are “natural”

58  Intercultural education

After acknowledging some of the “critiques” and tensions, we opt to focus on what’s possible. We posit that now more than ever, critical pedagogy is needed in these “uncertain times,” where much “hope and possibilities” (Macrine, 2009, p. 6) is needed to bring about the “power of a humanizing dialogic practice” (Veloria & Boyes-Watson, 2014, p. 1). Perhaps no other person has popularized critical approaches to education as the inaugural philosopher (McLaren, 2009) of Paulo Freire who “without question is the most influential theorist of critical or liberatory education” (Weiler, 1994a, p. 13, in Leonardo, 2004). In his groundbreaking, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Freire (1970) put forth a vision of love, freedom, and compassion for humanity that recognized that people’s “oppression does not exist within a closed world from which there is no exit.” He insisted that precisely because oppression is an impermanent and changing historical reality constructed by human beings, that we as free subjects of history processed the possibility of transforming its configurations (Darder, 2011). According to McLaren (2009), in practice, critical pedagogical approaches vary, but share common themes and constructs that serve as a theoretical framing from which educators craft their practice with an eye toward critique, inclusion and expansion. Before presenting those, he posits that we: Are essentially unfree and inhabit a world rife with contradictions and asymmetries of power and privilege. The critical educator endorses theories that, first and foremost, are dialectical: that is, theories which recognize the problems in society are more than simply isolated events of individuals and deficiencies in the social structure. Rather, these problems form part of the interactive context between individual and society. The individual, a social actor, both creates and is created by the social universe of which he/she is part. Neither the individual nor society is given priority in analysis; the two are inextricably interwoven, so that reference to one must by implication mean reference to the other. (p. 3) With this opening, he highlights the importance of dialectical theory as with its insistence on teasing out histories, meanings/sense-making, and appearances, “tracing interactions from the context to the part, from the inward to the event” (p. 3). This approach explores possible contradictions and different forms of sense-making, based on who we are and who are students in relation to the world. In the teaching of history, for example, Freire (1970) posited that teachers have been traditionally trained to conceptualize history as frozen in time and thus fixed. This method of viewing and teaching history as static is that it does not account for the construction

Talking back  59

of knowledge within a socio historical context that takes into account that “who we are and how we come to know the world is profoundly influenced by the particular events that shape our understanding of the world at any given moment in time” (Darder, 2002, p. 62). This means that spaces must be provided whereby students are able to part of the rewriting of historical events as experienced by them often in silence and across different sites of struggle. According to McLaren (2009), Giroux recast classroom objectives into the categories of “macro” and “micro” where by drawing on a dialectical approach. The “macro” makes connections between the methods, content, and the significance of the larger social reality, while the “micro” represents the course content as characterized by the narrowness of purpose and content-bound inquiry. In this approach, “students uncover the connections between course objectives and the norms, values, and structural relationships of the wider society” (p. 62). This approach is not only dialectical but focuses on the social construction of knowledge(s). School knowledge, then, is value laden meant to generally serve dominant interests which under a technocratic approach to schooling gets privileged and rewarded. Educators, then, must be skeptical about what passes as legitimate knowledge and information since these are not objective and value-free (Adler & Goodman, 1986). This is what Giroux (1997) and others view as a problematic “relationship between ideology and schooling” where schools function as both “ideological and instructional sites” (p. 72). Thus, Giroux’s comments that: Gramsci’s notion that hegemony represents a pedagogical relationship through which the legitimacy of meaning and practice is struggled over makes it imperative that a theory of radical pedagogy take as its central task an analysis of both how hegemony functions in schools and how various forms of resistance and opposition either challenge or help to sustain it. (p. 77) Knowledge(s) is viewed as a socially constructed process deeply rooted in a nexus of power relations. Knowledge(s) is viewed as “a product of agreement or consent between individuals who live out particular social relations (e.g., class, ethnicity, race, sexual orientation, and gender) and who live in particular junctures in time” (p. 63). This requires attention to forms of knowledge(s), from “technical knowledge,” referring to knowledge that can be measured and quantified, “practical knowledge,” usually derived at by describing and analyzing social situations from a historical or development perspective or “emancipatory or distinctive knowledge,” which attempts to reconcile and transcend the opposition between technical

60  Intercultural education

and practical knowledge (McLaren, 2009, p. 64). More specifically, Giroux (1997) encourages a set of questions that explore some of the theoretical assumptions of critical pedagogy: (a) What counts as knowledge?; (b) How is knowledge produced and legitimized?; (c) Whose interest does this knowledge serve?; (d) Who has access to knowledge?; (e) How is this knowledge distributed within the classroom?; (f ) What kinds of social relationships within the classroom serve to parallel or reproduce the social relations of production in the wider society?; (g) How do the prevailing methods of evaluation serve to legitimize existing forms of knowledge?; and (h) What are the contradictions that exist between the ideology embodied in existing forms of knowledge and the objective social reality? (Breunig, 2005, p. 111). Certainly, these are contingent upon issues of class, culture (dominant culture, subordinate culture, or even subculture), cultural forms of being, and cultural capital (Bourdieu, 1986), all of which impact the classroom interactions, pedagogical choices, and a move towards praxis, defined by Freire (1970) as both action and reflection. Thus, praxis should start from an abstract idea or experience that intentionally incorporates reflection which can then be translated into action. It is meant to be an empowering process through which ongoing relationship-building can take pace enabling interrogation, and a space where critical dialogue can emerge as a final act of knowing does not exist due to the notion that knowledge has historicity and is therefore always in the process of reconstruction. This encourages collective empowerment which according to Freire (1970) is akin to a revolutionary practice of teaching that is deeply rooted in a political understanding of schooling as a permanent terrain of struggle, resistance, and transformation (Darder, 2011). This stance moves beyond methods and paying close attention to the curriculum (Weiler, 2001; Apple, 1995; and Giroux, 1988). Apple (1979, 1995) has written extensively about the “hidden curriculum” which consist of messages provided by school structures, instructional policies and textbooks, educators, other school resources, and other curriculum issues mainly with respect to “the ideological configurations of the dominant interest in society” (Apple, 1982, p. 12). In exploring the role of Children’s Literature on an Ideological Text, Taxel (1989) comments: Sociologist of school of knowledge have sought to understand how both the formal and hidden curricula of schools contribute to the reproduction of social order divided by race, class, and gender. Studies of textbooks (e.g., Anyon, 1979; Council on Interracial Books for Children, 1977), literature (e.g., Christian-Smith, 1984; Dixon, 1977a, 1977b; Taxel, 1981, 1984; Wald, 1981), other curriculum materials (e.g. Anyon, 1981; Everhart, 1983; Sharp & Green, 1975) have provided chilling evidence of the extent to which classroom are dominated by the world views and

Talking back  61

ideological perspectives of those occupying positions of socioeconomic and political preeminence in society. (p. 205) He cites Williams (1977) that refers to this as a “dominating set of perspectives” and world views as “selective tradition” and argues that this is an intentional transmission of the knowledge, history, and culture of only certain groups or classes from the larger universe of possible knowledge(s), histories and cultural perspectives (p. 205). What happens to the students who are left out of curricular materials and thus left out of the conversation? Can they make contributions to these conversations? Freire (1970) cautions against the “banking model” of education in which educators see themselves as the owners of knowledge and some students as empty vessels into which they deposit their knowledge or the school sectioned knowledge (Darder, 2002). In order to counter this, educational projects demand more than “hope and possibilities.” They demand pedagogical stances that are vigilant of existing macro structures, social inequalities, and a willingness to explore the myriad ways social actors experiences social worlds.

Conclusion Ideological debates that ultimately inform educational policies and f­rameworks seep into curricula under the guise of value-free directives, knowledge, and skills. Neoliberal policies arguing for the corporatization of knowledge, for example, are increasingly further marginalizing students and disempowering communities (Pulido et al., 2012). This is premised on the understanding that schools are not neutral spaces. As such, educators and scholars must be willing to engage the critical and ongoing task of unraveling how schools reproduce the logic of capital through the ideological and material forms of privilege and domination that structure the lives of students from various class, gender, racial, ethnic, and immigrant groups (Giroux & McLaren, 1989). Critical theory and critical pedagogical approaches allow for a deeper understanding of top-down directives that impact educational praxis in highly contextualized and contested spaces. Working against rigid structures, school actors can foster agentic and dialogic spaces that name and claim injustices while attending to different histories, lived experiences, and aspirations. What alliances might educators form with parents and community members to address the issues of policy formation and change as part of a wider educational and social-­political movement? (Giroux & McLaren, 1989). How might educators re-frame, re-imagine, and re-tool curricula in ways that attend to the macro, while focusing on the micro? (Pulido et al., 2012). Critical pedagogy is a way of thinking about, negotiating, and transforming the relationship among classroom teaching, the production of knowledge, the institutional structures of the school, and the social and

62  Intercultural education

material relation to society (Breunig, 2005). In the next chapter, we revisit data from an Italian case study to explore areas where educators attempted to do this in ways that are not always acknowledged and recognized. On the other hand, we also highlight missed opportunities and comment on the promise of critical pedagogy in helping school actors actively critique ideological blinders while exploring ways of integrating directives in an inclusive and equitable manner.

4 Intercultural education in Italian schools A case study

Introduction The European discourse on intercultural education is fully inscribed into Italian educational regulations, which place an intercultural perspective at its center and consider schools as the preferred spaces for the formation of intercultural competencies. In this chapter, we present a case study of Italian educators’ understanding and practice of intercultural education. We apply a critical lens to analyze how educators take up, or not, intercultural education in the classroom and school community at large. We also consider what scholars of interculturalism and multiculturalism have noted about the conceptual framework’s incongruities, tensions within the framework, and the lack of concreteness as we move forward with our analysis. For example, Meer and Modood (2016) underline that the argument for interculturalism in the European documents is very general and is not built on an empirical basis, something that even interculturalists can agree on (Cantle, 2015; Zapata-Barrero, 2015). Zapata-Barrero (2015) recognizes that an “empirical theory” does not exist that could aid in the implementation of intercultural policies. Cantle (2015) calls for theorization of already existing intercultural practices in order to gain a better understanding of praxis. This is imperative given that the processes of integration as well as the acquisition of intercultural competencies depends largely on the educational policies and practices implemented by the host countries (Crul, 2015; Crul, Schneider, & Lelie, 2012; Crul & Thomson, 2007; OECD, 2007; OECD-PISA, 2006) and as illustrated in the case study in some cases also largely influenced by school administration and school culture. In Italy, despite legislation geared towards intercultural education (Miur, 2007; 2014), differences exist between legislation, operational choices, implementation, and teachers’ perceptions of these. These variations often depend on the number of immigrants in any given territory, the value placed on diversity by the community, and local financial investments in any given region (Besozzi, Colombo & Santagati, 2009; Cesareo, 2015; Colombo & Santagati, 2014; 2017; Contini, 2017; Giovannini et al. 2002; Santerini, 2010). When addressing the questions of the discrepancies between the conceptualization

64  Intercultural education

and the implementation of interculturalism (Zapata-Barrero, 2015) and the necessity to develop the theorization of intercultural practices (Cantle, 2015), it is important to consider these issues in context. One of the principal tensions in the legislation is that on the one hand, it focuses on diversity and the development of respect for cultural difference and, on the other, a desire to promote social cohesion through citizen education and convergence towards shared values, these two being at odds with one another. Moreover, we note that while the goals of intercultural education seem ideal in that they espouse social harmony, peace, intergroup dialogue, these goals are related to governmentality, maintaining social order, and the status quo. They are not related to social change nor social justice or upsetting the social order in which the dominant social class maintains power. As discussed earlier in Chapter 2, nowhere in the documents that we reviewed, nor in the curricula we analyzed as part of the case study, were there discussions of injustice and systems of oppression, these being integral to any meaningful and transformative developments towards social justice both in schools and in society at large. Therefore, while intercultural education purports to serve an increasingly diverse European educational context, we question how it is supposed to support those students who are in minoritized and marginalized groups if it still functions to prioritize the unjust dominant social order. Lastly, pedagogically speaking, the documentation has yet to produce much to translate the theoretical model into pedagogy to be used in classrooms across countries. One of the most important “gaps” we identified is that there is an absence of criticality in the framework, which is entirely based on an ideology of culture, and does not introduce notions of power, privilege, race, and racism into its framework. We propose that if intercultural education is supposed to support social justice and social change as scholars sustain (Leclerq, 2002; Tiedt & Tiedt, 2010; Zembylas & Iasonos, 2010), then “valuing diversity” and “dialogue” are not sufficient. Rather, an examination of power dynamics and institutionalized social-political inequities must be discussed in schools. From a critical standpoint, our analysis also evaluates this dimension even though it is not explicit in European directives on education. In revisiting an Italian case study, we explore the myriad ways that educators conceptualized interculturalism. The goal is to move beyond rhetoric to demonstrate how educators interpret and conceptualize intercultural education, which practices and content they adopt, implementation issues, and the intercultural strategies identified by teachers.

Contextualizing the policy In Italy despite an emphasis on scholastic regulations of intercultural education (Miur, 2007; 2014) and a focus on the sociology of education and pedagogy relating to the concept of interculture (Besozzi, 2006; Besozzi, Colombo, & Santagati; Colombo & Santagati, 2014; 2017; Contini, 2012; 2017; Giovannini & Queirolo Palmas 2002; Santerini, 2010), discrepancies

Intercultural education in Italian schools  65

are still prevalent between legislation and implementation of educational intercultural practices. Following the European documents, the instructions and courses of actions contained in The Italian way for the intercultural school and the integration of foreign students (Miur, 2007) run a delicate balance between two goals: (1) Promotion of the capacity to value difference; and (2) The search for social cohesion (Miur, 2007). Intercultural strategies aim to foster debate, dialogue, and reciprocal transformation with the explicit primary goal of making coexistence possible. Intercultural education, then, is often understood as “education for diversity” and the capacity for decentralization, is aimed at promoting shared values. Therefore, the need to promote social cohesion becomes central to research, by the movement towards shared values and respect for the values and fundamental rights of the receiving society. Surrounding this central node, the document outlines Courses of Action which are best understood in the following three dimensions: 1. Actions for Integration: These are intended for students with non-Italian citizenship and their families. The aim is to guarantee all students the resources that provide the right to study and participation in scholastic life. For example, “Practices of welcoming and placement in schools, the acquisition of Italian as a second language, the valuing of multilingualism, relationships with foreign families, and of orientation are all attributes of this area” (Miur, 2007, p. 10). The teaching/acquisition of the language of instruction, as observed in the first and second chapters, is strongly supported in the Green Paper (Commission of the European Communities, 2008), which considers mastery of the instructive language to be an essential component for full participation in the economic, social, intellectual, artistic, and political life of the welcoming country, and is in line with the recent redirection of immigration politics towards civic integration. 2. Actions for Intercultural Interaction: These measures involve all of those in education and educational settings, Italian and non-Italian students, educators, family and community members, and stakeholders and allow all students to interact socially and interculturally, to increase intercultural knowledge and competence towards the goal of prejudice reduction and against discrimination. 3. Actors and Resources: The section relevant to actors and resources stipulates intervention measures that refer to organizational aspects, to the actors themselves, to the forms of collaboration between schools and local entities, leadership, scholastic autonomy, the networks between scholastic institutions and civil society, and to the training of teachers and other school personnel. These Courses of Action expressed in the document (Miur, 2007) relate to both the cognitive and relational domains of development. It is important to note that the goals of supporting “plural and shared citizenship,” and of

66  Intercultural education

social cohesion are somewhat in tension with one another, thereby leading to instructional and pedagogical ambiguity as teachers are left to grapple with the goals of “valuing diversity,” while at the same time “promoting shared values.”

Italian schools: A case study The qualitative case study we are presenting in this chapter was originally conducted by Contini during the academic year 2014–2015 and analyzed in the context of an intercultural education framework and practice by Contini (2017) and Contini and Pica-Smith (see Contini & Pica-Smith, 2018). It was designed to enable the documentation and interpretation of Italian educators’ notions and practice of an intercultural framework in order to: (1) Capture how educators make meaning of this educational philosophy and (2) To highlight how they transform their knowing and reflections into pedagogy and practice (praxis). It focused on the experiences of school directors and teachers in 19 institutions within the region of Abruzzo, Italy. Data were collected over the period of one academic year (2014–2015). The data sources focused on artifacts from 19 different schools (both primary and middle schools) involving 87 educators (68 teachers and 19 administrators) who participated in the study. Schools in Abruzzo provide an interesting context for study, which could provide significant contributions in the field of educational sociology regarding the methods of translation intercultural educations concepts into concrete practices. In fact, the schools in the area of Abruzzo have seen an increase in students with migrant backgrounds. Therefore, they find themselves in need of new educational strategies to confront the challenges tied to the transformation of social and school demographics, and to creative positive educational environments for the learning of all students. Within the region, the schools come from four provinces: Chieti (five schools), L’Aquila (four schools), Pescara (five schools), and Teramo (five schools). These provinces and the schools within them were purposefully sampled due to population and school demographics which include a high concentration of immigrants. As per national trends, during the academic year 2014–2015 demographic data reveal 7.2% of students (13,371) in Abruzzo are immigrant or second-generation non-Italians (9.4% in the province of Aquila, 8.8% in the province of Teramo, 5.8% in the province of Chieti, and 5.4% in the province of Pescara) (Miur-Ismu, 2016). The national background of the immigrant student population is Romania, Albania, Morocco, and China (Miur-Ismu 2016). All educators who participated in the study were seasoned veteran teachers with at least eight years of experience teaching in multi-ethnic classes with both Italian and immigrant students. We draw on the use of multiple data sources including qualitative surveys, document analyses, and ten focus groups with educators (both teachers and administrators). Our data sets include survey findings, educational curricula,

Intercultural education in Italian schools  67

policy and protocol documents regarding the welcoming of immigrant students, documentation that is exchanged between schools, and descriptions of projects and initiatives related to intercultural education. Specifically, the forty-two-question survey consisted of 14-items with closed answers and 28 open-ended questions. The ten focus groups were conducted with three to four teachers per group and took place in the schools in which the teachers taught. Each focus group interview lasted approximately 90 minutes. We employed a thematic analysis (Boyatsis, 1998). This allowed us to compare data in order to contribute to the validity of our interpretations (Boyatsis, 1998). Our analysis began with an identification of our data set from the larger data corpus, identifying data extracts, initial coding, collating codes into themes, constructing a thematic map, and undergoing a final analysis to link our themes to the research questions (Braun & Clarke, 2006). We wanted to code inductively yet we were influenced by our theoretical perspective. As a result, we used both inductive and deductive thematic analysis to interpret data (Fereday & Muir-Cochrane 2006). The most salient themes that emerged from our thematic analysis are: (1) Intercultural Perspectives, ways of knowing and cultural competencies; (2) Saliency of Language and Literacy; and (3) Welcoming Practices. In the following section, we foreground these in the backdrop of the rhetoric around intercultural education. We highlight educators’ sense-making to explicate some of the discontinuities and tensions we note between theory and practice. This discussing is in line with sociological theories of sense-making (Vaughan, 1996; Weick, 1995), whereby researchers argue that the way educators come to understand and enact instructional policy is influenced by prior knowledge, their social context, and their connections to the policy or reform effort (Coburn, 2001; Spillane et al., 2000a). This is something we noticed in the educators’ comments based on their personal background, subject matter, and context including the messages sent by administrators in specific schools. A growing body of research have highlighted the ways that educational policy is reconstructed and reshaped as it is put in place in schools and classrooms (Berman & McLaughlin, 1978; Tyack & Cuban, 1995; Weatherley & Lipsky, 1997). Due to the discontinuities noted in previous sections, our goal is to highlight some of the ways educators make meaning by drawing on prior and existing ways of knowing and embedding cultural competencies into existing working knowledge. We do this to demonstrate the creative ways that educators approach implementation issues based on their prior experiences, content they teach, and the messages they get from school administrators. According to Kennedy (1982), working knowledge is defined as the following: Working knowledge is the organized body of knowledge that [people] use spontaneously and routinely in the context of their work. It includes the entire array of beliefs, assumptions, interests, and experiences that influence the behavior of individuals at work. It also includes social science

68  Intercultural education

knowledge. The term working, as used here, has two meanings. First, it means that this is a special domain of knowledge that is relevant to one’s job. Second, it means that the knowledge itself is tentative, subject to change as the worker encounters new situations or new evidence. (p. 2)

Salient themes Theme 1: Intercultural perspectives: ways of knowing and cultural competencies The theme of ways of knowing and cultural competencies unfolded over four distinguishable dimensions that indicate “working knowledge” did in fact change and was different amongst the educators in our study. While the initial study did not delve into what could have precipitated the change, we surmise that issues pertaining to personal worldview, prior knowledge/ training, and social context may have all contributed to how educators constructed understanding and reconstructed policy messages in ways that either reinforced preexisting practices or led to new approaches (Coburn, 2001; Guthrie, 1990; Jennings, 1996; Shifter & Fosnot, 1993; Smith, 2000). The four dimensions are: 1. Abstract and generic: approaches grounded in broad universal statements. 2. Add-ons: approaches embedded with an “add-on” activity. 3. Hybrid practices: approaches beyond an “add-on,” infused with a dimension of dialogue and analysis. 4. Civic integration: approaches positioned under the large and ambiguous umbrella of interculturalism. As for dimension one, an example of abstract and generic practice came from the context of the teaching of Italian. Educators cited abstract and generic references that are carried out through a “focus on the internal details of different population’s literature” in order to understand, through the pages of modern and contemporary authors, stories that non-Italian students “can also emotionally relate to.” Teachers remarked on the idea that in their opinion, all school subjects contribute to interculture. For instance, in musical and artistic environments numerous projects and activities “equally engage all students.” In the disciplines of history and geography there is “ample space for approaches that are local and/or global.” In the teaching of history there is a focus on the connection with “geo-history, which values the relationship between Europe and the rest of the continents.” Also conceptualized is the idea that the history of every country is closely tied to the cultural contributions of many populations. In this context, scholastic disciplines—history, geography, literature, math, and others—are seen as occasions for diversity formation.

Intercultural education in Italian schools  69

Intercultural dialogue and democratic coexistence: the planning obligation within schools (Mpi, 1994, p. 5) underlines that the teaching of history can recognize the values of diverse cultures and overcome a rigid ethnocentric or Eurocentric nature by means of “an objective analysis of moments of harmony and collision between populations and civilizations.” History can confront the problems inherent in peaceful coexistence between populations, the questions of racism and the themes of migrations as reoccurring historical events. As such, one may notice that above may contribute to teachers’ abstract sense-making and the generic nature of their comments with respect to intercultural elements related to the classroom curriculum. They struggle to transform their goals into effective concrete practices. The descriptions cited above are quite general and not concrete. We wonder how much influence school leaders have in shaping what and how teacher implement ambiguous policy ideas (Coburn, 2005). For example, below is one such abstract message by as school administrator: Intercultural education is the background upon which educational pathways aimed at foreigners are developed, in the context of educational activities oriented towards all students. Our school strives, through the selection of adequate methodologies and their specific implementation, to ease the building of self-esteem, to empower abilities and autonomy, and to enable the educational success of all students. When asked to give an example of intercultural praxis, one middle school teacher noted, “Teachers’ lesson plans incorporate topics from the local as well as from the global perspective especially in subjects such as geography and history.” Another middle school teacher explained, “Cross-cultural themes, such as a human rights and environmental issues, are included in some subjects and contribute to the teaching of peace keeping, respect for cultural and linguistic diversity and stereotyping.” While another simply stated: If pluralism is a value of our democracy, then coexistence and exchange between difference represents an asset. In fact, within the Constitution, minorities have the right to be “different.” This principal applies to all citizens and those who are to become citizen. This may be a noble sentiment, but sense-making of instructional reforms is not solely an individual matter: it is influenced by patterns of social interactions which colleagues (Coburn, 2001; Hill, 2001; Spillane, 1999), the conditions for learning in the school (Coburn, 2001; Vaughan, 1996), and local workplace norms that shape the range of appropriate responses. For example, an educator commented that “The school appreciates the foreign student as a herald of new cultures and understanding, presenting opportunities for enrichment and discovery for the whole class.” This is highly problematic as it

70  Intercultural education

speaks to a larger context in which “foreign students” are viewed as the providers of “enrichment and discovery” for the dominant students. Indeed, this is exactly the unexamined power dynamic that must be uncovered, named, examined, dismantled. Without an explicit critical pedagogy, intentional de-colonization orientation, intercultural educators will cause harm in the name of a framework they imagine to be progressive. The second dimension we labeled as “add-ons,” meaning practices where a teacher, for example, added a fairy tale from one of the countries of origin of her/his students to the existing literacy curriculum, without much attention to transforming the entire curriculum in an intercultural nature. Essentially, an “add-on” does not necessarily incorporate new ways of knowing and understanding or embed multicultural curricula into the existing curriculum. An example of these practices is captured in the following: The school instated a linguistic and cultural diversity project entitled: “At school to listen, speak and …” In short, the organizers provided specific material (stories, poetry, films, music, etc.) relating to the home country of every foreign student in the school. The material was used in various classes to execute structured didactic activities, in favor of an improved cultural and linguistic integration. While these practices attempt to incorporate aspect of the student’s cultural background they fall short of impacting systemic change. We viewed these as “add-ons,” as they are often a one-off event in which many partake, but few share ownership to fully develop into a potentially meaningful and transformative practice. For example, “In occasions such as the Concert for Peace, which our school puts on every year in collaboration with various cultural associations and local institutions, foreign students have an active role that values their native culture.” These are viewed by teachers and principals as constituting intervention measures directed at all school actors, who are charged with finding collaborations between schools and local entities as a way of responding to the call for, “interventions relative to interactions both in and out of school, to address discrimination and prejudices, and intercultural perspective in outlook and proficiency are all attributes of this area” (Miur, 2007, p. 10). A more inclusive approach would include youth participatory action research (YPAR), service-learning, and community-action projects that enable students from diverse groups to increase their academic knowledge, political efficacy, and political participatory skills in ways that address their own lived experiences in and outside the classroom in order to collaboratively find ways to alleviate oppressive conditions (Camarotta & Fine, 2008; Mirra, Garcia, & Morell, 2016). The third dimension we labeled “hybrid’ was the closest attempt to intercultural education in that this approach expanded on the “add-on” approach by infusing dialogue and analysis. From our view, this comes closest to meeting the goals of intercultural education because of its emphasis on

Intercultural education in Italian schools  71

intercultural exchange. Regarding the teaching of Italian (as a subject) in primary schools, a teacher gave a more detailed example: “The teaching of tales and myths compares different cultures and traditions. In addition, we compare characters from different countries who express their way of thinking and living and tell their personal stories about integration.” It is important to note that the teacher above underlines the use of “personal” stories. This is important as it denotes her understanding that lived experience is an important dimension to bring into an intercultural classroom space. We understand this as her attempt to increase cultural competencies among her students toward the goal of prejudice reduction that Zapata-Barrero (2014) describes and is prominent in the The Italian Way (Miur, 2007). Another middles school teacher stated: “In middle-schools we study comparative literature that focuses on different cultural realities.” Again, here we stress the teacher’s use of “realities,’ in the plural. The teacher acknowledges and brings into the classroom the notion of different ways of being, of knowing, of experiencing the world, which is an important aspect of creating intercultural dialogue. Another primary school teacher gave the following example: “We compare the various religious festivities and traditions present in the school making posters which even new immigrants can understand.” Here, one may note an attempt to bring in different cultural traditions into the classroom to challenge a culturally homogeneous classroom space for young children. Some middle school teachers give other examples regarding the teaching of Italian with an intercultural perspective: In secondary schools we work on comparative literatures and focus on realities that are different than those in Italy. Teaching Italian allows for an approach regarding European and extra European cultures, especially through the study of grammatical structures and their deviation from other languages, entomological study, and selection of passages from anthologies. One can observe that, through teaching Italian, teachers look to raise awareness of “different ways of being, of understanding and of moving through the world,” into their classrooms, indispensable aspects for the creation of intercultural dialogue. It is no surprise that we would note this hybridity in the teaching of language as language instruction necessitates creative, engaging, imaginative pedagogy that centers on dialogue. In teaching a language, Maley’s (1997) work has emphasized a focus on creativity through the use of texts drawn from a variety of different literary and non-literary sources that can be used to elicit creative thinking and foster the ability to make connections. Researchers have identified a number of dimensions of creatives tasks: they are said to involve open-ended problem solving, to be adapted to the abilities of the participants, and to be carried out under constraints (Burton, 2010; Lubart 1994 in Richards, 2010). From our perspective, these

72  Intercultural education

creative tasks are the closest to critical approaches that focus on infusing dialogue and analysis from multiple standpoints in an attempt to include multiple perspectives. Finally, our fourth dimension represents other practices that may be better understood as “civic integration” and reflects the same ambiguities and tensions within the theoretical framework whereby civic integration is somehow positioned under the large and ambiguous umbrella of interculturalism. These practices are in line with the development of “active citizenship” and the move towards “social cohesion” enclosed both in the concept of interculture and variations of the intercultural framework in the educational environment (Commission of the European Communities, 2008; Council of Europe, 2008, 2014; Miur, 2007, 2014). These efforts can be read and interpreted as the connection between “interculturalism” and “civic integration.” For example, one middle school teacher stated: After having done projects regarding the Constitution and The Universal Declaration of Human Rights to promote a sense of citizenship, some school field trips to important institutional buildings such as Montecitorio [Parliament] and Palazzo Madama [Senate building] were organized. As one may note, this teacher’s practice introduced the Italian Constitution to Italian-born, “second-generation,” and immigrant youth in the context of human rights. This may be considered a practice of civic integration and one more in line with a neo-assimilationist framework. A critical approach to studying the Constitution might include an analysis of what rights native, second generation, residents, immigrants, and non-citizens have or do not have and how these realities affect the students within the classroom and in the community at large. Bringing an analysis of power and the status quo (a critical pedagogy approach to intergroup dialogue), and possibilities for social change within a discussion that includes the students’ lived experience to the classroom curriculum would be more in line with an education that promotes critical and systemic thinking towards social change. Research by Callahan and Muller (2013) indicates that the civic knowledge that students attain and the high levels of social connection within schools increases the civic efficacy and political participation of immigrant students (in Banks, 2017, p. 373). Therefore, a didactic lecture-based introduction to human rights and the Italian Constitution and visits to important Italian institutional buildings, instead, may be a practice more related to civic integration, which may potentially lead to what Banks (2017) calls “failed citizenship,” as it does not acknowledge the realities of the students but rather imposes a civics education without a critical conversation of power and exclusion inherent in a “human rights” and “Italian citizenship rights” conversation that excludes some of the students within the classroom itself. This is the process by which individuals from minoritized groups which have been denied access and inclusion by a nation-state become marginalized to the point where they do not internalize

Intercultural education in Italian schools  73

the values of the nation-state and thus become highly ambivalent towards it (Banks, 2017). Another teacher explicitly stated that the lessons on the Constitution and citizenship call for the study of important articles of the Italian Constitution, the right to an education, lessons on the legal system and detailed study of the formative history of the European Union, with a focus on European institutions and values: respect for human rights, liberty, and peace. The following examples, provided by a school principal and a teacher, clearly understand intercultural education as citizen formation for all students with the call for: Respect for the norms that allow coexistence in the receiving society, as well as those which are considered universal principles. The disciplines all point towards a common goal, which is to educate all Italian and non-Italian students as a process of educating citizens … This education applies to all, without exclusion … The world regulates itself on universal principles that apply to all men and women, in all their different ages and cultures. The intercultural dimension also appears during civic education lessons, during which it is possible to steer the citizen-student towards the reading and analysis of the most important constitutional articles. Reading various articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, together with the declaration of the rights of the child and adolescent deepens an understanding, for Italian and non-Italian students of the importance of the basic rules of civil coexistence as a necessity for universal respect. Critical scholars point to the need for “participatory citizenship socialization” a process whereby individuals internalize basic values and symbols by way of inclusion, affirmed identities. They claim that “citizenship socialization” fails and is unsuccessful when individuals feel structurally excluded and thus develop ambivalence to civically oriented lessons (Banks, 2017, p. 370). In the absence of critical conversation with respect to immigrant students’ political efficacy, their marginalization that occurs both in and outside of school, cultural alienation, and even dehumanizing assimilations practices or what Spring (2004a) calls “deculturalization,” we ask: how can lessons centered on human rights, liberty, and values really be taught? For example, another teacher, decidedly in agreement with the indications of European documents and Italian scholastic regulations, explicitly connects intercultural education with the development of social cohesion: “Teaching materials favor social cohesion, developing a vision of citizenship in line with constitutional values and charters of international rights.” This vision lacks criticality as it does not account for issues of power and structural barriers embedded in practices aimed at “social cohesion.” For example, Marxist-inspired critical social theory calls attention to the notion that capitalist leanings tend to alienate individuals and groups from their labor or productive powers, which represents

74  Intercultural education

the core of their humanity. Critical approaches in the classroom, then, would expose students to the concept of ideology critique, or examine the ways that capitalist tendencies discourage, at the structural level, a materialist analysis of social life (Leonardo, 2004). Another factor to consider is that racial, cultural, linguistic, and religious groups usually have identities with the nation-state; their identities are complex and multidimensional because they have strong identities with their cultural communities and sometimes with their original homelands (Banks, 2017). These tensions and complexities need be critically and dialogically explored to reach greater levels of overall understanding. This entails explicitly engaging in discourses that pose critical questions informed by perspectives on students’ social experiences, multiple perspective, and educators’ stance and willingness to problematize issues and not wait to address and engage difficult and complex issues before mounting and sustaining a critique (Leonardo, 2004). Theme 2: Saliency of language and literacy The states in the European Union have understood the central nature of the language question and have adopted specific measures aimed at favoring linguistic competence, such as intensive courses for new arrivals, evaluations of linguistic competences, Pre-K preparation, and teacher training. Italian schools, as a result, have identified models of intervention and put inclusive strategies in action. Scholastic institutions have created ItaL2 workshops for newly arrived students, taking advantage of teachers familiar with ItaL2 pedagogical practices and/or external linguistic mediators from collaboration with local entities or initiatives financed by the European Social Fund (FSE). Less common is the use of tools to determine differing competence levels in the Italian language (ItalBase) and Italian language study (ItalStudio), which keep tabs on the common European standard for languages. This practice could be useful for planning interventions aimed at the training of teachers. The valuing of linguistic and cultural diversity, and the right to the conservation of the mother tongue constitutes another dimension of intercultural education present both in European documents and in Italian school regulations. The European Commission underlines that linguistic, cultural, or religious diversity can contribute to European integration and intercultural dialogue (European Commission, 2008). Linguistic diversity is considered fundamental, seeing as even just a feeling of communal belonging based on the recognition of diversity can act as an antidote against the denigrations linked to fanatical identity affirmations. The document by the European Commission asks the European Union to promote the proposal for a personal chosen language, by which each citizen should be encouraged to choose a language of their own (European Commission, 2008). Nevertheless, beyond the declarations, the affirmation of full respect for the language and culture of migrants (Council of the European Union, 2004)

Intercultural education in Italian schools  75

exhibits a formula of compromise, in which “full respect” is not supported by the state through pointed interventions but left to the discretion of each individual. In the European sphere, reduced emphasis placed on cultural recognition inserts itself in a context of reorientation of migrant policies towards civic integration. In Italy as well, of the affirmations present in the ministry document (Miur, 2007) on the value of linguistic and cultural diversity for the goals of intercultural education, there is not a real institutional commitment towards the protection and support of the language, culture, and lifestyles of immigrants. In our research in schools we found two dimensions to the theme surrounding the saliency of language and literacy: 1) Linguistic and Cultural Diversity in Classroom Spaces, and 2) Learning the Language of Instruction. In light of the European guidelines on intercultural education and language, this is not surprising. This reflects the many facets of Intercultural education and various instances comparable in the discourse on language acquisition, exhibited in European documents (Council of Europe, 2008; Commission of the European Communities, 2008; European Commission, 2008), and Italian scholastic norms (Miur, 2007; 2014). The Green Paper (Commission of the European Communities, 2008) accents two goals of language instruction, which are in tension with one another. On the one hand, it affirms the preservation of the heritage language as a way of respecting diversity, and, on the other hand, it underscores the importance of language immersion into the host nation’s language as a means towards integration and social cohesion. Linguistic and cultural diversity in classroom spaces Studies on multilingualism have shown that strengthening of the mother tongue helps learning a second language and, therefore, aids academic success (Cummins, 2000; Gaudet & Clément, 2005; Portes & Hao, 2002; Zhou, 1997). Despite this knowledge, the teaching of multilingualism and the preservation of students’ mother tongue, are not effectively implemented in schools. This is in line with a decreased emphasis on its importance, which can be observed in the document from the Council of European Union (2004), which purports to support “full respect for the immigrants and their descendants” own language and culture (Council of the European Union, 2004, p. 20), but that does not go beyond this position in that it leaves its interpretation and implementation to the discretion of individuals and not as purview of the state. In other words, this respect for the heritage language is not protected by the state but merely encouraged. This de facto decreased emphasis on the heritage language’s importance denotes a significant reorientation of European states towards immigrant integration policies. This is in contrast to previous programmatic statements by European states, which were much louder in affirming the integrity of immigrant cultures and way of life. In fact, some states, most notably Sweden and the Netherlands, went even further in protecting and supporting them institutionally ( Joppke, 2007).

76  Intercultural education

As per the teachers’ narratives, this lack of support for students’ native language of instruction is due to funding constraints and because there are not enough language courses in the schools. In the few cases in which language courses are offered, their creation is ceded to local associations which deal with hospitality or to church centers and the activities that take place outside of school, as evidenced by the narratives of some primary school teachers: “Schools don’t organize mother tongue language courses. Multilingualism is fostered by the immigrant communities or by local institutions.” Despite the lack of funding and available language courses, teachers report that they attempt to create a multilingual environment as best they can. For example, one primary school teacher noted: The teachers try to promote the cultural and linguistic diversity that is present in the classroom through the teaching of stories and tales from different cultural backgrounds … posters with the translation of names, objects, greetings … the different traditions of the immigrant students’ countries, and the appreciation of different food from around the world. Another teacher added: “We promote cultural and linguistic diversity in the classroom by making iconographic posters regarding the immigrant students’ countries.” In the absence of institutional support, teachers are trying to foster language diversity, supporting students’ native language, and a multilingual classroom language environment to the best of their abilities. While this is an important step it stays at the individual level thus not creating the systemic commitment needed to sustain these practices. Learning language of instruction The teaching and learning of the language of instruction, is another practice which cannot be considered as intercultural but is an integration measure, which can be included in civic integration policies (Ambrosini, 2014; 2016; Joppke, 2007). Following the current Council of Europe guidelines which affirm the importance of the acquisition of the host language as an essential part of integration (Council of Europe, 2008; 2014; European Council & Commission, 2008; Nesse Network, 2008), Italians schools, in line with other European Union members (Eurydice, 2004; 2009), have implemented specific measures for teaching the language of instruction even though their resources are limited. Teachers in our sample highlighted teaching and learning L2 was an important pedagogy to adequately serve the immigrant student population and expanded on the strategies used to teach Italian: “To intensify the effectiveness of the didactic interventions the work groups are differentiated according to their level of linguistic competence.” Some schools also utilize educational strategies, such as cooperative learning and peer education. In order to create

Intercultural education in Italian schools  77

ItaL2 workshops schools generally draw on funding from the Scholastic Regional Office (USR) reserved for “at risk” and migrant heavy areas. While important, language acquisition of the host country is considered a “civic integration” policy, yet it also falls within intercultural practice, demonstrating the erroneous conceptualization of what constitutes intercultural education. Intercultural practices, instead, should concern all students alike and encompass social interaction and the development of cultural exchanges to stimulate critical thinking in order to decrease prejudice (Miur, 2007). At the same time, it is important to remember that language acquisition, as educators rightfully note, has an impact on students’ capacity to engage in the sociocultural and academic life of the school community, making language acquisition foundational. Theme 3: Welcoming practices The customs surrounding reception and school-family relations are considered crucial for integration as they establish the foundation for a positive scholastic journey. From the start, Italian schools have avoided creating separate learning environments for foreign students. This choice exhibits a concrete application of the principle of universalism (Besozzi, 2001; 2008). Italian regulations (Miur, 2007; 2014) suggest an equal distribution of enrollment, through an agreement between school networks and collaboration with local entities. Presently, however, the phenomenon of foreign student concentration is verified in various contexts and levels of school, bringing into discussion the principle of universalism. The construction of networks and coordination directives, useful for creating scholastic offerings that reduce the risk of social exclusion is still a goal to reach, or rather a consolidated and widespread approach which manages the excessive concentration of foreign students (Santagati, 2009). Regarding practices of scholastic placement, the norms which regulate registration and the methods of insertion—DPR n. 394/1999, C.M. n. 24/2006, C.M. n. 93/2006—affirm that the registration of foreign minors in Italian schools of all types can be requested at any point in the scholastic year, and these minors are to be registered in the classes corresponding to their age, except in cases where teachers determine registration in a different class. Welcoming practices support the positive interaction between children thus enhancing social-emotional development of young people as per The Italian Way (Miur, 2007). These practices were especially salient in primary schools where teachers pay close attention to a welcoming classroom environment and creating a classroom community. Italian educators interviewed believe that a welcoming program is an essential procedure in every school which receives migrant students. Italian schools are oriented toward the inclusion of immigrant and Italian students alike into the same classroom, which is not a consistent practice across all of the European countries (Allemann-Ghionda, 2008; Eurydice, 2009). Most of the educators who were interviewed indicated

78  Intercultural education

welcoming practices as essential procedures for the effective socialization of migrant children in schools. They believe that welcoming practices allow immigrant students to overcome the initial difficulties that they face and help achieve better academic results. Furthermore, they believe the practice of placing immigrant and Italian students in the same classrooms accelerates the socialization process, reduces the stigma of students feeling “different” and, at the same time, helps migrant students learn Italian faster. As one may note, this important dimension of social development is in line with the imperative in intercultural education to reduce prejudice, deconstruct stereotypes, and create social exchange (Council of Europe, 2014a; Miur, 2007; Zapata-Barrero, 2015). Results from the interviews and the focus groups also revealed that in most schools the following communication strategies are implemented and are essential components of welcoming practices: welcoming guidelines and welcoming committees that are reviewed and revised frequently; multilingual application forms to facilitate communication between the schools and the immigrant families; and information about the educational system available in different languages. Many schools have welcoming committees composed of teachers, who have experience in dealing with migrant students and who are able to explain the school’s curriculum and its objectives to the immigrant families. These committees also gather information about the families and assess the students’ academic levels in order to place them in the appropriate classes. One teacher provided some examples on the practices she implemented in her classroom: I encourage the children to welcome the new student who arrives in class; we create posters with welcoming phrases in the student’s language of origin. I also create lessons about the student’s country utilizing maps and themed lessons to familiarize all the class with the new student’s cultural background. Another teacher indicated that Peer Tutoring was a new praxis and as part of his welcoming program, he selects peer tutors to help new migrant students settle in: “Peer tutoring helps immigrant students learn about school times, planning, activities, and the school environment. This facilitates the organization of school life.” Regarding care given to multilingual communication for immigrant families, many schools have created a repertory of multilingual announcements. One can also note how policies that respect numerical age are also very common: “For integration during the middle of the school year, after evaluating linguistic capacities, schools generally assign the student privileging their numerical age.” Another practice found in the analyzed schools is the joint nature of educational choices and methods of implementation aimed towards the integration of migrant students. The comprehensive institutes generally share criteria and methodologies through department activities and

Intercultural education in Italian schools  79

teacher conferences, during which teachers from all levels of school meet and discuss issues to confront and shared methodologies to adopt. What is still not consolidated amongst schools, however, is the method of working in networks, that in the document The Italian Way (Miur, 2007) is identified as a useful means of sharing practices, organizational methods, and forms of inter-institutional collaboration, even if schools generically declare an openness towards the ethnicities and associations of the area. Also limited are the methods of trading “promising practices”: methods, didactic materials, and experimental proposals within schools. Few and far between are schools that have implemented networks on a national or local level with other educational institutions for the exchange of educational practices, for the implementation of projects, and the training of teachers. Thus, teachers noted the importance of practices for welcoming immigrant students and creating an environment conducive to positive socialization and learning, which is essential to intercultural dialogue and education. However, while necessary to promote future intercultural relations, welcoming practices such as welcoming guidelines, welcoming committees, and multilingual school application forms, are integrational practices that aim to respond to the specific needs of newly arrived students, not intercultural pedagogy per se, or instructional practices that teachers use within the classroom that “transform” the curriculum nor involve the entire school community. In this light, welcoming practices are similar to “add-ons,” in that they are necessary and a crucial step to forming a foundation whereby new practices can be built upon in order to transform educational structures, but along do not lead to transformation or transcendence as a process and not a description of a state of affairs (Leonardo, 2004).

Conclusion In this chapter, we revisited an Italian case study to highlight the varied ways that educators make sense of the intercultural education framework in their practice as informed by their prior knowledge, academic discipline (content area), and school administrators’ rendering of policy directives. In particular, the analysis centers on the “courses of action for intercultural schooling and for the integration of foreign students,” as expressed in The Italian Way (Miur, 2007), which we problematize due to the tension between the two objectives included in the concept of intercultural education: developed capacity for dialogue regarding diversity and the search for social cohesion by means of convergence on common values and respect for the fundamental rights of the receiving country. Based on the narratives of educators we noted how they struggled to make sense of the directives “in search of shared criteria for experiencing reality” (Miur, 2007, p. 17) and lack of criticality, thus resulting in varied pedagogical implementations that often fell short with the exception of “hybrid” practices which we comment came closest to a critical and transformative approach.

80  Intercultural education

Regarding actions for integration—practices of reception and linguistic support aimed at students without Italian citizenship and their families—­ Italian schools orient themselves, as from the beginning, towards the insertion of foreign students in “normal schools,” recognizing the positive function that comes from the socialization between peers and confrontation with diversity (Giovannini & Queirolo Palmas, 2002). Finally, in line with European linguistic orientations, the ministry document names teaching of Italian as a second language an essential component of the process of integration, a basic requirement for scholastic success, and the full participation in scholastic and extra scholastic life. Acknowledging these aspects, the majority of institutional interventions concentrate on linguistic literacy. On the contrary, regard for multilingualism and the conservation of the mother tongue remain, essentially, solely on the level of good intentions, which is a good start, but inadequate. As evident in the educators’ sense-making, intercultural education is conceived both as interdisciplinary-through the teaching of school subjects— and as a specific curricular space characterized as education for citizenship. In this section, we highlighted the need for more inclusive and transformative notion of citizenship and civic education by drawing on the works of Banks (2017) and others who claim that “transformative citizen” share characteristics with “social-justice citizen” as described by Westheimer and Kahne (2004) who “critically assesses social, political and economic structures to see beyond surface causes” and “seeks out and addresses areas of injustice” (Banks, 2017, p. 240). We see these practices as crucial in the school’s role and responsibility of “citizenship socialization” in order to avoid “failed citizenship,” which exist when individuals or groups do not internalize the values and ethos of the nation-state, feel structurally exclude it within it, and develop high levels of ambivalence (Banks, 2017). However, this level of socialization cannot effectively happen until school actors recognize and acknowledge structural barriers enhanced by the effects of colonialism and the endurance permanence of race. In the next chapter, we enter this hard, but important, conversation to discuss the stubborn permeability of race, its effects on immigrant students and families, and explore ways in which educators can courageously engage in critical dialogue with and alongside one another for the better of society.

Part II

Theory in practice “Us and them,” intergroup friendships, intergroup dialogue, and the promise of social justice education

5 “Us and them,” the social construction of race, intersectionality, and the importance of discussing race

Introduction Critical stances require that scholars and educators wrestle with the thorny issue of race. This requires interrogation, exploration, and critical discussions beyond tools and methods of instructions. We believe that scholars and educators need to carve out spaces to not only construct their knowledge of practice, particularly in the contexts of instructional directives, but to expand on their understandings of the social construction of difference and race (Smith-Maddox & Solórzano, 2002). Race scholars caution against colorblind ideologies that can lead to what King (1991) calls dysconscious racism, “an uncritical habit of mind that justifies inequity and exploration by accepting the existing order of things as a given” (p. 135). The reality is that contemporary racism, inextricably linked to capitalism, and existing largely in the form of neoliberal denial, disregards how historical and contemporary private control of resources generated maintains racial inequality (Goldberg, 2009 in Weiner, 2018). Earlier we highlighted that creating multi-ethnic diverse classroom spaces demands a balancing act that involves the logistics of welcoming practice, setting up the language environment, creating systems of support, and inclusive curricula, all while attending to the sociopolitical context of schooling. Such contexts include disparaging messages about difference and race or “race talk” that refers to peculiar linguistic manners and rhetorical strategies, linked to technical and powerful tools that allow users to articulate frames and story lines (Bonilla-Silva, 2003a, p. 53). If left unchallenged, these storylines, or what critical race scholars call “master narratives,” enter classroom spaces where educators may or may not be prepared to engage them in a critical manner that can potentially lead to transformative conversations around difference, race, culture, power, and injustice. We enter this dilemma by providing an example of how every day “race talk,” or “master narratives,” are imbued with racist ideology that is highly problematic given the links to privilege, power, and dominance; not to mention centuries of exploitation, colonialism, and racially subordinating policies (Weiner, 2018). We contend that “race still matters” and explore historical legacies and their stubborn hold on the present by focusing on the effects of racism

84  Theory in practice

on immigrant students and families to address how discriminatory and exclusionary practices materially impact their lives (Araújo & Maeso 2012a, 2012b; Frijhoff, 2010; Van Dijk, 1992, 1993; Van Der Leeuw-Roord, 2009; Willinsky, 1998). Finally, we put forth a set of critical questions to begin exploring self as a precursor to engaging in the critical work of exploring issue of race, prejudice, and racism in schools.

Every day “race talk” In 2013, Italian Sen. Roberto Calderoli, a member of the anti-­immigration Northern League party, likened newly minted Minister for Integration, Dr. Cecile Kyenge, to an orangutan during a political rally when he stated: “I love animals, bears and wolves, as everyone knows, but when I see the pictures of Kyenge, I cannot but think of, even if I’m not saying she is one, the features of an orangutan” (Yan, Russell & Milanova, 2013). Dr. Kyenge who was born in the Democratic Republic of Congo, moved to Italy in the 1980s to study medicine, and became an Italian citizen. After his comments were published in the press, he apologized by saying, “If I’ve offended her, I apologize.” He claimed, “It was a joke, a comment in joking way. There was nothing particularly against her.” He said, “It was just my impression … It is all very well that she be a minister but in her own country. Given that this government needs to govern Italy, I hope that it is done by Italians.” (Yan, Russell & Milanova, 2013, p. 1). Polarizing discourses of “us” and “them” prevails as racial Europeanization is accomplished through the social forgetting of slavery and colonialism, and ­ ondius, beliefs that their society is tolerant and racism-free (Brown, 2012; H 2009; Nimako, 2012; Nimako & Small, 2012). What emerges is “new racism,” based on perceived cultural differences, which blames minorities, particularly their cultures, for their inability to assimilate, and cosigns them to perpetual outsider status (Balibar, 1991; Bonilla-Silva, 2013a; De Leeuw and van Wichelen, 2012; Mielants, 2009; Van Dijk, 1993). We maintain that “outsider status” is imposed and maintained across institutional structures with schools playing a major role in supporting continuity of thought, morals, values, and other tenets the culture considers important. Viewed as a vehicle for the transmission of culture, schools are used for hegemonic purposes in their teaching of cultural, economic, and political values, as well as dispositions that are supposedly “shared by all” (Apple, 1979). Do these current events enter the discourse of schooling and if so, are the taken up by all in the same way? How are immigrant students included or excluded from the everyday business of education? We wonder how many students laughed at Senator Calderoli’s joke. There is a school of thought that posits “who” laughs at ethnic and racial jokes usually depends on “who” is telling them (Gandy, Jr., 1998; Willis, 2005). Who told the joke and who laughed? How is power and dominance implicit in this scenario? Humor is often used to represent social inclusion or exclusion. This is done through stereotypical and inferiorizing language used in combination

“Us and them”  85

to either form acceptable inclusive images or to depict exclusion achieved through images, removal, violence, or even death (Gandy, Jr., 1998). Not surprisingly, Calderoli’s apology was quickly followed by a pronouncement that the act of governing should be “done by Italians.” Thus, evoking language of authenticity and legitimacy (e.g. who truly belongs and is therefore legitimate to govern). Authenticity, for example, is often invoked to justify the choice of a particular language norm or efforts to “purify” a given variety and exclude outside influences, etc. As such, it forms part of the rhetoric that sustains gate-keeping ideologies. These are related to rights, and links naturally issues of belonging to those in power. This type of rhetoric readily becomes a focus for conflict between politicians, linguists, media commentators, and various interest groups. Claims of authenticity are often made strategically to validate ideological positions (Gill, 2007). Following this logic, the “joke” then was ideological and racial in nature and thus connected to “meaning in the service of power,” serving as “expressions at the symbolic level of the fact dominance” (Bonilla-Silva, 2003a, p. 25). Ideology can be conceptualized as a set of beliefs that impact our daily lives by possessing the power to control non-dominant peoples. According to Eagleton (1991), ideology is composed of “ideas and beliefs which help to legitimate the interests of a ruling group or class specifically by distortion and dissimulation” (p. 30). Drawing on the work of Van Dijk (1999), Bonilla-Silva et al.,(2003 a,b & 2004) specifically define racial ideology as the broad racial frameworks, or “grids,” that racial groups use to make sense of the world, to decide what is right or wrong, true or false, important or unimportant. Given that all societies are structured in dominance, the frameworks of the rulers (whether men, the bourgeoisie, or whites) are more likely to crystallize these ideologies as “common sense” stock stories and narratives (2003a, p. 556). In this vein, what other ideological formations are embedded in the “joke” that can be taken as “common sense,” potentially reinforcing authenticity, difference, power, and “othering?” Are these “common sense” rationales tied to nativist discourses that ultimately question who belongs and who does not? What role does race play in these preoccupations? While fear, hatred, and feelings of inferiority are attitudes; they are also instrumental in promoting and maintaining racist beliefs and discriminatory practices. They are inventions often used as linguistic conventions to propagate ideas that stigmatize some group as inferior so that the exploitation of the group itself, its resources, or both may be justified (Cox, 1948, p. 49, in Trimble, 1988, p. 181). Following this line of thinking, these ideas become highly institutionalized and normalized to the point that the dominant group intentionally searches for differences among out-group members to justify racism and discrimination; to the point where the difference actually become factual and immutable despite the fact that the scientific community has been unable to link physical differences persuasively to difference in ability, intelligence, or very much anything else (Marx & Engels, 1970).

86  Theory in practice

Race and racism: Social constructions with real-life consequences Despite the preponderance of evidence debunking the biological basis for the conception of distinct human races, race still wields monumental power. As Cornel West (1993) has proclaimed, “race still matters.” So much that “In many societies, the idea of biologically distinct races remains a fixture in the popular mind, a basis of social action, a foundation of government policy, and often a justification for the distinctive treatment of one group by another” (Cornell & Hartmann, 2007, p. 24). How is such a system maintained and reinforced locally and worldwide? How does this system lead to mechanisms of hierarchical differentiation that shape the ordering of social relations as well as the allocation of life experiences and life chances (Zuberi, 2001a)? Many scholars, spanning the fields of genetics, law, social sciences, and humanities wrestle with the complex and often contested meanings of race (Bobo & Fox, 2003). Adding to the complexity, tension, and contestation is the conflation of race and ethnicity. As a matter of fact, Cornell and Hartmann (2007) contend that the two terms are not interchangeable as they refer to “distinct sets of phenomena that at times overlap” (p. 15). This is what makes distinguishing between the two very difficult. However, attempts to define the terms, their historical conceptualization and their shifts over time warrant attention in order to understand issues of racism, othering, maintaining group boundaries, systems of racial inequality, supporting ideologies, attending to patterns of intergroup behavior ( Jackman, 1994; Lamont, 2000), and psychosocial dimensions (Bobo & Fox, 2003). While it is widely accepted that race is a social construction tied to a sociocultural project (Nieto, 2010) (cultural, historical, economic and political), many argue that it still features prominently in everyday life. It is worth interrogating “what is race” in order to proceed critically as opposed to commonsensically when examining race relations in context (Leonardo, 2009, p. 62). As a historical project, Cornell and Hartmann (2007) assert that: It emerged originally in the extended encounter between European and non-European peoples that began in the late 15th and early 16th centuries. Discovering human beings in Asia, Africa, and the Americas who looked – and often acted – very different from themselves, Europeans drew upon the Spanish concept of “purity of blood,” which sanctioned discrimination against converted Jews and concluded that often, superficial differences surely indicated more fundamental differences as well (Fredrickson, 2002). This conclusion, which asserted their own inherent superiority, helped them justify their efforts to colonize, enslave, and sometimes exterminate many of the peoples they encountered. Europeans came to believe that races are, in fact, distinct and identifiable human (and some of them in the extreme version, nonhuman) groups; that there

“Us and them”  87

are systematic, inherited, biological differences among races; and that non-White races are innately inferior to Whites – that is, to Europeans. (p. 23) Thus, progressive analysis of race formations and relations allows scholars and educators to explain that the concept of race is traceable to the beginning of European colonization and capitalist expansion. Racial formation theory (Omi & Winant, 1994) provides the best guide to understanding contemporary racial politics. Through this lens, we can explain the unfolding legacy of race as a sociocultural project premised on the notion that race, a fundamental organizing principle of society, is constantly shifting, and therefore contested through racial projects at all levels. In order to understand race in context it is imperative that we understand the process by which race is defined categorically given that changes in definition shift the racial terrain, guiding political interpretations of the world, and shaping political possibilities in the process ( Jacobson, 2008). This includes the structural and historical contexts, contexts in which racial attitudes are enmeshed withe the macrosocial processes that shape approaches to race (Winant, 2001, p. 18–22). What is Dr. Kyenge race in the Italian context? How is her racial makeup defined and interpreted? Does this have material impact on her political career? Racial projects are always embedded within history, within the racial terrain from which they emerge, and from within political sites of struggle ( Jacobson, 2008). Racism, even when embedded in political discourse, “creates or reproduces hierarchical social structures based on essentialized racial categories” (Winant, 2001, p. 19), but race is not a static tool that can simply be used by politicians to elicit fear and mistrust to advance a specific political agenda (Mendelber, 2001). It is important that we understand this and resist the attempt to buy into a predestined notion or race in order to form broad coalitions and mobilize against policies and ideas premised on racist ideologies ( Jacobson, 2008). As a matter of fact, Leonardo (2009) posits that a non-reductionist reading of Marx provides the best insight for analyzing the material basis of race, racism, and ethnocentrism; after all, “Bodies are not just material deposits of class relations; they are also racialized bodies.” In educational contexts, he argues that “By marrying Marxist objectivism with race critique, insurgent scholars and educators provide a language of critique that locates, rather than obscures, the beneficiaries of inequality in all of its forms” (pp. 52–57). A race critique is crucial, as stated earlier, in an effort to override race; sometimes race is conflated with ethnicity, class or even nationality (Omi & Winant, 1994). This is not a complete stretch given that the world “ethnic” derives from the Greek word “ethnos,” meaning “nation,” even though the ties are not political, but rather relating to common blood or descent instead. Historically, despite worldwide varying beliefs and disagreements, the usage of the word has meant boundaries between “others” and “us.” Overtime, however, the word is referred to “a particular way of defining not only others but also ourselves,”

88  Theory in practice

and this is how it entered the field of sociology. Sociologist Max Weber (1968) devoted a chapter to the topic in Economy and Society in which he said: We shall call ‘ethnic groups’ those human groups that entertain a subject belief in their common descent because of similarities of physical type or of customs or both, or because of memories of colonization and migration. (p. 389) He asserted that ethnic groups were künstlich (artificial, i.e. a social construct) for three reasons. Firstly, they were based on a subjective believe in shared Gemeinschaft (community). Secondly, this belief in shared Gemeinschaft did not create the group; rather, the group created the belief. Thirdly, group formation resulted from the drive to monopolize power and status (“Ethnicity,” 2017). Weber’s definition was central to subsequent definitions of ethnicity (e.g., Alba, 1990; Connor, 1978/1993; Horowitz, 1986; Schermerhorn, 1978; Shibutani & Kwan, 1965), however, in educational practice, his definition came to equate ethnicity with shared culture as groups became a “group of persons distinguished largely by common culture, typically including language, religion, or other patterns of behavior and belief ” (Cornell & ­Hartmann, 2007, p. 17). Many approaches have been used by different social scientists to attempt to understand the nature of ethnicity. These approaches include primordialism, perennialism, constructivism, modernism, and circumstantialism or instrumentalism. 1. Primordialism holds that ethnicity has existed at all times of human history and that modern ethnic groups have historical roots far into the past. According to this framework, the idea of ethnicity is closely linked to the idea of nations and is rooted in the pre-Weber understanding of humanity as being divided into primordially existing groups rooted by kinship and biological heritage. 2. Perennialism is premised on the notion that ethnicity is ever changing, and that while the concept of ethnicity has existed at all times, ethnic groups are generally short-lived before the ethnic boundaries realign in new patterns. 3. Constructivism sees both primordialism and perennialist views as basically flawed, and holds that ethnic groups are only products of human social interaction, maintained only insofar as they are maintained as valid social constructs in societies. 4. Modernism is a school of thought with regards to ethnicity that ties the emergence of ethnic groups to the emergence of modern nation-states. 5. Circumstantialism or Instrumentalism is a perspective towards ethnicity that sees ethnic classification as a mechanism of social stratification or as the basis for a social hierarchy.

“Us and them”  89

While a robust discussion of these approaches is beyond the scope of this book, it should be noted that concept of “primordialism” as a theory of nationalism has for long raised the hackles of scholars, yet, the evidence of recent writing on explanations of nationalism suggest that the subject is far from dead. For instance, Steven Grosby (2001) comments that “primordiality,” rests on, “the physical fact of biological connectedness and that a delimited area of land” (pp. 252–255); he complicates this position by suggesting that biological realities “do not themselves account for the formation of primordial collectivities of kinship.” Instead, this happens only when they are “perceived as significant, when they become objects of shared beliefs” (in Coakley, 2013, pp. 153–155). Just hark back to Sen. Roberto Calderoli’s comments: are the perceived differences between ­Italians, and others like Dr. Kyenge, significant? What happens if and when these sentiments become shared and believed? The answer to these questions necessitates a deeper understanding of the entanglements of race, ethnicity, and sometimes culture. This is crucial to any project seeking to understand the real-life consequences of race and racism, and how these lead to the marginalization of immigrant students and their families. The cultural discourse, for example, benefits from a language of racial formations within a given historical context or what Omi and Winant (1994) describe as “the socio-historical process by which racial categories are created, inhabited, transformed, and destroyed” (p. 55). This is because scholars warn of the “new racism” which tends to be subtler and less explicit by focusing on a perceived shift from biologically grounded notions of race to cultural categories ( Jacobson, 2008; Pascoe, 1996). This shift suggests that individuals have responded to the social construction of race by replacing biology with culture in their rationales and taking the notion of race underground. For example, instead of invoking genetic inferiority attributes out-group disadvantage to cultural differences are made which equates the decline of biological racism with the demise of racism in general, and trace the historical evolution of modern racism in terms of culture (Sears et al., 1997; Meertens & Pettigrew 1997, in Jacobson, 2008, pp. 3–5). Yet we know that race continues to matter as views about genetic inferiority have not entirely disappeared from public attitudes, even thoughts, and beliefs in underlying biological differences as justification for discriminatory behavior are becoming increasingly untenable (Katz & Taylor, 1988). We maintain that like never before, scholars and educators need to be critical of the “linguistic manners and rhetorical strategies (or race talk),” or “technical tools” that allow users to articulate a particular frame, storyline or style of ideology to advance policies and ideas in covert ways (Bonilla-­ Silva, 2003a, p. 53). In Racism without Racist Color-blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in the United States, Bonilla-Silva (2003a) highlights the “central frames of color-blind racism,” which he asserts, “provide an intellectual road map

90  Theory in practice

used by rulers to navigate the always rocky road of domination” (p. 26). He draws on the writings of John Gray to posit the following: According to John Gray, liberalism, or “liberal humanism,” is at the core of modernity; of the philosophical, economic, cultural and political challenge to the feudal order. Although he acknowledges that liberalism has no “essence,” he point out that it has a “set of distinctive features,” namely individualism, universalism, egalitarianism, and meliorism (the idea that people and institutions can be improved). All of these components were endorsed and placed at the core of the constitutions of emerging nation-states by a new set of actors: the bourgeoisies of early modern capitalism … hence, classical liberalism was the philosophy of a nascent class that as an aspiring ruling class expressed its needs (political and well as economics) as general society goals … although contemporary commentators debate the merits of liberal humanism as it pertains to current debates about race-based policies, multiculturalism, and “equality of results,” many seem oblivious to the fact that “European humanism (and liberalism) usually meant that only Europeans were human.” Philosophers such as Kant stated that the difference between blacks and whites were “to be as great in regard to mental capacities as in colour” … To be clear, my intent here is not to vilify the founders of liberalism, but to point out that modernity, liberalism, and racial exclusion were all part of the same historical movement. (p. 27) The four frames he outlines are as follows: 1. Abstract Liberalism involves using ideas associated with political liberalism (e.g., “equal opportunity,” the idea that force should not be used to achieve social policy) and economic liberalism (e.g., choice, individualism) in an abstract manner to explain racial matters. 2. Naturalization allows whites to explain away racial phenomena by suggesting they are natural occurrences. 3. Cultural racism is a frame that relies on culturally based arguments such as “Mexicans do not put much emphasis on education” or “blacks have too many babies” to explain the standing of minorities in society. 4. Minimization of racism is a frame that suggests discrimination is no longer a central factor affecting minorities’ life chances (“It’s better now than it the past” or there is discrimination, but there are plenty of jobs out there.”) While the focus in the context of the United States, his theorizing of the frames is rooted in “liberalism, or liberal humanism,” as central ideologies he posits have been “rearticulated” to rationalize racially unfair situations (p. 27–28). In revisiting Calderoli’s comments, one can see elements of these

“Us and them”  91

four frames at play. “There was nothing particularly against her,” (abstract liberalism), never mind that he practically called her an orangutan, his apology suggest that this was not personal or racially motivated. Instead, he argues that it is “natural” (naturalization) for an Italian government to be governed by Italians, people who are white, not black. If Dr. Kyenge was to govern, she should do it in “her own country” (cultural racism). He minimizes his comments by stating that “it was just my impression” (minimization), as to suggest that systemic racism does not exist, but rather his individual stance that the business of governing should be “done by Italians.”

Being “othered”: Immigrant’s experiences of prejudice, marginalization, and racism To construct an identity is to construct a narrative account of who “we” or “they” are, a selection and arrangement of events and interpretations that indicates what separates “us” from “them,” that gives significance to that separation, and that attaches meaning and value to categories of difference (­Cornell, 2000). The process by which this happens is entangled in a web of social relations that are impacted by economic forces and cultural practices among other factors. Many scholars who attribute the movement of people across borders speak of “a deeply disorienting and threatening process of change” (Bauman, 1998; Soros, 2002; and Stiglitz, 2000) where hostility has been placed on and by local cultural identities—including local meaning systems, religious identities, and systems of livelihood. This has led to the emergence of immigration issues as important public opinion, policy, and research areas of scholarly inquiry. For example, Suarez-Orozco (2005) comments that social scientists who privilege the economic aspects of immigration focus on unemployment, lack of access to credit, and wage differentials while others, like Patricia Pessar (2002), examine transnational migratory social chains through a gendered perspective. Irrespective of areas of scholarly interest, there is consensus that the apparatus of the nation-state is decidedly implicated in migratory processes: this is contingent upon by what the state does and by what it cannot do. In Europe, the politics of migration has gravitated away from “thick” and descriptive accounts (Belloula, 1965; Layton-Henry, 1984, 1992) toward explicitly theory-driven and/or large-N scholarship (Faist, 2000; Janoski, 2010; Kitschelt, 2001; Massey et al.,1998; Soysal, 1994). While on the one hand theory-driven approaches speak to a larger agenda and broader questions, what is often-overlooked is an analysis of the politics of immigration that is informed and enriched by an understanding of the political culture, history, and institutions of specific contexts, like schools (Messina, 2013). As such, scholars who focus on the “cultural matters” of immigration focus the cultural implication of integration. Instrumental culture refers to the skills, competencies, and social behaviors necessary to make a living and contribute to society while expressive culture focus on worldviews, and patterning of

92  Theory in practice

interpersonal relationships and sensibilities that give meaning and sustain a sense of self. When taken together, “these qualities of culture generate shared meanings and understandings and a sense of belonging” that is crucial for social cohesion (Suarez-Orozco, 2005, pp. 15–17). Perhaps no other social institution plays a bigger role in socializing and instilling a sense of belonging that contributes to social cohesion than schools. National governments around the world proclaim education and education policies and programs as the key to success in the global economy focused on competition, trade, and the social investment that, in the most efficient manner, prepares human resources (students) to contribute to economic growth (Spring, 1998). For those of us interested in immigrants’ experiences of prejudice, marginalization, and racism, we ground our analysis in sociocultural theory and approaches which place individuals squarely in their social context, one that involves their cultural, political, and economic realities (Giroux, 1997b; Nieto, 2000). This view of individuals and their lived experiences allows for the exploration of social relationships and political realities as embedded in institutional structures (Nieto, 2000, Pica-Smith & Veloria, 2012). For instance, we explore how schools “other” immigrant children by way of integration, representation (or lack thereof ) in the curricula, and pedagogical approaches that are inclusionary in nature. “Othering” is a term that not only encompasses the many expressions of prejudice on the basis of group identities, but we argue that it provides a clarifying frame that reveals a set of common processes and conditions that propagate group-based inequality and marginality. “Othering” then is conceptualized as a set of dynamics, processes, and structures that engender marginality and persistent inequality across any of the full range of human differences based on group identities. Although the axes of difference that undergird these expressions of othering vary considerably and are deeply contextual, they contain a similar set of underlying dynamics. While not entirely universal, the core mechanisms that engender marginality are largely similar across contexts. Dimensions of othering include, but are not limited to, religion, sex, race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status (class), disability, sexual orientation, and skin tone. The effects of othering are felt because fundamentally the current structure and language of educational projects tied to global economic imperatives are the results of the lingering effect of colonial engagements, which are connected to immigrants being targets of deculturalization processes motivated by prejudice, marginalization, and covert and overt racism (Ladson-Billings, 1998; Spring, 2001b). Colonialism is a policy that emphasizes “the dominance of a people by a culturally different and more powerful group over which they have little influence” (Anders, 1980, p. 690). The colonial posture of any government has all the elements of racist and discriminatory practices that can be felt in virtually every system individuals come in contact with, from racial isolation, citizenship, law enforcement, education, and employment practices (in Trimble, 1988). In Culture and Imperialism, Edward Said concludes,

“Us and them”  93

This pattern of domination and processions laid the groundwork for what is in effect now a fully global world. Economic communication … [and] global trade … have joined together even in the most distant corners of the world. This set of patterns, I believe, was first established and made possible by modern empires. (Said, 1994 p. 6) This has led Fanon (1967) to the conclusion that when it comes to the economic realities tied to colonialism, “Marxist analysis should always be slightly stretched every time we have to do with the colonial problem” (p. 40). In 1967, he endorsed a Marxist critique by stating that “if there is an inferiority complex, it is the outcome of a double process: primarily, economic; subsequently, the internalization – or better, the epidermalization of this inferiority” (p. 11, in Leonardo, 2009, p. 49). How does inferiority as an internalization process occur and what role does “othering” play in immigrant’s experiences of prejudice, marginalization, and racism? Alexander Hinton distinguishes between “essentializing Others” and “annihilating Others;” where essentializing Others is creating dichotomies where Others are considered filthy, impure, even animalistic, and are henceforth symbolically and essentially different, and separate from the in-group. Annihilating Others is the literal and physical destruction of the out-group. Between these two processes we also have social destruction: the social deprivation and destruction of social and cultural indicators of the group that have been targeted. What is of importance here is that a dominant culture group, facing a social and political crisis, looks inward to establish a new sense of Self by inventing an Other. One manner in which exclusionary practices or “othering” has a significant effect is in the granting of citizenship status. Western countries grant rights of citizens— rights that are dependent upon citizenship—and regard non-citizens, that is immigrants, those seeking asylum or refugees, as “aliens,” thus demanding a serious examination of how these boundaries are socially constructed, and how they are represented, maintained and policed (Peters, 2005). More specifically, “racialization” refers to those instances where social relations between people are structured by the significance that is given to specific human biological characteristics, particularly when such significance is used to define, categorize, and construct meaning about different social groups (Miles, 1993). By establishing dominance, and creating difference, those in power can justify powerful idioms of race and ethnicity that are steeped in physicality, blood, biology, and decent in ways that impact how “others” experience prejudice, marginalization, and racism as raced actors, “others” (Cornell & Hartman, 2000). Certainly this is not a new phenomenon, as historically the discourse of European colonialism is rooted in the model of the Roman Empire in which categories of difference emerged, categorizing groups of people as civilized

94  Theory in practice

and uncivilized. Creating and maintaining this difference justified the empire’s ultimate destiny of civilizing the world’s people; those who lived by Roman law were human and those who lived outside Roman law were less than human. As a result, conquest became intrinsically linked to civilizing the other and promoting and touting the benefits of bringing about cultural change. These colonial legacies are still felt today as educational projects are rooted in language and ideologies of difference which are important components to the civilizing projects of Westerners. Despite the “Roman Imperium,” as a political expansion and source of knowledge project (Spring, 1998 p. 9), country-contextual scholarship is needed to underscore the fact that the phenomenon of immigration and permanent settlement today cannot be reduced to an instrumental or one-dimensional relationship (Safran, 1990 in Zolberg, 1991); instead these complex issues have to be critically explored by looking at members of a particular group, with particular features and institutions, at a particular moment in their respective histories (­Ireland, 1994, 2004; Rath & Saggar, 1992; Reitz 2002, 1017–18 in Messina, 2013). Regional integration issues are layered with complexities stemming from globalization and transnational economic interaction (Williams, 2013); thus, frameworks that include “contextual fluidity” might be useful in exploring immigrant’s experiences “as societies change … the processes by which immigrants are received and incorporated … may also change” (p. 3). Many immigration scholars highlight the importance of incorporation, regional and local political knowledge due to the international diversity and the inherent contradictions within intra-country policy frameworks. Freeman (2004) asks: “Who is ultimately better equipped to understand and represent ‘distinct domains’ across which immigrants are domestically incorporated than scholars with deep country knowledge?” (in Messina, 2013, p. 23). In this vein, we critically revisited an Italian case study to explore how school actors were making sense of the intercultural framework, potential impact, and missed opportunities. In critically revisiting data, we have located the subject in all its cultural and historical complexities at the complex intersection of discursive social forces (Peters, 2005). This allowed for a contextually based understanding of the mechanism by which traditional exclusions occur in school contexts to better understand the centrality of questions such as: Who belongs? How are school actors making sense of policy directives that ultimately impact their practice and their students? How can educators incorporate more inclusive pedagogical practices that are critical of the social context of schooling? While many who research immigrant students in schools focus on the person-environment interactions, students’ successes, mixed outcomes, and/or failures to get a picture of the individual’s academic achievement are at the intersection of public policy, family processes, school resources, and peer/teacher support—or lack thereof (Marks, Seaboyer, & Coll, 2015). We explore the effects of racism and prejudice more broadly drawing on the notions of difference, their connection to the construction of power, knowledge as productive and dispersed throughout social systems,

“Us and them”  95

and a “post-colonial” optic to the discourse about the nature of neoliberal capitalism and globalization.

How the effects of racism and prejudice impact school experiences for students There are many facets to racism and prejudice; whether one prefers to focus on the individual, institutional, cultural, or symbolic, racism is “deeply ingrained throughout Western culture.” When couched in the language of inequality, discrimination, and racial injustice, the effects are the same: segregation and diminished education and educational opportunities. Many race scholars find a paradox when it comes to racism and societal behavior. On the one hand, there has been considerable legislation and judicial progress, combined with improvements in public attitudes toward egalitarian and pluralistic societies. On the other, there is increased and growing opposition to specific policies that might be effective in reaching these goals (Katz & Taylor, 1988, pp. 7–8). This is illustrated by one of the teachers in the case study who indicated that “Schools don’t organize mother tongue language course. Multilingualism is fostered by the immigrant communities and local institutions.” Following this line of thinking, schools are then absolved from creating spaces and employing pedagogical practices that help students construct an adaptive and healthy identity of self. Stonequist (1937) contended that cultural differences create the most difficulty in circumstances where there are sharp ethnic contrast and hostile social attitudes. Suarez-Orozco (2005) maintains that his observations on the psychological cost of marginal status are as useful today as when he first wrote them. Freire (1970, 1993) argues that when schools domesticate, they socialize students into accepting the ideology and values of society’s dominant class as legitimate. For example, representations of immigrants in textbooks often align with national racial ideologies (Weiner, 2018). Furthermore, when immigrants are included in the curriculum, their presence is often symbolic, without holistic incorporation or restructuring of histories (Apple & Christian-Smith, 1991; Drew, 1997, in Weiner, 2018). Enid Lee (1998), in Beyond Heroes and Holidays, defines racism as the use of institutional power to deny or grant people and groups of people rights, respect, representation, and resources based on their skin color. Examples include discriminatory policies and practices that are hostile and exclusionary in nature. Therefore, schools are excellent sites for exploring how racism and prejudice impact school experiences for students, particularly given that when it comes to immigration, race, color, and linguistic, practices indeed still matter. Colonial posturing by any government institution always contains elements of racist and discriminatory practices that negatively impact individuals, institutions, and society as a whole (Trimble, 1988). Anti-­colonial discourses and practices then “Contests what would seem to be the attendant political paralysis and the inability of postcolonial discourse to name, track,

96  Theory in practice

isolate, and resist ongoing colonial relations” (Howard, 2006), which are entrenched in otherwise so-called neutral educational policies and practices. Larbalestier (1990) points out “Difference is both conceptual, cultural, and a material problem. It is always embedded in politics of identity which are, in turn, embedded in relations of power” (p. 155). Anti-colonial thought offers a political, cultural, and ideological critique of colonize relations, as well as a political discourse of resistance grounded in current political realities. This requires an ontological stance that looks closely at the meaning of race across time, place, and object. In fact, this is the best basis for reconciling the dynamic nature of race and the consistency of racism ( Jacobson, 2008). How do charged environments and rampant hostilities affect immigrant students’ sense of self and academic trajectories? In keeping with the work of Aronowitz (1984), Grinberg and Grinber (1989), Phinney (1998), and Vigil (1988): today’s complex world requires that immigrants cross discontinuous social spaces. These discontinuities can be especially dramatic for students in unwelcoming school spaces where there is much cultural dissonance, negative social mirroring, and role confusion when the cultural guides available are inadequate and unresponsive. In such a context, students find it difficult to develop a flexible and adaptive sense of self. Many are torn by cultural attachments, pressures to fit-in, and maintaining hope for a future often tempered by pessimism born of deprivation and disparagement (in Suarez-­ Orozco, 2005). Racial-ethnic self-schema (Oyserman et al.,2003), and segmented assimilation frameworks predict that for youth living in inhospitable contexts identifying only with one’s in-group will have a negative effect. This especially impacts the future prospect of immigrant students who often arrive with few human-capital resources and settle in racially segregated, low-­ income neighborhoods with few community resources (Portes and Rumbaut, 2001). Context influences identity, subsequently assimilation, and academic trajectories. Scholars working from this tradition have combined theoretical frameworks to propose that racial-ethnic identity is an important contributor to academic outcomes for youth of color. Consequently, racial-ethnic schemas that include both a sense of connection to in-group and to larger society are likely to be associated with positive academic achievement (Oyserman, Brickman, & Rhodes, 2007). For this reason, schools play an integral role in creating the condition by which students can relate to one’s in-group and broader society (Altschul, Oyserman, & Bybee, 2008). Portes and Rumbaut (2001), describe three patterns associated with an assimilation trajectory and academic achievement: 1. Thin racial-ethnic identities are associated with linear assimilation and involve declining saliency of home identity and acculturation to mainstream norms. Overtime, students following a assimilation trajectory identify less with their culture of origin and more with the host country, resulting in decreased in-group focus (Portes & Rumbaut 2001;

“Us and them”  97

Rumbaut, 2005); this process is thought to occur among immigrants who arrive with significant human capital into a favorable context of reception. A thin racial-ethnic identity is hypothesized to be positively associated with academic achievement and upward mobility. (Portes & Rumbaut, 2001) 2. Bicultural racial-ethnic identities are associated with selective assimilation and involve maintenance of a strong in-group identity within a context of substantial community social capital, in combination with aspirations to succeed in broader society (Portes, 2003; Portes & ­Rumbaut 2001). Students following this trajectory continue to identify with their in-group, but also identify with success in broader society. This is also posited to be associated with academic success. (Portes & Rumbaut, 2001) 3. Thick racial-ethnic identities are associated with downward assimilation and hypothesized to develop when an immigrant group experiences inhospitable contexts of reception. As students experience racism, prejudice, and perceive their in-group to be devalued by the host country, their ethnic identities “thicken” over time and their connections with mainstream institutions and norms diminish. When combined with low levels of human and social capital within their communities, this identity is hypothesized to be associated with negative outcomes such as poor academic achievement and ultimately downward assimilation. (Portes, 2003) It warrants considering other factors that impact the formation of racial-­ ethnic identities such as immigrant generation, language usage, religion, gender, and sexual orientation. “Intersectionality” is a widely used concept that enables us to recognize the fact that perceived group membership can make people vulnerable to various forms of bias, yet because we are simultaneously members of many groups, our complex identities can shape the specific ways we each experience that bias. For example, boys and girls can often experience racism differently, just as girls of different races can experience sexism differently, and so forth. Intersectional approaches enable educators to: (1) analyze social problems more fully; (2) shape more effective interventions; and (3) promote more inclusive coalitional advocacy. This is a crucial concept to consider given the encumbered process of identity formation. In “Identities under Siege,” Carola Suarez-Orozco (2005) writes: … the children of immigrants are a dissonant combination of precocious worldliness and sheltered naiveté. They may be able to manipulate two languages and have insight into two different worlds. At the same time, particularly for girls, forays into the New World are often over-restricted by their anxious parents, contributing to a relative naiveté. With a limited network of informed individuals to provide adequate information and advice, many immigrant children have the difficulty of navigating

98  Theory in practice

the turbulent waters of adolescence … it is clear that immigrant adolescents face special struggles in the formation of identity (ies). Each individual forges an identity, finding ways to adapt to the vicissitudes of being a stranger in a new land. (p. 150) Due to this complexity, George DeVos and Marcelo Suarez-Orozco (1990) developed an interdisciplinary, psychocultural framework to explore the experience of self in cultures where patterned inequalities shape social interaction. They contend that immigrant students are aware of prevailing ethos of hostility of the dominant culture. As a result, they often respond in various ways that range from positive to negative. For example, there is the: “I’ll show them. I’ll make it in spite of what you think of me” response, which demonstrates the most positive outcome. Others respond with self-doubt and shame which translate into low aspirations and thus become a self-fulfilling prophecy: “They are probably right. I’ll never be able to do it.” Yet, another response is: “You think I’m bad. Let me show you how bad I can be” (Suarez-­ Orozco, 2005, p. 148). This has given rise to what Giroux (1983b) sees as a move away from reproduction theories and instead to a focus “on the importance of human agency and experience as the theoretical cornerstones for analyzing the complex relationship between schools and the dominant society” (p. 4). In Theories of Reproduction and Resistance in the New Sociology of Education: A Critical Analysis, he posits the importance of resistance theories in analyzing the importance of conflict, struggle, and resistance. He comments that: Combining ethnographic studies with more recent European cultural studies, resistance theorists have attempted to demonstrate that the mechanisms of social and cultural reproduction are never complete and always meet with partially realized elements of opposition. In effect, resistance theorists have developed a theoretical framework and method of inquiry that restores the critical notion of agency. They point not only to the role that students play in challenging the most oppressive aspects of schools but also to the ways in which students actively participate through oppositional behavior in a logic that very often consigns them to a position of class subordination and political defeat. (p. 261) To this end, crafting a politically acceptable strategy for immigrant student incorporation has proved a challenge for schools in recent decades. This is because distinctive political cultures and traditions of inclusion or exclusion have shaped national policy approaches to immigrant incorporation (­Williams, 2013). As in the case of interculturalism, educators are at the forefront of implementing policies in contexts that allow for multiple interpretation and implementation. The devil is truly in the detail and for these reasons the

“Us and them”  99

challenges faced by educators require more than curriculum reconstruction that focuses on subject level learning in the absence of authentic and critical conversations about race, racism, and identity construction.

Bringing conversations of race, racism, and identity to the classroom The notion of epistemology is inextricably linked to one’s worldview (Ladson-­ Billings, 1998), and thus the eyeglasses worn by individuals constantly filter the world in specific ways (Delgado, 1995). Omi and Winant (1994) argue that popular notions of race as either an ideological construct or an object condition have epistemological limitations. This raises the questions: Why should scholars and educators take up notions of race, racism, and identity? Why and how should these conversations enter the classroom? Why does this matter? Who engages in this work and why? How is it done and for what purposes? Race and notions of difference are rarely interrogated. Yet, these differences are often significantly “perceived” and problematic “when they become objects of shared beliefs” (Grosby, 2001 in Coakley, 2013, pp.  153–155). Educators enter the classroom as social beings that perceive and are socialized in contexts where conversations of race take center stage. They play a role in challenging, contesting, or buying into a set of beliefs. These eyeglasses do not come off when working with “other people’s children” (Delpit, 1995), but rather intensify when left unrecognized and unchallenged, risking complicity in the reproduction of colonizing practices such as perpetuating deficit perspectives (Pica-Smith & Veloria, 2012; Paris, 2012) and reproducing a banking educational model that see students as repositories as opposed to active and agentic producers of knowledge (Freire, 1970, 1993). Ladson-Billings and Tate (1995) put forth that racial inequities are logical/predictable in a racialized society where race and racism are rarely discussed or addressed explicitly. They encourage the recognition of race in any analysis or critique of social order in order to transform it by insisting that educators take up this consideration in their practice. If one of the goals of intercultural approaches is to promote dialogue, sociocritical theories of learning (Guitierrez, 2008) remind us that students and educators learn most powerfully when they are able to participate meaningfully in communities of practice, and when they are able to wrestle with real problems that have meaning to them. This is embedded in a dialectical approach that begins with self as “one of the main tasks of the critical educator is to explore his/ her own subjectivity and locate or situate him/herself within that praxis” (Breunig, 2005, p. 111). We acknowledge this is a tall order and not for the faint of heart. Critical self-exploration and a commitment to engaging conversations of difference, race, prejudice, and racism is a “political act” (Freire, 1970) that requires conviction, persistence, and endurance. To promote interrogation and exploration, Giroux (1997) encourages scholars and educators to critically explore

100  Theory in practice

by asking self-probing questions before engaging in critical pedagogical praxis: (a) What counts as knowledge? (b) How is knowledge produced and legitimized? (c) Whose interest does this knowledge serve? (d) Who has access to knowledge? (e) How is this knowledge distributed in the classroom? (f ) What kinds of social relationships within the classroom serve to parallel and reproduce the social relations of production in wider society? (g) How do the prevailing methods of evaluation serve to legitimize existing forms of knowledge? and (h) What are the contradictions that exist between the ideology embodied in existing forms of knowledge and the objective social reality (Breunig, 2005, p. 111). In the backdrop of educational frameworks, scholars and educators can begin with self-exploration which can then lead to expansive dialogue with others in order to avoid functioning to maintain and reproduce the existing social order, and rather work to empower people to transform themselves, their community, and/or society (Freire, 1970, 1973). Along with critical pedagogues, we believe in the power for transformation which can occur when students are viewed as participants with agency to act on their world. This requires critical pedagogical approaches that attempt to address real-life contexts and lived experiences by asking how and why questions instead of only what questions of policies, schools, curricula, students, and educators. By drawing on a combination of critical theories informed by a Freirean problem-posing methodology, Smith-Maddox and Solórzano (2002) call for educators and scholars to collectively: (a) Foreground race and racism in research design, data-collection, analysis; (b) Challenge the traditional paradigms, methods, and texts as a way to engage in a discourse on race that is informed by the actual conditions of racial/ethnic others; (c) Help prospective educators focus on racialized and gendered experiences; (d) Offer a liberatory or transformative method when examining racial, gender, class, and other forms of discrimination; and (e) Use the transdisciplinary knowledge and methodological base of ethnic studies, women’s studies, sociology, history, and the law to better understand the various forms of discrimination and contest negative stereotyping, prejudice and racism that occurs in and out of the classroom (p. 71). This is a call we also make as we navigate uncharted territory with respect to discussion of race and racism in the context of implementing an intercultural educational framework. Self-exploration needs to take place before critical approaches can be employed, but we recognize that exploration alone will not create the conditions by which scholars and educators can bring about change. As already mentioned, change can come about as result of ongoing critical-dialogic engagement that attends to knowledge about race (Banks, 1995; Solórzano, 1997).

Conclusion The ability for host countries to successfully integrate immigrants depends on at least two key factors: the legal status granted to immigrants as citizens and

“Us and them”  101

the country’s self-image as a multicultural society. The emergence of race as ideology can be traced to the rise of nationalism. Efforts by nation-states to extend or deny rights of citizenship contingent on race or ethnicity are not uncommon even in so-called democracies (Darder & Torres, 2004). Unless scholars and educators recognize and attend to this larger macro context, schools run the risk of operating as business as usual with little positive outcomes. Instead, they run the risk of further alienating and marginalizing immigrant youth and families with potentially detrimental effects which threaten individuals, families, schools, and society at large. In this section, we tackled the thorny issue of race with full recognition that the conversation is far from complete, yet we provided a starting point for the acknowledgment that race matters and that it warrants exploring historically, politically, and theoretically in order to deeply understand its stubborn stronghold and influence on educational discourse and ideology. Power is productive, and it is dispersed throughout social systems in ways that are intimately linked with knowledge formation (Peters, 2005). How is this knowledge then embedded in educational frameworks, curricula (including textbooks), discourses of difference, others, and how schools and school actors operate in the interest immigrant students and families? We contend that self-exploration is required before genuine conversations about race, racism, and identity can take place in both school and in society. This is crucial step prior to engaging the benefits of intergroup relationships as intergroup contact theory suggests that under certain conditions, the more intergroup contact individuals have, the more likely they are to feel positive towards outgroup members (Pettigrew, 1998).

6 Intergroup relationships in school, intergroup contact, and prejudice reduction Is it enough?

Because schools are “sites of identity” (Steinitz & Solomon, 1986), places where young people develop a sense of self and self in relation to others, they represent an opportune context to do the important work of both youth development and education towards social change and social justice. In an increasingly multicultural school system, children have the potential to understand themselves through a cultural lens to de-center their understanding and experience as they meet and create connections to children across cultural boundaries of ethnicity, language, religion, and culture. In turn, these experiences may support children to understand both how they may be similar as well as different from their peers. Because positive intergroup contact has been linked to prejudice reduction (Pettigrew, 1998; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006), reduction in intergroup anxiety (Page-Gould, Mendoza-Denton, & Tropp, 2008) increased intergroup friendships (Tropp & Prenovost, 2008, for review), and myriad other social-emotional competencies (Lease & Blake, 2005; Kawabata & Crick, 2008; Turner, Hewstone, & Voci, 2007), European schools are adopting an intercultural education framework and looking for strategies to support intergroup contact, dialogue, and learning. This is an important focus. Supporting intimate, empathic, caring cross-cultural relationships is an important focus of educators interested in building a more inclusive society. Yet, intergroup contact alone does not decrease prejudice or discrimination, and diversity in and of itself does not promote positive intergroup contact (Turner & Cameron, 2016). Many institutionalized support systems must be in place in order for intergroup contact to be positive and influential. In fact, several research studies have demonstrated that there are some negative consequences associated with intergroup contact, especially for minoritized group members, who may, in fact, experience increased discrimination and isolation that impacts their academic and social-emotional development (Benner & Kim, 2009; Mendoza-Denton, Downey, Purdie, Davis, & Pietrzak, 2002). Furthermore, even when intergroup contact and dialogue happen under the best conditions, individuals’ prejudice reduction alone cannot generate institutional change and social justice on a macro scale, which is needed if minoritized individuals are to participate meaningfully and equitably in a truly pluralistic society. Hence, demographically diverse schools and intergroup

Intergroup relationships and prejudice reduction  103

contact alone do not create the context needed for prejudice reduction and the creation of pluralistic, multicultural or intercultural contexts that are equitable for all young people. Furthermore, prejudice reduction alone, while necessary, is not sufficient to change our society and dismantle systems of oppression such as racism, sexism, heterosexism, xenophobia, Islamophobia, and many more systems of injustice. In other words, while working on the individual level (or the microsystem) is important, it does not impact the institutional and structural level (the macrosystem). We understand that both must be acted upon if we are to create equitable spaces for all young people to thrive. Thus, we certainly believe that interventions at the interpersonal level are positive and necessary in the classroom, but, alone, they are not sufficient to change schools, institutions, or society at large towards equity and social justice. Therefore, in this chapter, we introduce intergroup contact theory, a theoretical foundation of interculturalism and intercultural education, make connections between intergroup contact, intergroup friendships, and prejudice reduction. We discuss the optimal conditions that lead to positive intergroup relationships (even though these are largely ignored in the intercultural education literature) as well as make recommendations so that educators can implement strategies to support intercultural education towards the goal of prejudice reduction. We introduce intergroup dialogue (later discussed in Chapter 7) as a pedagogy for promoting positive intergroup attitudes and behaviors. We conclude the chapter with a discussion of Turner and Cameron’s (2016) “confidence in contact,” a theory formulated to prepare young people for positive intergroup contact in diverse schools. However, given our stance we remind the reader throughout the chapter that the benefits of these interpersonal relationships and interactions cannot impact the larger social context of systemic and institutionalized injustice, and that while these interpersonal relationships and dynamics are important in and of themselves, they would be more likely to occur if we were to dismantle systems of injustice that impede them from occurring in the first place.

Intergroup contact theory and prejudice reduction Intergroup contact theory posits that intergroup relations can be improved through positive interaction between members of different social groups. Gordon Allport (1954) postulated that optimal intergroup contact, defined by a series of specific conditions, would contribute to the reduction of prejudice. Allport hypothesized that optimal intergroup contact would afford individuals the opportunity to challenge stereotypes and prejudiced thinking by allowing persons to acquire new learning about out-group members. In turn, this new learning would upset previously held prejudiced beliefs and create the dissonance needed to change attitudes and behavior toward out-group members. Thus, the social experience afforded by optimal contact would influence cognitive/attitudinal, affective, and behavioral processes related to out-group members.

104  Theory in practice

Yet Allport (1954) theorized that simply having contact across difference would not be enough to reduce prejudice or create positive relationships between members of different groups. He noted that the contact had to happen within the context of what he named “optimal contact.” The specified four conditions that define optimal contact between persons with differing group affiliations: equal status within the situation, common goals, intergroup cooperation, and institutional support. It is important to note, then, that it is not diversity in and of itself that generates prejudice reduction; rather, it is a systemic commitment to creating and implementing structures (and these optimal conditions) that support positive experiences within diversity. This is particularly salient in the conversation on intercultural education, then, because while interculturalism and intercultural education are heavily informed on intergroup contact theory and on the importance of dialogue in creating a truly diverse and socially cohesive society, the European documents, especially those pertaining to education, do not mention nor insitutionalize the optimal conditions necessary and fundamental to support the intergroup contact that leads to meaningful prejudice reduction and intergroup relationships. Without those systemic changes, the interpersonal exchanges possible through the contact alone simply will not engender significant and meaningful difference and may even result in negative contact experiences (Pettigrew, Tropp, Wagner, & Christ, 2011) as will be discussed later in this chapter. These optimal conditions of which Allport spoke are: equal status, common goals, intergroup cooperation, and institutional support. The equal status condition refers to the extent to which individuals of different groups participate in any particular context on equal terms. For example, in multi-ethnic and demographically diverse schools in the United States, Moody (2001) found that positive intergroup relationships and intergroup friendships were more likely to occur in multi-ethnic schools only if these schools did not create positional hierarchies based on race and academic achievement. Similarly, Boaler (2006) found that there were less incidents of racial prejudice in detracked classrooms when efforts were made to create equal status among students. However, in most U.S. school systems, academic tracking does exist, and often young people of color are overrepresented in lower tracks while white students are overrepresented in tracks that include “advanced-placement” or “honors.” When these types of academic statuses intersect with race, it is easy to understand how intelligence and academic achievement is perceived as racialized and how this affects our understanding of ability. It also follows that creating these hierarchies disrupts the potential for the optimal condition of “equal status” as hierarchies are antithetical to “equal status.” Zirkel (2008) explains that multicultural educators may address this optimal condition by ensuring that status differences among children are minimized. As an example, academic tracks, or systems that confirm a hierarchy of status from low-achieving to high-achieving groups, must be eliminated in order for young people to interact positively. Hence, to promote equal status, educational practices, policies, and procedures have to be

Intergroup relationships and prejudice reduction  105

designed to minimize perceived status differences among students of different groups. The common goals and intergroup cooperation conditions refer to the extent to which persons are given opportunities to work collaboratively in an effort to accomplish mutually agreed upon goals (Allport, 1954). For example, when children of diverse backgrounds are grouped together on a class project, they have the opportunity to work collaboratively to accomplish a common goal (the product of the class project assignment). Collaborating on an assignment, guided by a skilled educator who confers equal status on all of the group members and encourages each one to contribute meaningfully, will ensure that students note each other’s important contributions and positively affect perceptions of classmates (Zirkel, 2008). This, in turn, will create relationship and community-building. We cannot stress enough the importance of collaboration and having common goals. In recent intergroup contact research, Pettigrew and his colleagues (2011) noted that in intergroup contact situation where competition was present, prejudice increased. Hence, it is of the utmost importance that schools work to dismantle a culture of group hierarchies that accentuates status differences and competitiveness across groups as these will impact the development of prejudice. The institutional support condition refers to the extent to which institutions (such as schools, for example) explicitly support and practice norms that foster acceptance between groups (Allport, 1954). Therefore, schools must adopt policies and procedures that promote positive contact (a commitment to positive school climate and culture interventions, stated policies that value diversity, collaborative and critical pedagogies, and supportive interventions that promote intergroup friendships) and minimize systemic barriers to positive contact. Turner and Cameron (2016) note schools “must identify and remove” practices that are barriers to positive intergroup contact. Hence, they note that schools that are segregated by religion or ethnic/racial community membership, ability/academic tracking, or separate language classes do not promote the conditions that lead to optimal intergroup contact nor intergroup friendships. As an example, that may illustrate how all of the conditions work together synergistically to affect positive contact, one could imagine the production of a school theater piece. In a multi-ethnic and diverse school that is committed to the purported goals of intercultural, anti-racist, social justice education, educators would be thoughtful and deliberate in supporting young people to put on this production. Students and teachers involved in this production could practice democratic participation to co-write this play or decide to choose a text/play among the many great works available that speak to the sociocultural, historical, political experiences of the diverse student body, being thoughtful and deliberate to choose a narrative that reflects the stories the students choose to highlight. Educators and students would ensure that all of the cast, including the protagonists, be assigned to a diverse group of students, thus conferring equal status across groups. Educators would

106  Theory in practice

thoughtfully avoid the replication of marginalization and include minoritized students in all facets of the production. Educators would support and guide young people to work collaboratively towards the common goal of creating the theater production. Of course, educators and administrators, representing the institution, would lend their support to the students’ effort. This play, then, would represent a context in which young people across groups would experience the optimal contact that exemplifies Allport’s (1954) four conditions. Together, children of diverse backgrounds with equal status and meaningful parts to play in this process would work towards creating this production with the support of educators. They would have opportunities to engage with one another, learn about each other, share their similarities and differences, and have ample opportunities to create meaningful relationships with one another. In the example above, educators must think about barriers that preclude to all children from participating fully in the life of the school and especially in extracurricular activities. Do these activities require transportation that some families may not have? Do they carry extra costs? Do they require childcare for siblings? Are there other expenditures of resources involved? If so, the school must mitigate those costs or make the decision not to sponsor such events at all. If all children cannot participate, and if the school cannot create the supports necessary to make these events accessible to all, then the school is not creating the condition of equal status and accessibility for all students. If any social group is excluded from an activity, then the school is reinforcing status differential and recreating social hierarchies which will inevitably recreate inequity and injustice. These of course are unacceptable in and of themselves and mitigate intergroup contact and friendships. From the intergroup contact theoretical framework, contact (or diversity) alone does not ameliorate group relations or generate prejudice reduction. Hence young people attending a school that is diverse in its ethnic, linguistic, and religious composition would not necessarily shift their perceptions of one another by simply being in the space together. Rather, certain positive conditions are necessary within the contact situation that allow persons to interact in a manner that confers equal status among them in order to collaborate towards a common goal that is sanctioned by the macrostructures in which the contact occurs, which will positively impact perceptions of outgroup members. Therefore, what happens at the microsystems level (the interpersonal level) is impacted by what happens at the macrosystems (systemic) level. There is a connection between changing institutional practices and seeing better interpersonal relationships. However, the reverse is not the case. While better interpersonal and intergroup relationships are important goals in and of themselves, these improved relationships do not affect systems of oppression like racism, which are deeply institutionalized problems requiring systemic solutions to be institutionalized as well. Since Allport’s seminal work in the 1950s, there has been a proliferation of research on intergroup contact. Pettigrew and Tropp (2006; 2008) conducted

Intergroup relationships and prejudice reduction  107

important meta-analytic research of over 500 studies on the topic and cemented the connection between positive intergroup contact and prejudice reduction. These indisputable findings have generated yet another wave of interest and research on intergroup contact, intergroup friendships, and prejudice reduction. Beginning in the 1990s, Thomas Pettigrew, a contemporary contact theorist, found that intergroup friendships are fundamental in the reduction of prejudice (1998). In an extensive study on intergroup friendship, 3,800 majority group adult Europeans from West Germany, France, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands were surveyed regarding their intergroup attitudes. Respondents were also asked whether they had friends of another religion, race, culture, or social class. Findings demonstrated that Europeans who reported having friends of another group, scored significantly lower on prejudice measures (Pettigrew 1997a, 1997b). Influenced by findings such as these, Pettigrew proposed that “intergroup friendships” be added as a necessary condition to Allport’s original contact theory. Thus, contemporary contact theorists view intergroup friendships as both a consequence of optimal intergroup contact between groups and as a condition that is a necessary component optimal intergroup contact. The relationships between positive intergroup contact and positive out-group perceptions is robust and established (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). In an important study, Page-Gould, Mendoza-Denton, & Tropp (2008) made a connection between cross-group friendships and decreased out-group anxiety, which, in turn, led to increased interest in more cross-group interactions. Hence, as prejudice and out-group anxiety are reduced, positive attitudes and perceptions of the out-group increase. Intergroup friendships, therefore, are important vehicles for individual change. Interethnic and interracial friendships in schools The primary context in which children initiate a friendship is school (Ladd, 1990). Because children who attend multi-ethnic school have daily contact with children across different dimension of social identity, and because schools often provide a context in which children work on common goals collaboratively with the support of educators (optimal conditions), intergroup contact in schools can lead to a decrease in prejudice and negative cross-race behaviors, such as cross-race peer exclusion (Ruck, Park, Killen, & ­Crystal, 2011), a generalized positive perception of children in different identity groups (­Vezzali & Giovannini, 2012), more positive out-group perceptions, and positive intergroup interactions and, of course, intergroup friendships (Aboud, Tredoux, Tropp, Spears Brown, Niens, & Noor et al., 2012; Tropp & ­Prenovost, 2008, for review). Intergroup friendships, which cross racial/ethnic, cultural, linguistic, and religious boundaries of identity, have both a positive impact on individual children (Feddes, Noack, & Rutland, 2009) and the overall school climate and

108  Theory in practice

culture (Zirkel, 2008). On an individual level, these friendships are important to child and adolescent development, decreasing prejudice and developing positive intergroup attitudes (e.g. Aboud, Mendelson, & Purdy, 2003; Feddes et al., 2009; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2000), reducing intergroup anxiety (Stephan & Stephan, 1985; Page-Gould et al., 2008), increasing cultural competence (Lease & Blake, 2005; Scales & Leffert, 2004) increasing social-emotional competence (Kawabata & Crick, 2008; Turner, Hewstone, & Voci, 2007), reducing perceived vulnerability (Graham, Munniksma, & Juvonen, 2014), increasing resilience and self-esteem (Bagci, Kumashiro, Smith, Blumberg, & Rutland, 2014; Fletcher, Rollings, & Nickerson, 2004), increasing academic performance (Newgent, Lee, & Daniel, 2007), and promoting an overall positive out-group orientation (Feddes et al., 2009; Turner, Crisp, & Lambert, 2007). On a systemic level, intergroup friendships link to positive school cultures characterized by intergroup collaboration (Zirkel, 2008). In a review of the literature on intergroup friendships, Turner and Cameron (2016, p. 216) delineate four reasons that intergroup friendships may positively impact both individuals and intergroup relations overall. First, they note that these friendships involve, “sustained intimate contact.” Second, these friendships, “provide an opportunity for mutual self-disclosure,” which, in turn, promotes emotional connection, intimacy, and trust. Third, these relationships exemplify intergroup contact’s optimal conditions (Allport, 1954) whereby children enact equal status within a cooperative relationship focused on common goals. Finally, the authors make a connection between intergroup friendships, a reduction of intergroup anxiety, and positive out-group perceptions. Hence, the positive impact on racial/ethnic/cultural attitudes associated with intergroup friendships may be due to the fact that these relationships allow children and adolescents to form their own ideas of out-group members and afford the positive affective experiences associated with close friendship. For white (or dominant) children, these relationships may help to identify and resist the culturally prevalent stereotypes about people of color (minoritized persons) present in the societal context in which children develop (Killen, Clark Kelly, Richardson, & Ruck, 2010).

Challenges to intergroup friendships Despite their positive impact, research on intergroup friendships conducted over three decades demonstrates that even when there is opportunity for intergroup contact in racially/ethnically diverse schools, youth have significantly fewer intergroup friendships than intragroup friendships (Aboud et al., 2003; Aboud & Sankar, 2007; Bagci et al., 2014; Bellmore, Nishina, ­Witkow, ­Graham, & Juvonen, 2007; Currarini, Jackson, & Pin, 2010; ­Graham  & ­Cohen, 1997; Graham, Cohen, Zbikowski, & Secrist, 1998; ­Hallinan & Smith, 1985; Hallinan & Teixeira, 1987; Wilson, ­Rodkin, & Ryan, 2014). From this research, several important factors emerge. Intragroup friendship preferences begin in early childhood and are already manifested in preschool

Intergroup relationships and prejudice reduction  109

settings (Fishbein, 1996; Fishbein & Imai, 1993; Rutland, Cameron, B ­ ennett, & Ferrell, 2005). Overall, intragroup friendships increase while intergroup friendships decrease as children grow older (Aboud et al., 2003; Kawabata & Crick, 2008). Children with intergroup friendships rated these as lower in quality than intragroup friendships (Aboud et al., 2003) and children rarely rate these relationships as “best friendships” (Reynolds, 2007) unless the friendships last through the initial formation and maintenance phase (Bagci et al., 2014). In interracial friendships research, white children demonstrate less positive ­ cGlothlin, perceptions of interracial friendships (Margie, Killen, Sinno, & M 2005; McGlothlin & Killen, 2006; Pica-Smith, 2011) and their in-group preferences are linked to racial prejudice (Cameron, Alvarez, Ruble, & Fuligni, 2001). In Canada (Schneider, Dixon, and Udvari, 2007), the United States, (Bellmore et al., 2007; Fisher, 2008; Kao & Joyner, 2004) and Europe (Verkuyten, 2001), white and/or dominant children have fewer intergroup friendships than children of color or minoritized children. Minoritized children contend with more prejudice and discrimination than white/dominant children in diverse school settings and this negatively impacts social-emotional and academic outcomes (Benner & Kim, 2009; Mendoza-­ Denton et al., 2002; Pica-Smith, 2009). Hence, these children are more reticent to engage in intergroup contact because of fear of victimization (Aboud & Sankar, 2007) and intergroup friendships may have a less positive impact on intergroup perceptions (Feddes et al., 2009; Tropp & Pettigrew, 2005). In her seminal book on the expression of racism in schools, Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria, Beverly Tatum (1997) understood and explained self-segregation by children of color as a protective mechanism to counteract the experience of prejudice, discrimination, and racism. For white children, however, this self-segregation was linked to out-group prejudice and discrimination. Decades later Al Ramiah, Schmid, Hewstone and Floe (2015) found similar patterns in a diverse high school in which students self-segregated in the cafeteria despite their opportunity for intergroup contact. Therefore, just as contact theorist postulated decades ago, “diversity” and intergroup contact is not enough to generate positive intergroup perceptions and behaviors. Conditions that counteract racial/group hierarchies, experiences of prejudice and discrimination, isolation, and competitive social norms must be set in place in order for the contact to be optimal and to generate positive outcomes between individuals of different social identity groups. This is why in addition to a focus on intergroup dialogue and intergroup friendship, intercultural education must add social justice education and critical pedagogies within its framework.

Determinants of intergroup friendships In order to gain a complex understanding of intergroup friendships, it is imperative to delineate how children perceive friendship at different stages of

110  Theory in practice

their development. It is equally important to understand what determinants of friendship are central to forming and maintaining intergroup friendship. The psychological literature on friendship is extensive and is beyond the scope of this chapter. For the sake of brevity, this section examines only the literature on the determinants of friendships that related to intergroup relationships. When examining the factors that influence the selection of friends among children and adolescents, it is important to outline both individual and situational factors that affect friendship choices. Friendship theorists have outlined similarity, reciprocity-of-liking, and proximity as the foundational determinants of friendship selection, formation, and maintenance (Berscheid & Walster, 1983). Friendship researchers who propose a theory of interpersonal attraction (see Newcomb, 1961) posit that propinquity, similarity, reciprocity, and status are important determinants of friendship-making. Intergroup anxiety, attitudes towards out-group, attitudes towards intergroup contact itself, and social norms have also been important determinants of intergroup friendship formation (for review, see Turner & Cameron, 2016). As one may note, these determinants include individual and situational factors. To gain a comprehensive understanding of the process of friendship, it is necessary to analyze these separately as well as to note where the individual and contextual factors intersect. Furthermore, as researchers who hold a developmental perspective note, it is important to distinguish between the factors that influence friendship selection throughout development, as well as understanding the factors that influence friendship selection and friendship maintenance, which are distinct phases of the friendship process (Fehr, 2000). For this reason, a brief discussion of propinquity, similarity, and status will be proposed as important in the initial stages of friendship formation, while a discussion of reciprocity will be proposed in the context of friendship maintenance. Intergroup anxiety, attitudes towards out-group, attitudes towards intergroup contact itself, and social norms will also be discussed as they inform youth’s likelihood to engage in intergroup friendships in particular.

Propinquity For children to establish and maintain friendships they must have continued and prolonged access and contact with each other (Newcomb, 1961; Hallinan & Williams, 1989). Propinquity, or proximity, pertains to this necessary condition of contact. Thus, while contact alone is not sufficient for establishing and maintaining intergroup friendships, it is, of course, a necessary condition (Allport, 1954; Pettigrew, 1998). Hence, in thinking about multi-ethnic schools, we must go beyond an analysis of demographic school composition and understand whether there is meaningful contact within the diverse school context and whether that contact extends outside of school. Proximity and the extension of intergroup contact outside of school is a complex issue that is influenced by structural factors such as access to after—school activities,

Intergroup relationships and prejudice reduction  111

housing, segregation between groups, and parental attitudes towards intergroup friendships to name the most salient. In a study related to the extension of interethnic friendships outside of the school context, Windizio (2012) found that the lack of intergenerational closure (when the parents of children involved in a friendship are also friends), was strongly related to fewer mutual invitations to birthday parties among children. Furthermore, Hunter, Friend, Williams-Wheeler, and Fletcher (2012), found that black and white mothers cited structural barriers such as housing patterns and segregation as well parental attitudes and beliefs about social class and religion that interfered with extending their children’s intergroup friendships outside of school.

Similarity Aboud and Mendelson (1996) point out that there are two general hypotheses regarding what characteristics individuals seek in a friend: 1) individuals seek out persons who are similar to themselves or 2) individuals look for other individuals who have “desirable attributes” such as “particular social skills, ideal personality, and specific temperaments” (p. 88). The “similarity-­ attraction hypothesis” posits that individuals are attracted into friendships with one another by similarity (Byrne & Griffitt, 1973). These similarities range from demographic similarities such as sex, age, race, and socioeconomic factors, to similarities in behaviors, attitudes and values, personality, and self-concept. These factors are particularly important in the initial stages of friendship as they pertain to whether and how children become attracted to one another, as well as the characteristics necessary for the maintenance of friendships. Aboud and Mendelson (1996) point out that demographic similarities are more salient for younger children while similarities in values, attitudes, and behavior are more important for adolescents. In fact, research on the developmental changes in friendship throughout the life course points to the fact that very young children focus on concrete similarities and reciprocities. In middle childhood, children expect to “spend time with friends, share interests, and engage in self-disclosure” (p. 89). A focus on engaging in mutually pleasurable activities is observed. Later, in early adolescence young persons begin to focus on intimacy and support (Buhrmester, 1990; Hartup  & ­Stevens, 1997). These findings seem to reflect cognitive developmental changes in childhood and adolescence (Piaget, 1952) as children move from concrete to more abstract thinking and from a focus on self to the capacity to take differing perspectives. Young children are also attracted to one another by perceived similarities based on stereotypes rather than simple cognitive processes of categorization. Some children exhibit out-group homogeneity or the “tendency to perceive more variability between members of one’s own group than between members of another group” (McGlothlin & Killen, 2005). Children who exhibit out-group homogeneity categorize children strictly into “us”

112  Theory in practice

and “them” groups. Thus, perceived similarity on the basis of stereotypes of demographic categories may influence young children’s attraction to other children by organizing social behavior into strict conceptions of an in-group and an out-group. This becomes problematic as intergroup friendships are a dynamic and developmental phenomenon built upon ongoing contact and experience; thus, little or no positive experience in early childhood may compound and lead to further self-segregation. In fact, Verkuyten & Steenhuis (2005) found that perceived dissimilarity was a reason that adolescents named for not forming intergroup friendships. It is true that children’s capacity to think abstractly, which involves qualitative shifts in perspective-taking, and a decrease in out-group homogeneity unfold as children mature. These qualitative shifts afford developing children the cognitive capacity to assess similarity in values, attitudes, and social attributes needed to cross boundaries of previously perceived dissimilarity. However, without positive and optimal contact and experience in early childhood, children may not have the social and experiential foundation upon which to create and maintain intergroup friendships. As contact theorists would point out, the capacity to understand similarity is influenced by optimal contact and positive social experience with out-group members (­A llport, 1954; Pettigrew, & Tropp, 2000). In other words, children would note their similarities, thus enhancing the possibility of friendship, if they were given the opportunity for optimal contact during which they were supported to engage meaningfully and collaboratively on common goals without reinforcing social hierarchies based on race, ethnicity, class, gender, cultural background, language, religion, etc.

Reciprocity Reciprocity becomes more salient during the phase of friendship maintenance. Thus, it is most salient beginning in middle childhood and for children in already-established relationships (Aboud & Mendelson, 1996). From a cognitive developmental perspective, children’s friendships become (increasingly) less self-serving as children mature (see Selman, 1980 for example). With the capacity for increasingly sophisticated perspective-taking, children are capable of reciprocating each other’s needs. Friendships become more stable and of higher quality as children mature. Hence, children who are more socially competent, empathic and are able to de-center their perspectives and understanding are more likely to form intergroup friendships (Aboud & Levy, 2000; Lease & Blake, 2005). The interaction between similarity, proximity, status, and reciprocity It is important to note that development is an interactional and dynamic process. Just as individual characteristics and traits interact with environmental

Intergroup relationships and prejudice reduction  113

opportunities or risks to generate change over time in an individual, so, too, is the developmental process of friendship influenced by an interaction between individual cognitive, affective, and behavioral factors, as well as contextual factors. Thus, though children may focus on similarity (whether concrete and/or perceived similarity based on demographic similarities, or more abstract based in personality and value similarity), these similarities become more prominent with proximity and the opportunity for contact. How are children to note their similarities in preference of activities, personality/ social traits, thinking, and values if not through positive contact with one another? Thus, the social context may influence the cognitive processes of understanding similarities. Though Piaget and Weil (1951) first thought that it was the development of perspective-taking skills, and cognitive processes such as reciprocity and reconciliation that affect a child’s capacity to discern similarities despite obvious differences such as nationality and ethnicity, newer research (McGlothlin & Killen, 2005) points out that intergroup contact also impacts the process by which children shift their perceptions of similarity and dissimilarity. In McGlothlin & Killen’s (2005) study, children attending ethnically homogeneous schools were more likely to exhibit outgroup homogeneity. In contrast, children in ethnically heterogeneous school settings exhibited significantly less out-group homogeneity and perceptions of similarity across race/ethnicity. Furthermore, the status of children is affected by the values of the institutions such as the schools in which contact between children occurs. As will be discussed in this chapter, there are specific school and classroom characteristics and employed-strategies that either promote equal status among children or accentuate differential status, which, in turn, affect both the formation of friendships as well as their quality and reciprocity. Determinants of friendship such as similarity, proximity, reciprocity, and status cannot be divorced from the environment in which they are experienced by children. These determinants must be understood in context and in how they affect and confound each other. Cognitive developmentalists state that demographic similarities become less salient as children develop while similarities of attitudes and values become more important (Aboud & ­Mendelson, 1996). Some cognitive developmental research on prejudice also argues that prejudice decreases as children mature and gain perspective-­ taking skills and more sophisticated cognitive capacities (Aboud, 1988). Yet, intergroup friendships decrease as children grow older (Aboud et al.,2003; ­ raham Howes & Wu, 1990; Clark & Ayers, 1992; Graham & Cohen, 1997; G et al., 1998; Shrum, Cheek, & Hunter, 1988; Singleton & Asher, 1979). Therefore, something more than individual cognitive advances must be influencing children’s perceptions of intragroup and intergroup relationships. Contact or propinquity, the experience of equal status, as well as reciprocity do influence children’s perceptions of similarity. Furthermore, advances in children’s cognitive processing abilities and their ability to note similarity beyond demographic similarity will not positively impact their intergroup

114  Theory in practice

friendship choices without the opportunity and experiences afforded by early optimal intergroup contact and friendships. Other affective, cognitive and social experiences and determinants that are important to take into account regarding the potential for children to engage meaningfully in intergroup situations and make intergroup friendships are intergroup anxiety, attitudes and perceptions towards the out-group, and social norms about intergroup contact and friendships. Intergroup anxiety, or anxiety related to interacting with members of an out-group, leads to avoidance of the out-group (Plant & Davine, 2003). Hence, young people who experience this form of distress are less likely to engage with members of the out-group despite contact opportunities. Interestingly, as noted earlier, it is precisely positive intergroup contact and intergroup friendships that can reduce intergroup anxiety (Turner & Feddes, 2011). Thus, it becomes important to provide adequate supports to young people to mitigate the anxiety that gets in the way of relationships that could, in the end, benefit them. Attitudes towards the out-group also impact the probability that young people will engage meaningfully across groups and form intergroup friendships. In fact, children with negative attitudes towards out-group members avoid opportunities to interact meaningfully even when optimal contact is available (Binder, Zagef ka, Brown, Funke, Kessler, Mummendey, & Leyens, 2009). In a study of children’s perceptions of cross-race friendships, children who had negative perceptions of intergroup friendships were less likely to agree that intergroup friend dyads (depicted photographically) were strong relationships of high quality (Pica-Smith, 2011). Lastly, children’s groups’ social norms impact children’s outlook on intergroup friendships. Aboud and Sankar (2007) note that children reported that the most significant barrier to their intergroup friendships were negative peer norms. Conversely, children whose peer groups have inclusive social norms are more likely to engage in intergroup friendships (Tropp, O’Brien,  & ­M igacheva, 2014). Hence both individual, group and contextual factors determine the likelihood of positive intergroup contact and intergroup friendship formation within contact situations. Therefore, it is, once again, important to underscore that diverse, multiethnic, multicultural spaces populated by children of different backgrounds do not necessarily result in positive intergroup contact nor intergroup friendships. As Pettigrew et al., (2011) note: Not all intergroup contact reduces prejudice. Some situation engender enhanced prejudice. Such negative intergroup contact has received less research attention … Negative contact typically occurs in situations where the participants feel threatened and did not choose to have contact. These situations frequently occur in environments where intergroup competition exists as well as in situations involving intergroup conflict. (p. 277)

Intergroup relationships and prejudice reduction  115

This is important in the context of our discussion on intercultural education as none of the European educational documents we reviewed discussed the optimal or contextual conditions to put in place to facilitate the intergroup contact in a manner that would generate meaningful intergroup contact to reduce prejudice and support intergroup friendship. While all of the documents underscore the importance of dialogue in reducing prejudice and increasing intercultural competence, none of them note the arduous task of setting in place the institutional supports to create equal status amongst dominant and marginalized students and adopting critical pedagogies necessary to create the collaborative spaces that engender equal status in the classroom among students who have not had equal status in society. Thus, conditions must be set in place to create and support the individual and situational factors that will be conducive to these important relationships. Therefore, educators must intentionally and skillfully guide the collaborative and intimate interactions necessary for young people to discover their similarities in the face of social messages about difference, provide opportunities for relationships both within and outside of school, assuage intergroup anxiety, address out-group attitudes, and support more inclusive social norms.

Confidence in contact Having discussed intergroup contact theory, the benefits and challenges of intergroup friendships as well as the determinants that support these friendships, we now turn our attention on a new model that purports to address the limitations of the “traditional contact approach.” Turner and Cameron (2016) propose a theoretical model, “Confidence in Contact.” The model provides an empirically supported and tested guide to help children become “contact ready” so that they will engage positively with out-group peers. It builds on intergroup contact theory and multicultural education praxis with an added focus on supporting individual characteristics than can enhance intergroup contact to maximize positive outcomes. The model focuses on individual factors (intergroup anxiety, attitudes towards the out-group, expectations of similarity, self-efficacy, and social cognitive development and abilities) and group factors (social norms and school climate) that, if addressed, may positively impact young people towards ­successful intergroup contact and friendships. After an extensive review of the ­literature, the authors point out that on the individual level, reducing intergroup anxiety is an important aspect of becoming “contact ready” as intergroup anxiety has been demonstrated to negatively affect positive intergroup contact and relationships (Plant & Devine, 2003). Addressing intergroup perceptions and attitudes towards the goal of improving out-group perceptions is also stressed as intergroup attitudes mitigate intergroup dialogue and relationship-making. Potential interventions related to these are those in which young ­people experience indirect contact, vicariously or imagined positive intergroup

116  Theory in practice

contact without the real-life, concrete experience of it, which would reduce anxiety towards the out-group and generate more positive attitudes about intergroup relationships. Interventions involving literature, television shows, or imagined positive intergroup social interactions have been shown to positively impact these processes. When children read stories depicting successful intergroup friendships (white children and children of color, native children and immigrants, typically developing children and children with a disability) and participated in discussions about these for several weeks, their intergroup attitudes as well as intergroup play behavior improved (Cameron & Turner, 2010, for review). Similarly, when children watched TV shows that depicted positive intergroup relationships, their attitudes about intergroup contact improved (Mares & Pan, 2013). Addressing young people’s expectations of similarity is also paramount in the model as people create friendships with those they perceive as similar, and, conversely, do not pursue friendships with those they perceive as different (Aboud & Mendelson, 1996). Hence, in a society impacted by systems of oppression such as racism, which influence our view that out-group members are different, researchers have noted several phenomena that impact children perceptions of similarity and difference related to in-group and out-group members. Doyle and Aboud (1995) noted that children assumed more difference from out-group children than in-group children. McGlothlin & Killen (2005) noted that children exhibit out-group homogeneity, or the belief that there is less variability between out-group members. Hence, young people draw distinctions and perceive similarity based on out-group stereotypes that impact their perceptions of out-group members; this in turn negatively affects their perceived similarity to out-group members and impacts their willingness to cross socially constructed boundaries to form intergroup friendships. For these reasons, the authors of the model suggest creating opportunities for young people to address perceived similarity with out-group members. In this case, they argue that imagined contact can be a successful intervention as demonstrated in the extensive literature on this topic. For just one example, the authors state that children who engaged in imagined contact situations (creating stories about intergroup contact using pictures) were more likely than their classmates, who did not engage in the imagined contact intervention, to perceive their similarities to out-group members and hold ­ artley,  & more positive attitudes about the out-group (Stathi, Cameron, H Bradford, 2014). Interventions that bolster young people’s sense of self-efficacy are also highlighted in the model as self-efficacy in intergroup contact has been demonstrated to affect willingness to engage in intergroup relationships (Mazziotta, Mummendey, & Wright, 2011). The authors reiterate that there are cognitive abilities and social-emotional skills that positively impact young people’s capacity to engage in positive intergroup relationships: empathy, perspective-taking, listening skills, the ability to de-center one’s experience and reconcile differences, or to know that there are different ways

Intergroup relationships and prejudice reduction  117

of being that are equally acceptable and valuable. All of these characteristics provide young people the confidence to engage in intergroup contact successfully. On the group level, the authors note that it is important to impact social norms and school climate. They note that a supportive school climate that expects and enacts norms of “respect, tolerance and good intergroup relations” (p. 221) will positively impact out-group attitudes. The authors also note that inclusive group norms predict interest in cross-group friendships. Hence, group-level and school-wide interventions that impact social norms and school climate are key to supporting positive intergroup relationships. At this point, it is worth noting that this argument has been made extensively by multicultural educators for decades (see Zirkel, 2008, for review).

Contact and dialogue One of the goals of intercultural education as it is adopted in the European context is supporting cross-cultural dialogue in schools towards the goals of creating an intercultural community, supporting students’ prejudice reduction, increasing students’ understanding of one another across social identity groups, and improving relationships overall. In a study of adolescents Aldana, Rowley, Checkoway, and Richards-Schuster (2012) found that participation in intergroup dialogues on race promoted increased ethnic and racial consciousness and racism awareness participants of differing ethnic and racial identities. Moreover, a recent meta-analysis of child and adolescent intervention programs to prevent prejudice, programs that promoted direct intergroup contact that emphasized empathy and perspective-taking showed the greatest effect size (Beelmann & Heinemann, 2014). Dialogue is meant to create a learning context in which participants listen deeply to one another both to understand one another’s perspectives, experiences, and meaning-making as well as to co-create new meaning, together (Berman, 1993; Weiler, 2003). Dialogue is neither discussion nor debate; it is not used to analyze ideas or determine which ideas are best. An important goal of dialogue is building relationships (Berman, 1993). Intergroup Dialogue (IGD), which began in the context of higher education, is one of several models of dialogue and is considered a critical-dialogic, student-centered pedagogy (Zúñiga, Nagda, & Sevig, 2002). This pedagogy is grounded in social justice education (explored in Chapter 7 of this book), Critical Pedagogy (Freire, 1970), and should occur within the context of optimal intergroup contact (Allport, 1954). Intergroup dialogue is defined as a face-to-face facilitated learning experience that brings together students form different social identity groups over a sustained period of time to understand their commonalities and differences, examine the nature and impact of societal inequalities, and explore ways of working together toward greater equality and social justice (Zúñiga, Nagda, Chesler, & Cytron-Walker, 2007).

118  Theory in practice

It is important to note that this model of intergroup dialogue goes beyond individual relationship-building and focusing on the affective-cognitive dimension of cross-cultural dialogue that lead to prejudice reduction. While participants do come together and learn about one another, thus enhancing the possibility of mutual understanding, learning about similarities and differences, which, in turn, facilitates prejudice reduction and even intergroup friendships, this model emphasizes that participants develop a critical analysis of inequality to begin a process in which they will take action for social change (Nagda, 2006; Zúñiga et al., 2002; 2007). This model, then, asks that participants go beyond “cross-cultural” exchanges and dialogue to simply learn about other people’s meaning-making and experiences (towards de-centering one’s own meaning-making structures), this model is political in that it asks participants to understand systems of oppression and how they impact our individual development and our societies and then asks that participants take action towards social change. To our view this is very important in the context of how we have understood the way intercultural education is being constructed in the European context. As we see it, intercultural education has been de-politicized and adopted as a way in which to promote understanding across cultural groups to “manage diversity.” This is a myopic and limited construction of the framework that will not lead to social change. We argue that the dialogue that happens in school must be intentionally focused on the political and deeply examine issues of power and its impact on youth’s lives, experiences and meaning-making towards the goal of democratic education and social change. Hence, intergroup dialogue is not used to “manage diversity.” Rather it leverages diversity towards social justice and change. Adams, Bell, and Griffin (2007) point out that intergroup dialogue is a deeply challenging and reflective process as well as an analytical one. It fosters critical thinking and knowledge of systems of oppression and privilege as well participants’ understanding of their own experiences and participation in these systems (Adams et al., 2007). Hence, intergroup dialogue in this model, would go beyond gathering a diverse group of students to learn about one another’s cultural backgrounds. This dialogue would include a thoughtful examination of how historical and social inequalities in the European and global context impact people’s lived experiences and realities towards the goal of social action and change. Young people involved in these dialogues would not be simply sharing each other’s cultural beliefs and tradition; rather, they would be talking about their experiences in the world, particularly related to their identities of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, class, disability, religious, national, and cultural identities and more. These, of course, would bring the social-political into the conversation. In Europe, as in other parts of the world where immigration has been generating increasingly diverse and multicultural societies, the dialogues could not be divorced, for example, from youth’s realities connected to the power and privilege of citizenship, or lack thereof. Hence, these dialogues would go beyond the “cultural exchange” model of intergroup dialogue.

Intergroup relationships and prejudice reduction  119

Conclusion Informed in an extensive literature on intergroup contact theory that has demonstrated that participating in intergroup friendships decreases prejudice and increases young people’s perspective-taking, social skills, and competencies, it is no surprise that intergroup dialogue and intergroup relationships are at the center of intercultural education philosophy and practice especially as Europe become increasingly more ethnically and culturally diverse in the context of rising racism, xenophobia, and Islamophobia fueled by the rise of right-wing political parties. Indeed, in this context the proven benefits of these ties to both individual children and to our collective humanity are undeniable. Even outside of the context of the goals of intercultural education, supporting and fostering deep and intimate relationships across social boundaries is an important focus of educators. These friendships are important to children who have them (Pica-Smith, 2009) and to their development as human beings. They provide vehicles through which children explore their similarities and differences and foster an appreciation of each other outside of stereotypes and dominant discourses of “us” and “other.” Leveraging diversity and creating school context that are conducive to positive intergroup relationships is key in a pluralistic society, and there are many things that educators can do to both prepare young people for intergroup contact and to take advantage of multicultural school contexts. In this chapter, we discussed the importance of these relationships, the challenges to these friendships, the factors and determinants of these as well as some interventions to support and sustain them. We also concluded the chapter with a discussion of intergroup dialogue as a pedagogy to sustain and support meaningful and quality intergroup contact and foster intergroup relationships, reduced prejudice, and heightened perspective-taking by youth across different dimensions of identity and perceived difference. Equally important, though often forgotten in the intercultural education literature, are the optimal conditions of intergroup contact theory, which point us to the social conditions that must be in place to support positive contact across groups. These conditions mitigate negative experiences and facilitate access. For us, these conditions which include equal status among the participants in the contact situation, are to be highlighted as they open the conversation to issues of social justice which should be addressed before intergroup dialogue can truly be supported. For, how can intergroup dialogue happen in the context of social injustice? And, while we fervently believe that dialogue could be an important and central pedagogy in an increasingly diverse school context, we hope to have emphasized throughout this chapter, that we believe that supporting optimal intergroup contact is necessary but no sufficient in an effort to create social change. We hope to have made it abundantly clear that we believe young people bring their social-political realities, power, dominance, privilege and

120  Theory in practice

marginalization to the classroom and that these must be included in consideration of establishing and conducting dialogue. We believe that engendering prejudice reduction is important but simply not enough of a progressive educational agenda. Furthermore, we remain critical of an intercultural education framework that sees intercultural dialogue (and intercultural competence, prejudice reduction, and multiperspectivity) as a vehicle for social change. Indeed, without thoughtful and careful facilitation and attention to creating a context informed in social justice, these dialogues can be harmful to minoritized students as they can “use” these students as objects of learning intercultural skills for dominant students. Dialogue spaces are not neutral, and they reproduce dominant, ethnocentric, master narratives. intercultural education, with its focus on intercultural dialogue towards “shared values” is particularly problematic as we question whose values “shared values” will reflect. When issues of power are not examined, “shared values” are likely the values of the dominant group that will further marginalize already minoritized students.

7 Social justice education and anti-colonial educational frameworks and pedagogy with Molly Keehn1

Introduction Given our stance that education must be transformative and critical, placing equity, social justice, and social change at its center and introducing students to critical frameworks of democratic citizenship, we find it important to discuss intercultural education in the European context within this critical framework. In a seminal essay on decolonizing intercultural education, Paul Gorski (2008), social justice scholar and educator, past member of the Board of Directors of the International Association for Intercultural Education, and Founder and Director of the Equity Literacy Institute notes that “despite unquestionably good intentions on the part of most people who call themselves intercultural educators, most intercultural education practice supports, rather than challenges, dominant hegemony, prevailing social hierarchies, and inequitable distributions of power and privilege” (p. 515). We would add that, with the exception of critical multiculturalism or multicultural social justice education, this is also the case in most practiced forms of multicultural education, which in some of its most banal implementation, is nothing more than a celebration of food, fun, and fashion, or as English multiculturalists have observed a celebration of “samosas, saris, and steel drums” which has done little to decolonize or disrupt the imbalances of power and access nor dismantle institutionalized racism and xenophobia that impact, as just one example, English people of South Asian and Caribbean descent. Similarly, European interculturalists’ focus on their stated ambiguous and abstract goals of “valuing diversity,” “cross-cultural exchange/dialogue,” and “social cohesion,” will do little more than reinforce superficial notions of cultural difference and leave systems of inequity intact as this educational framework does not address the sociopolitical context of imbalances of power in which intergroup contact is supposed to occur. For us, the focus on “social cohesion,” achieved through intercultural dialogue is meant as a vehicle for conflict resolution and “diversity management” in an increasingly diverse context in which institutionalized and systemic inequality leads to conflict between dominant and marginalized groups. As such, dialogue is a vehicle of conflict resolution towards maintaining the status quo and related more to governmentality than transformational education. 1 Sections concerning Social Justice Education and Intergroup Dialogue theory, concepts and pedagogy were the focus of Dr. Keehn’s dissertation research and first published as her doctoral thesis.

122  Theory in practice

We argue that while focusing on culture, diversity and “super-diversity” may be worthwhile as it honors the complexities of our lived experiences and identities, it has little to do with understanding how those experiences and identities are formed within social and political contexts of inequity. While we applaud some interculturalists’ desire to explore social identities like gender identity, sexual orientation, disability identity, religious identity, and other identities, this has little connection to social justice unless these exploration lead to discussions of how these identities are connected to power structures or lack thereof. Furthermore, an understanding of our cultural differences will not lead to supplanting and disrupting the systems of inequity and the imbalances of power that lead to the segregated (or “parallel societies”) that interculturalists criticize and believe were a result of multicultural policies. We would argue that the concept of intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1989) may be a better framework to understand how privilege and power are associated with different dominant and marginalized identities and how these intersect in important and significant ways on people’s capacity to access institutions. While intercultural educators speak of a progressive education focused on social change and social justice (Leclerq, 2002; Tiedt & Tiedt, 2010; Zembylas & Iasonos, 2010), we see little to no evidence that intercultural education in the European context and directives is designed or implemented as a transformative pedagogy for social change. Rather, the focus on intercultural dialogue, and the misguided assumption that these dialogues are between students who have equal access to power as opposed to being on unequal footing (Phipps, 2014) serves the end of social cohesion for the benefit of the dominant/majority group. Gorski (2008) warns against attempts to dialogue without examination of power differences as they will ultimately harm the less privileged participants for the benefit of those in the dominant group. We believe that any attempt to do meaningful pedagogy in multi-ethnic, multicultural, multilingual, spaces must be grounded in equity pedagogy which deeply examines and rectifies imbalances of power between students within the institution. Without this commitment, intergroup dialogue, conflict resolution, or “social cohesion” is nothing more than a focus on maintaining social order, a means of governmentality in a neoliberal framework (Ambrosini, 2016; Gorski, 2008). Hence, a commitment to social change includes an examination of inequity and inequitable pedagogies in the school, including a focus on power relationships, systems of privilege and how they affect differences in systems of curriculum, instruction, support, and disciplining. Rather than figuring out how to “integrate” immigrants into a hegemonic, dominant Eurocentric school and society, we argue that schools have the responsibility to do the important work of supporting education for democracy in the most equitable and progressive manner, not to teach young people how to succeed in a competitive, segregated, unjust school and society but to work to change institutions such as schooling towards the goal of social change.

Social justice education  123

Guided by a critical framework, in this chapter we discuss how social justice education (SJE) and Anti-Colonial Pedagogical Framework could add a critical component to the intercultural educational framework so as to leverage diversity towards education for social change. We focus on social justice education and pedagogy as it is the framework that goes beyond the study of culture to address issues of justice, oppression, power, and privilege, and how individuals and identities are constructed within a sociopolitical context marked by access or lack thereof. First, we synthesize the model and then spend the majority of the chapter discussing how the conceptual framework of SJE and Anti-Colonial Framework could inform intercultural education in its practice in European schools.

“Social justice” and social justice education Specifically, this section reviews theoretical and practical literature in social justice education (SJE) by briefly discussing the concept of social justice within social justice education and reviewing key concepts essential to SJE, pedagogical features of this educational approach, and primary foundations for social justice education from both activist and /or academic traditions. Social justice education has complex interdisciplinary roots yet has been said to have been under or un-theorized, while exploding exponentially in recent years in education out of a range of humanist and critical traditions in the human and social sciences, making it increasingly difficult to create a uniform definition for this term (Adams, 2014). However, at its core, SJE is a field of practice that seeks to promote social justice through education both in non-formal and formal settings (Bell, 1997). Before we discuss the definition of social justice education, we first briefly illuminate the meaning of “social justice.” The concept of social justice has complex roots and contradictory definitions from a variety of areas, such as the human rights tradition as defined by the Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 (focusing on economic security, legal protection, and education for all) as well as Civil Rights Movements of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s in the United States (such as the Women’s Movement, the Civil Rights Movements, the LGBTQ Rights and Disability Rights Movements) (Adams, 2014; Grant & Gibson, 2013; United Nations, 1948). While both the human rights movement and social movements focus on the rights of individuals as well as social groups who are traditionally marginalized, the Civil Rights Movements, largely influenced by anti-racist, anti-capitalist, and postcolonial writers, directly challenged existing institutional structures and drew attention to “systemic privileges or disadvantages based on social group memberships” and the importance of acknowledging and attending to these social group differences in order to deal with oppression (Adams, 2014, p. 7). From these roots developed different strands of theorizing about social justice, some that underscore distribution of resources and others that emphasize recognition of marginalized groups (Fraser, 1997; North, 2008; Young, 1990).

124  Theory in practice

We conceptualize the ultimate goal of social justice as both distribution and recognition theories (Fraser, 1997; Young, 1990) at the macro, mezzo, and micro level simultaneously. Drawing on Bell’s (2007) definition, we conceptualize social justice as working toward “full and equal participation of all groups in a society that is mutually shaped to meet their needs” and holding a “vision of society in which the distribution of resources is equitable and all members are physically and psychologically safe and secure” (p. 1). In the next section, we introduce a working definition of the term “social justice education,” review some of its goals, and discuss some central concepts and foundations. We then highlight some of its key pedagogical characteristics and a few of its pedagogical foundations stemming from both academic and/ or activist traditions.

Definition, goals, and foundational concepts Similar to the term social justice, there exist multiple definitions of social justice education (Adams, 2012). We rely on Carlisle, Jackson, and George’s (2006) definition of SJE as “the conscious and reflexive blend of content and process, intended to enhance equity across multiple social identity groups (e.g., race, class, gender, social orientation, ability), foster critical perspectives, and promote social action” (p. 57). As this definition indicates, SJE places attention on both the content material (e.g., institutional manifestations of oppression) that is being presented to students (the “what”) in addition to the intrapersonal and interpersonal pedagogical processes by which participants are invited to grapple with the content or subject matter (the “how”) (Bell, 2007; Freire, 1970; Mayhew & Fernández, 2007). Zúñiga and her colleagues (2007) delineate “content” as, “Concepts, conceptual frameworks, literature, theory, empirical data, and personal stories that challenge assumptions or misinformation or stimulate questions, reflections, observations, or new behaviors” (p. 21). In contrast, “process” can be defined as, “The intrapersonal and interpersonal reactions, interactions, and reflections stimulated by experiential learning or exploration of controversial issues” and deals with both the development of relationships in the group, as well as the quality of the learning process for participants (p. 21). Social justice education differs from “diversity education” initiatives, which typically focus on appreciating various social group differences (e.g., traditions, cultural orientations, and practices, food, communication styles, values, etc.) without considering differential access to resources by virtue of membership in social groups (Hardiman, Jackson, & Griffin, 2007). Though appreciating and understanding social and cultural differences is a component of SJE, the exclusive focus on “difference” tends to ignore the ways in which “difference” can be used to rationalize inequality and ignores taking action both individually and collectively to create more just social arrangements between social groups without erasing social and cultural differences among them (Adams, Jones, & Tatum, 1997; Bell, 2007; Hardiman et al., 2007; Zúñiga et al., 2007). Furthermore,

Social justice education  125

it is important to remember that notions and discourses of “difference” are informed and steeped in dominant and deficit ideology, with a “norm” and a “different from the norm” dynamic. Moreover, focusing on “culture” without historical context de-politicizes and “sanitizes” the colonizer/colonized dynamic that is such an important level of analysis in the European context. Some of the major goals of SJE include providing students with the tools to think critically about their own social identities and social locations and how they were socialized into these identities within systems of privilege and oppression (e.g., sexism and racism). Other goals include developing an understanding of various manifestations of privilege and oppression, understanding the historical roots of structural inequality, and developing the capacity to take action, individually or in collaboration with others, against injustice and toward liberation (Adams, 2014; Bell, 2007; Burrell-Storms, 2012; Zúñiga, Lopez, & Ford, 2012). Hackman (2005) distills these goals to include “student empowerment [and] the equitable distribution of resources and social responsibility” (p. 104). Other theorists of social justice education emphasize the importance of helping students recognize the terrible costs of maintaining oppressive systems, to both members of privileged and targeted groups (Bell, 2007; Freire, 1970; Hardiman & Jackson, 1997; Kivel, 2002). Drawing on Freire (1970) Love (2010) underscores that a goal of SJE is to help students develop a liberatory consciousness, which “enables humans to live their lives in oppressive systems and institutions with awareness and intentionality … without giving in to despair … [and] practice intentionality about changing the systems of oppression” (p. 399). Thus, SJE encompasses both working against oppression and also toward liberation.

Key foundational concepts While defining SJE, it is important to explicate some key foundational concepts that are central to this form of education for freedom of or liberation from injustice. These include the concept of social identity groups and social location in historically situated systems of privilege and oppression, a theory of social oppression and colonization of individuals and groups, privilege, hegemony, and liberation (Hardiman & Jackson, 1997; Hardiman et al., 2007). As mentioned, SJE foregrounds group level over individual struggles, in which “social groups” can be defined as “a group of people who share a range of physical, cultural, or social characteristics within one of the social identity categories” (Hardiman et al., 2007, pp. 56–57), for example, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion, class, age, or physical/developmental/psychological ability (Harro, 2010a). As a result of oppression, some social groups have privilege or unfair access to resources or opportunities by virtue of the groups they belong to (referred to as “privileged,” “dominant” or “advantaged”), while other social identity groups (referred to “targeted,” “subordinated,” “oppressed,” or “marginalized”) are denied access to these same opportunities (Hardiman et al., 2007, p. 39).

126  Theory in practice

The term “oppression” is central to SJE and refers to networks of policies, practices, and systems that maintain domination and subordination (Hardiman & Jackson, 1997; Hardiman et al., 2007). This concept is defined by different theorists in a variety of ways. One definition frames oppression as an interlocking system that involves ideological control as well as domination and control of the social institutions and resources of the society, resulting in a condition of privilege for the agent group relative to the disenfranchisement and exploitation of the target group (Hardiman & Jackson, 1997). The “levels and types” model of oppression offered by Hardiman et al., (2007) conceptualize oppression as operating both, “Intentionally and unintentionally on individual, institutional, and cultural levels” (p. 58). The concept of a “social system” is of central importance to this definition, because it captures the multiple and complex ways it operates and distinguishes oppression from “looking down” on others or being prejudiced or unkind on a more individual, one-on-one, basis. Drawing on the use of the term “oppression” by the new social movements in the U.S. since the 1960s, Young (1990) conceptualizes oppression as having five “faces” in categorizing the ways that oppression affects different groups. These faces include 1) exploitation (the labor of one social group benefits others); 2) marginalization (the denial of useful or productive participation in economic and social life); 3) powerlessness (prevention from making decisions that affect one’s life); 4) cultural imperialism (the dominant meanings, symbols, and activities of a society that reinforce the dominant group’s perspective, while making invisible, or stereotyping the perspectives of targeted group members); and 5) violence (random or unprovoked attacks on members of targeted groups, or the threat of such violence). These five faces capture the multiplicity of ways in which people are affected by oppression, taking into consideration matters of distributive as well as recognition justice, and highlighting oppression as a complex system. Oppression can be maintained by individual members of privileged groups, by hegemonic social institutions, and also be internalized by members of groups that are targeted by the oppression (Fletcher, 1999; Hardiman et al., 2007). There are a number of different forms of oppression (i.e., racism, classism, religious oppression, sexism, heterosexism, ableism, and transgender oppression). Although all of these different forms of oppression have unique histories and specific characteristics, there are also shared patterns of how they operate that are common to multiple forms, which are captured by the two models presented above (levels and types of oppression and the five faces of oppression; Bell, 2007; Hardiman et al., 2007). The internal dynamics of oppression are maintained by societal relationships of privilege in relation to disadvantage. In this analysis, “privilege” is “unearned access to resources (social power) only readily available to some people as a result of their advantaged social group membership”

Social justice education  127

(Hardiman et al., 2007, p. 59). Some central components of privilege are that it is usually invisible to those who receive it and is perceived merely as “normal” (McIntosh, 1998). This can make privilege a particularly difficult concept to recognize, teach about, and can bring up a number of feelings for students, such as shame, embarrassment, or defensiveness (Goodman, 2001; Johnson, 2006; McIntosh, 1998). Naming and recognizing privilege connected to social group identities, as well as noticing and interrupting specific manifestations of oppression is essential to educating about social justice (Bell, 2007). The other side of privilege within the system of oppression is disadvantage, which is commonly understood to be the ways that different social groups are denied access to resources, access, and self-definition and are treated unfairly, or subjected to violence because of their targeted social identities (Hardiman et al., 2007). As illuminated by Young’s (1990) Five Faces of Oppression, this disadvantage manifests in different ways depending on social identity (i.e., racism operates differently than disability oppression); however, there are consistent, and overlapping mechanisms for the ways that groups are disadvantaged. According to Goldenberg (1978), the disadvantage plays out through “Containment, restricted movement, and limited choices,” and group members are treated as, “Expendable, without an individual identity apart from the group, and are compartmentalized into narrowly defined roles” (as cited in Hardiman et al., 2007, p. 38). Another foundational concept that is needed for an analysis of the systemic dynamics of privilege and disadvantage in a system of oppression is the concept of hegemony (and counter-hegemony), which we discussed earlier in Chapter 3. “Liberation” is another significant term in SJE that has been discussed by a number of theorists (Freire, 1970; hooks, 1994; Pharr, 1996). One definition of liberation, closely related to the goals of SJE is the creation of relationships, societies, communities, organizations, and collective spaces characterized by equity, fairness, and the implementation of systems for the allocation of goods, services, benefits and rewards that support full participation of each human and the promotion of their full humanities (Love, Holladay, DeJong, & Pacheco, 2007). The postcolonial theorist, Paulo Freire, defines the end goal of liberation as, “Human beings operating in the world to overcome oppression” (Kincheloe, 2008, p. 71). Building on Freire’s definition, Harro (2010b) defines liberation simply as “critical transformation,” and claims it is unfair and unethical to teach students about oppression without also giving them tools and skills needed to change oppressive systems (p. 52). Although this list is by no means exhaustive, the concepts outlined above are foundational to SJE and are of central importance to pedagogical approaches. The next section reviews the pedagogy of social justice education and discusses both some key characteristics of this pedagogy and a few of the foundations.

128  Theory in practice

Social justice education pedagogy Social justice education has a dual focus both on curricular content knowledge and student-centered and critical pedagogies (Adams, 2012; Zúñiga et al., 2007). The participatory and democratic focus in SJE calls for attention to process as well as content, and this process-orientation has been informed by a convergence of foundations from a variety of disciplines that “Have nourished and influenced each other in complex and beneficial ways” (Adams, 2012, p. 6). Some of these roots include (but are not limited to) experiential and democratic education (Dewey, 1938; Horton, Kohl & Kohl, 1998), the Prejudice Reduction/Intergroup Education/Anti-bias education movements (Allport, 1954; Banks, 2005; Dovidio et al., 2004), anti-oppression education and social identity development (Hardiman & Jackson, 1992; Katz, 2003; Tatum, 1997; 2007; Wijeyesinghe & Jackson, 2012), critical-liberatory pedagogy (Freire, 1970; Giroux, 1988; hooks, 1994), feminist pedagogy (hooks, 1994; Romney et al., 1992), critical race theory (Delgado & Stefancic, 2001; Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995; Love, 2004), and more recently, queer theory (Butler, 1993; Kumashiro, 2001, 2002). In an effort to teach about oppression and liberation from a liberatory perspective, SJE practices often emphasize interactive, experiential, student-­ centered pedagogies that incorporate methodologies that encourage collaborative and inclusive goals drawing from a variety of foundations (Adams, 2007, 2012; Goodman, 2001). Many approaches to SJE make an effort to de-center assimilationist approaches to classroom teaching in which a teacher lectures in front of a class, presenting information for students to memorize and later parrot back verbatim through exams and papers (what Freire [1970] termed the “banking” approach to education). Rather, most social justice teaching practices build on Freire’s participatory learning methodologies, which are interactive, experiential, and dialogic, and view students as both learners and teachers (Adams, 2007; Zúñiga et al., 2007). Drawing from cognitive, experiential, and identity development theory and research (Dewey, 1938; Hardiman & Jackson, 1997; Kitchener & King, 1990; ­Merriam & ­Caffarella, 1999), some of the salient pedagogical frameworks that inform SJE include: 1) balancing both cognitive and emotional aspects of the learning process; 2) supporting learning about”the personal and individual dimensions of experience, while making connections to and illuminating the systemic dimensions of social group interactions”; 3) drawing attention to classroom dynamics connected to how students from different social identity groups relate within the classroom; 4) utilizing experiential learning and reflection; and 5) rewarding shifts in “awareness, personal growth, and efforts to work toward change” as outcomes of the learning process (Adams, 2007, p. 14). Based on these five key frameworks, Hackman (2005) identified five principles that she feels are fundamental to effective implementation of a social justice education approach. These include: 1) content mastery (factual information); 2) tools for critical analysis of systems of oppression; 3) tools

Social justice education  129

for personal reflection; 4) tools for action and social change; and 5) understanding of multicultural group dynamics. Finally, a recent empirical study examining the pedagogical practices of courses that emphasize social justice, conceptualized key SJE pedagogical practices as “Opportunities for reflection, perspective-taking, the application of knowledge, interactions with diverse peers, collaborative work with peers, and discussions about diversity” (Mayhew & Fernández, 2007, p. 60). These pedagogical practices can play out various ways in the classroom, one of which is the pedagogical practice of personal storytelling about experience. Personal storytelling about experience has been incorporated in many SJE approaches to teaching and learning that aim to support student voicing, listening, and perspective-taking, particularly, when these personal experiences are then linked with issues of structural inequality. We believe this modality would be an important reframing of the intercultural dialogue, understood as “interaction, “that proponents of interculturalism propose” (Zapata-Barrero, 2015, 2016). Storytelling in particular would welcome open dialogue about context and the socio-politically lived experiences of youth in dominant and marginalized identities.

Intergroup dialogue (IGD) Because “dialogue” is the foundation of both interculturalism as a policy and intercultural education as a pedagogy, but “dialogue” is not operationalized as such but, rather, as simply interaction in multi-ethnic spaces, we thought it worthwhile to introduce IGD, intergroup dialogue, as an SJE pedagogy. While we are not endorsing it as a pedagogy to be adopted within the intercultural framework in European K-12 schools (as it is yet to be amply studied in these settings and is a costly intervention requiring two skilled facilitators per small group dialogue), we believe the framework can be adapted for dialogues in schools that address critical issues of youths’ lived experiences. Intergroup dialogue (IGD), is a particular model of dialogue that was developed in the late 1980s at the University of Michigan, specifically for use on college campuses. Intergroup Dialogue, informed in intergroup contact theory (Allport, 1954) emphasizes positive intergroup contact (structured interaction across diverse groups). Before defining “intergroup dialogue,” it is important to define “dialogue” and distinguish this communication process from others, such as debate and discussion. Dialogue, comes from the Greek word “dialogos” meaning, “through the word” (Bohm, 1996), and this word derivation suggests a “stream of meaning flowing among and through us and between us” (p. 7). In dialogue, the goal is opening up and listening intently to others in order to understand their perspective, and perhaps, together, to generate an entirely new idea or understanding (Berman, 1993; Bohm, 1996; Huang-Nissen, 1999; Weiler, 2003). Participants are encouraged to bring their whole selves to dialogue, speak from the head and the heart, ask questions of each other,

130  Theory in practice

and focus on a goal of building relationships (Berman, 1993; Huang-Nissen, 1999; Romney, 2004). Rather than competition or determining the “rightness” of one position (as evidenced in debate) or breaking apart and analyzing ideas to come to a conclusion (as evidenced in discussion), the emphasis in dialogue is on collaboration and building mutual understanding (Huang-­ Nissen, 1999; Tannen, 1998; J. Weiler, 2003). Dialogue has a long, rich history beginning in ancient Greece and Native American cultures in addition to the work of more recent theorists, such as David Bohm, and William Isaacs and the MIT Dialogue Project, as well as Jungian and Gestalt psychology, Western philosophy, the spiritual and business practice of the Quakers, selfhelp groups, such as Alcoholics Anonymous and Cross-Cultural Encounter Groups (Ellinor & Gerard, 1998; Huang-Nissen, 1999). From these various foundations, there have been a number of models of dialogue that have evolved, which vary in their purpose, theoretical foundations, and context (Zúñiga & Nagda, 2001). The type of dialogue in this study, intergroup dialogue, is considered “critical-dialogic” because unlike some dialogue practice models that have an exclusively relational focus, IGD courses also emphasize developing a critical analysis of inequality and taking action toward social change (Nagda, 2006; Zúñiga et al., 2007; Zúñiga et al., 2002). The critical-dialogic model of IGD is a form of democratic practice and education that was created as a way to “leverage” diversity and help students intermingle and connect across difference in an intentional, facilitated mutual learning process to explore contentious issues in a collaborative way (Gurin et al., 2013; Schoem, 2003; Zúñiga et al., 2007; Zúñiga et al., 2002). This practice has been defined as a face-to-face facilitated learning experience that brings together students from different social identity groups over a sustained period of time to understand their commonalities and differences, examine the nature and impact of societal inequalities, and explore ways of working together toward greater equality and justice (Zúñiga et al., 2007). Intergroup dialogues are a student-centered pedagogy, in which meaning is co-created by students and facilitators, promoting “active, generative, and transformative connections and explorations” (Zúñiga et al., 2007, p. ix). IGDs bring together students from two or more social identity groups that often have had contentious relationships or who have not had the chance to talk about their differences in non-superficial ways (Sorensen, Nagda, Gurin, & Maxwell, 2009; Zúñiga et al., 2002). Intergroup Dialogues requires assigned readings, reflection papers, and a group action project or non-credit-bearing co-curricular activities. In either case, they are guided by two extensively trained facilitators who follow a specific curriculum that is constantly adapted to meet the needs of the group (Maxwell, Nagda, & Thompson, 2011; Zúñiga et al., 2007). IGDs are typically 7 to 12 weeks in length and involve 12 to 16 participants and 2 facilitators. Each dialogue centers around a specific social identity, such as race/ethnicity, gender, class, or sexuality (Zúñiga et al.,2007), and the social

Social justice education  131

identity groups highlighted often have a history of conflict or potential conflict (Zúñiga et al., 2007; Zúñiga et al., 2002). The groups are comprised of approximately equal numbers of people from each of the identities being discussed, and dialogue facilitators are also representative of the identities highlighted.

Critical-dialogic pedagogy The pedagogy of IGD is rooted in all the foundations of SJE discussed in the previous section of this chapter. The very structure of IGD, which is sustained, holds a goal of relationship-building, and strives for an equal number of students from at least two different social identity groups, and mirrors the conditions of Allport’s (1954) intergroup contact theory. In addition to this structure, both the pedagogy and design of IGD courses are informed by the dialogic, critical-liberatory, feminist orientations, and many aspects of the curricular design and experiential activities were drawn directly from these foundations. IGDs are labeled as a “critical-dialogic” because they emphasize both communication and relations between groups (the “dialogic” dimension) in addition to developing a critical analysis of inequality and taking action toward social change (the “critical” dimension; Nagda, 2006; Zúñiga et al., 2007; Zúñiga et al., 2002). The “dialogic” dimension of IGD focuses on the dialogic processes that occur within the group, such as the way in which participants interact with each other and build relationships within and across difference. This aspect of intergroup dialogue has been theorized in the fields of communications and education. Communication theorists trace dialogic practices to the work of philosophers, such as Martin Buber and Mikhail Bakhtin, who, focus on ways in which humans connect with each other in an authentic and meaningful way (Baxter, 2004; Gurin et al., 2013; Romney, 2004). In education, theorists and practitioners trace dialogic practices to Dewey, Allport, ­Buber, Rogers, Freire, Habermas, Burbules and other scholars who interrogate the limits of dialogue as critical pedagogy (Boler, 2006; Burbules, 1993; ­Ellsworth, 1989; Zúñiga et al., 2007). Focus on the dialogic dimension of IGD is critical because in some cases, participants in an intergroup dialogue may not have had experience interacting across social identity groups, particularly connected to the dialogue topic (i.e., white people and people of color talking together about race and racism; Muslims and Christians talking about religious identity and Islamophobia; European nationals and immigrants talking about the rights (or lack thereof ) of citizenship, identity, and xenophobia, etc.) and (or) their past communication about the topic may not have felt productive (Gurin et al., 2013). Intergroup dialogue offers participants a way to engage with these difficult issues using an intentional practice that places a strong emphasis on dialogic skills, such as listening, suspending assumptions and judgments, and inquiry to find shared meaning.

132  Theory in practice

The “critical” dimension of IGD stems from Freire’s (1970) idea of “conscientization” and involves participants critically analyzing their individual lived experiences and situating them within a contemporary and historical sociopolitical context to unveil the rationale for specific policies, practices, and patterns (Adams et al., 1997; Collins, 1990; hooks, 1994; Romney et al., 1992). With the support of assigned readings, film clips, personal storytelling, and experiential activities, IGD participants examine how they are socialized by those close to them to play certain roles in society based on different identities and the ways in which these roles are reinforced by institutions and our culture (Harro, 2010a; Zúñiga et al., 2002). Participants from both privileged and marginalized groups investigate the origins of stereotypes and how oppression and privilege play out at the individual, institutional, and cultural level both currently and historically (Zúñiga et al., 2007). Although multiple social identities are recognized and examined to an extent, IGDs typically highlight one specific identity (connected to the dialogue topic), allowing participants to fully explore their status in terms of that identity. The carefully designed curriculum of intergroup dialogue is based on three overarching educational goals: consciousness-raising, building relationships across differences and conflicts, and strengthening individual and collective capacities to promote social justice (Gurin et al., 2013; Zúñiga et al., 2007). Consciousness-raising involves both the development of personal and social identity awareness and knowledge of systems of advantage based on race and other socially constructed categories of difference as well as the causes and effects of group inequality. Building relationships across difference includes fostering intergroup empathy and increasing participants’ motivation to bridge their differences with others. Finally, intergroup action entails strengthening individuals’ ability and motivation to take action toward social justice, both as individuals and collectively (Gurin et al., 2013; Sorensen et al., 2009; Zúñiga et al., 2002; Zúñiga et al., 2007). The curriculum of IGD is intentionally and sequentially designed with a focus on fulfilling these three goals. In trying to bridge the “critical” and “dialogic” dimensions, IGD pedagogy features a number of scaffolded activities to help promote the educational goals outlined above. These activities may be used to introduce concepts, cater to different learning styles, and move the group forward in a particular way (Zúñiga et al., 2002; Zúñiga et al., 2007). Activities are supported by assigned readings and different conceptual organizers, such as Bohm’s (1996) “Building Blocks of Dialogue” (Weiler, 2003) and Harro’s (2010a) “Cycle of Socialization” (See Maxwell et al.,[2011] and Zúñiga et al.,[2007] for a more comprehensive review of these dialogue starters and other activities). Some of the pedagogical features of intergroup dialogue include “active and engaged learning” (i.e., experiential activities, readings and reflective writing assignments), “structured interaction,” (meeting all of Allport’s conditions for positive intergroup contact), and a “facilitated learning environment” (Nagda, Gurin, Sorensen, & Zúñiga, 2009, p. 4). Also, attention to content and process, emphasis on dialogic methods, and sequencing the

Social justice education  133

dialogue in four stages are important elements of IGD’s pedagogy (Zúñiga et al., 2007, p. 20). The four-stage model that IGD courses follow draws from dialogue and SJE theory and practice to guide and structure the practice of group formation, exploration of group differences, examination of contentious topics as well as exploring possibilities for action taking (Zúñiga & Nagda, 2001; Zúñiga et al., 2002). The first stage of the four-stage design emphasizes group formation and relationship-building and includes lower risk activities, such as ice-breakers, development of guidelines for group communication, talking about hopes and fears for the dialogue, differentiating dialogue from other forms of communication, and practicing the skill of deep listening with one another. Stage two focuses on exploring differences and commonalities of social identity group related experiences, through participant sharing and listening to racial and/or gender experiences growing up, and currently on campus, for example, a “testimonial” activity. Other activities in this stage allow participants to place the stories they heard into a larger institutional frame, considering prejudice, discrimination, and oppression. In the third stage of the dialogue, participants grapple with “hot topics,” potentially contentious topics about which multiple perspectives exist, such as interracial relationships, immigration, or affirmative action (Zúñiga et al., 2007). In these sessions, participants are encouraged to reflect on assigned readings, openly share their perspective, ask questions, and identify commonalities, differences, and overall themes. Conflict is welcomed as part of the process, and participants are not expected to come to an agreement at the end but rather to have a more complex understanding of each other’s perspective. Through a “dialogue about the dialogue” at the conclusion of each of these sessions, participants have a chance to reflect on group process (Zúñiga et al., 2007). The fourth and final stage of IGD shifts the focus, moving from dialogue to action planning, both individually and with others. In this stage, participants share their experiences carrying out the intergroup collaboration project (“ICP”) in which they work in small, diverse teams to create and implement some type of action in their sphere of influence (Zúñiga et al., 2007). Through the ICP experience and resulting presentation, participants have the opportunity to do some reflection about the process and identify skills they will need to continue to hone to take action against injustice in the future. Participants also develop action plans and assess risk level, support, and resources needed to carry these out. Storytelling about personal experiences is a pedagogical practice that is intentionally infused into the IGD curriculum. As mentioned, during the second stage of the dialogue, students and dialogue facilitators are all required to participate in an intentional storytelling activity, “testimonials.” Through the “testimonial” activity, participants each share a pre-written personal narrative, focusing on their socialization into two different social identities. Through sharing these testimonials aloud with their peers, participants begin to know each other on a more intimate level, often making themselves

134  Theory in practice

vulnerable and revealing aspects of themselves rarely brought into an academic context. Following the testimonial activity, participants engage in affinity groups in which they have a chance to speak with others from a similar social identity group about their personal experiences and then share some of what they talked about in a “fishbowl” in which students form the other social identity group have an opportunity to listen in an intentional way to some of their experiences. All of these activities bring personal storytelling to the center of the learning process for students, assist with group building, and give students a concrete base before moving to learning about larger systems of oppression and privilege (Maxwell et al., 2011; Zúñiga et al., 2007). All of these pedagogical features of IGDs, including the simultaneous content-­process focus, in combination with the intentionally created fourstage design help foster the educational goals of consciousness-raising, building relationships across difference, and intergroup action.

Intergroup dialogue initiatives in secondary schools Recent examination of this model reveals benefits are associated with participation in these groups such as greater personal awareness and awareness of intergroup relations (Dessel, Rogge & Garlington, 2006), increased critical thinking on issues of racism, sexism, and homophobia, and greater understanding of social justice issues (Nagda, Kim, & Truelove, 2004). While the process has been most often used with college students, it is increasingly used in middle and high schools, and studies demonstrate positive outcomes at this level as well (Griffin, Brown, & Warren, 2012). For example, in a study of adolescents Aldana, Rowley, Checkoway, and Richards-Schuster (2012) found that participation in intergroup dialogues on race promoted increased ethnic and racial consciousness and racism awareness participants of differing ethnic and racial identities. In a recent meta-analysis of child and adolescent intervention programs to prevent prejudice, programs that promoted direct intergroup contact that emphasized empathy and perspective-taking showed the greatest effect size (Beelmann & Heinemann, 2014)

Intergroup dialogue within the intercultural education framework It is important to note that this model of intergroup dialogue goes beyond individual relationship-building and focusing on the affective-cognitive dimension of cross-cultural dialogue that lead to prejudice reduction, which is why we chose to write about it. While participants do come together and learn about one another, thus enhancing the possibility of mutual understanding, learning about similarities and differences, which, in turn, facilitates prejudice reduction and even intergroup friendships, this model emphasizes that participants develop a critical analysis of inequality to begin a process in which they will take action for social change (Nagda, 2006). This model,

Social justice education  135

then, asks that participants go beyond “cross-cultural” exchanges and dialogue to simply learn about other people’s meaning-making and experiences (towards de-centering one’s own meaning-making structures), this model is critical in that it asks participants to understand systems of oppression and how they impact our individual development and our societies and then asks that participants take action towards social change. To our view this is very important in the context of how we have understood the way intercultural education is being constructed in the European context. As we see it, intercultural education has been de-politicized (a politically charged act in and of itself ) and adopted as a way in which to promote understanding across cultural groups to “manage diversity” (Council of Europe, 2008; 2014a). This is a myopic construction of an educational framework meant as an educational model towards a pluralistic society that will not lead to social change. We argue that the dialogue that happens in school must be intentionally focused on the political and deeply examine issues of power and its impact on youth’s lives, experiences and meaning-making towards the goal of democratic education and social change. Hence, intergroup dialogue should not used to “manage diversity” and conflict resolution and social cohesion/social order. Rather it should be used to leverage diversity towards social justice and change. Adams, Bell, and Griffin (2007) point out that intergroup dialogue is a deeply challenging and reflective process as well as an analytical one. It fosters critical thinking and knowledge of systems of oppression and privilege as well participants’ understanding of their own experiences and participation in these systems. Hence, intergroup dialogue in this model would go beyond gathering a diverse group of students to learn about one another’s cultural backgrounds. This dialogue would include a thoughtful examination of how historical and social inequalities in the European and global context impact people’s lived experiences and realities towards the goal of social action and change. Young people involved in these dialogues would not be simply sharing each other’s cultural beliefs and tradition; rather, they would be talking about their experiences in the world, particularly related to their identities of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, class, disability, religious, national, and cultural identities and more. These, of course, would bring the social-political into the conversation. In Europe, as in other parts of the world where immigration has been generating increasingly diverse and multicultural societies, the dialogues could not be divorced, for example, from youth’s realities connected to the power and privilege of citizenship, or lack thereof. Hence, these dialogues would go beyond the “cultural exchange” model of intergroup dialogue.

Moving toward a critical understanding of students Education involves learning to question the world by cultivating an “epistemological curiosity.” As such, critical pedagogy encourages educators to imagine, dream, and struggle toward building the foundations needed to develop

136  Theory in practice

capacity to be a “presence” in the world (Farahmanpur, 2009, in Critical pedagogy for uncertain times). What would such an approach look like? We remain committed in the belief that pedagogical interventions should be organized around the need for a humanizing dialogic practice that allows for the conditions for engaging with students in a meaningful and authentic manner in order to effectively grapple with the contradiction between reality and promise of democratic schooling (Giroux, 2009 in Veloria & Boyes-Watson, 2014). This requires that educators not only question core assumptions about the curriculum but be willing to take pedagogical twist and turns that enable them to allow for a more attentive and supportive practice grounded in the real-life context of communities, realities, and social worlds. This includes expanding the repertoire of materials by including newspaper clippings, outside textbooks, social media, and student and familiar stories. Crafting intentional circles can help classrooms to function as vigorous public spheres, as active public forums of broad deliberation. This is partly because discourse is a material force in the social construction of the self and society (Macrine, 2009). The values implicit in circles can shape us into people who question the way things are and begin to dialectically explore other possibilities (in Veloria & Boyes-Watson, 2014). Elements of a “problem-posing” educational approach can be incorporated to support students to become more active, critical subjects who could work collaboratively to produce knowledge historically, through their own critique of existing conditions and the actions they took to transform them (McLaren, 2000). Critical pedagogical approaches entail the recognition of critical literacies as embodiment and critical engagement (Hill, 2009; Janks, 2002; Johnson, 2011; Johnson & Vasudevan, 2012: Perry & Medina, 2011; Wohlwend & Lewis, 2010 in Lewis & Tierney, 2013). These approaches challenge educators to confront dominant framings of certain ethnic groups lacking literacy skills, and their ability to engage multiple texts by exploring the possibility of grappling with complex ways of being literate. Critical literacy enables students to make meaning of their learning, raise their critical thinking skills, and read and critique in a reflective manner (Lopez, 2011). This matters because earlier work in cognitive psychology—often based on a metaphor that saw the human mind as a digital computer (Newell & Simon 1972). Newer research clearly demonstrates that human memory is nearly limitless and that we can and do store almost all our actual experiences in our brains and use these experiences to reason about similar experiences or new ones in the future (Gee, 2004; Churchland, P. S., 1986; Churchland, P. M., 1989; Churchland & Sejnowski, 1992). This is important for students who need to rely on their memories to remember who they were, what they left behind, and their histories as is the case, for example, for the many young people leaving their homelands as they migrate across the globe. How do educators draw these individual and collective memories? Can these be interwoven with content? Can these open the door for new relationship to form and an expanded view of literacies and modalities?

Social justice education  137

“Situated-sociocultural” is the term that Gee (2000) identified as a blend of themes emerging from work on situated cognition, learning, and work on sociocultural approaches to language, literacy, and culture. In his earlier writings in Sociolinguistics and Literacies (Gee 1990, 1996, 2007), he identified “New Literacy Studies” as an approach that views literacy as something people do, not only in their heads, but inside society. Essentially, he argued that literacy is not primarily a mental phenomenon, but, rather, a sociocultural one that needs to be understood in a full range of contexts ranging from social, cultural, historical, and institutional. Given the various social and cultural practices students engage in and interact with, literacy is then best understood in a plural form as literacies (Gee, 2000). There is extensive debate about what new literacies are—­ however, there are at least four common elements that apply to nearly all of the current perspectives being used to inform the broader dimensions of new literacies research (Coiro, Knobel, Lankshear, & Leu, 2008): (1) the Internet and other forms of social media require new social practices, skills, strategies, and dispositions for their effective use; (2) new literacies are central to full civic, economic, and personal participation in a global community; (3) new literacies rapidly change as defining technologies change; and (4) new literacies are multiple, multimodal, and multifaceted; thus, they benefit from multiple lenses seeking to understand how to better support our students in a digital age. If we are open to the notion that individuals do not just read and write but engage in these practices in specific ways that are determined by the values and practices of the different social and cultural groups they belong to, then it is easy to see how school can become sites of semiotics struggles. For example, how might students read a text like the Bible? Is it read as theology, literature, history, or even self-help? If individuals can read the same text in different ways for different purposes as Gee, (2000) suggest, then how do educators engage this type of sense-making or “moral reasoning?” (Steinberg & Kincheloe, 2010). Following this line of thinking, what are the literacies that students bring to the classroom space? How are these taken up, understood, engaged and discarded? How do educators unpack and make sense of dialogic encounters? Why does this matter in the context of rapid technological changes and access to worldwide information and events? What role can critical theory play in transforming school practices toward the goal of transforming society as a whole? The answer to these questions rests on who we are when we teach. This is due to the notion that whether we are conscious of it or not, we perpetuate values, beliefs, myths, and meaning about the world and the students and families we work with. As such, education must be understood as a politicizing project (or depoliticizing) that conditions student and educators alike to subscribe to the dominant ideological norms and political assumptions of the prevailing social order (Darder, 2010) and the demands placed by those administering and teaching from above.

138  Theory in practice

Critical pedagogy remains a source of hope and possibility for educators engaged in struggles against oppression that goes beyond the classroom and beyond the structures of schools. They are invited to expand this work with a commitment to a sustain critique and an intentionality towards incorporating a “dialectical view of the world” that interrogates voices, include diverse perspective, and is ultimately committed to the political dimensions of teaching (Freire, 1970).

Anti-colonial praxis in a “post-colonial” European context In this section, we would like to explore the possibilities for decolonizing education in the European context, for while many in the dominant class would argue that colonialism is a thing of the distant past, we, along with all critical scholars, would argue that that is far from the collective histories of the peoples that migrate from previously colonized nations to those nations who conquered, exploited, and who profited from their colonial past. For example, educational texts written from a Eurocentric perspective rely on colonialist ideologies and histories to exclude minorities’ histories and cultures and emphasize Western superiority (Araújo & Maeso, 2012b; Frijhoff, 2010; Willinsky, 1998). These practices often lead to further marginalization and warped representations that reproduce hegemonic ideologies of racialized inferiority (Apple, 1979; Foster, 1999) and perpetuate capitalist structures of inequality by acting as a mechanism by which students of color are alienated from educational structures leading to diminished educational attainment (Bourdieu and Passeron, 1990; Watkins, Lewis, and Chou, 2001 in Weiner, 2018). Building on critical theories that emphasize the need for the ongoing evaluation of any critical theory and critical pedagogy, through various lenses to continue the work of revisiting, refining, and strengthening practice, we draw on the work of Lyiscott, Caraballo & Morrell (2018) and others who advocate for anti-colonial praxis. According to Lyiscott, Caraballo & Morrell (2018), these practices are part of an anti-colonial stance that include: 1. Dynamic pedagogies that explicitly acknowledge agency that leads to empowerment rather than paralysis in the face of injustice. This is important as we commented in Chapter 3, even within rigid institutional structures, educators have a degree of agency that allows them to intervene and resist in creative ways 2. Dialogical intersubjectivity encompasses how educators conceptualize the learner and the learning process which speak to how students make meaning from content, texts an image grounded in a sociocultural theories that cast learning as a social process. With this in mind, educators can foster agentic spaces whereby difficult conversations can be had that take into account current events, counter-narratives, and

Social justice education  139

the social realities embedded in lived experiences. For example, when immigrants are included in curricula, their presence if often symbolic, without holistic incorporation or restructuring of histories (Apple & Christian-Smith, 1991; Drew, 1997). This calls for a continuous understanding of how the subjectivities of students and educators are constituted and constructed 3. Democratic participation focuses on the documentation and implementation of decolonizing practices that are socially just and promote change throughout the educational spectrum. Immigrant and minority-related policies have contributed to unequal opportunities and racialization (De Zwart & Poppelaars, 2007). This requires that educators attend to the broader context of education which includes attending to the work of policy makers and education broadly conceptualized (non-traditional educational spaces). Heading the call for revisiting and refining means that educators must be willing to critically interrogate practices, attend to implantation issues, engage in reflexivity, and be amenable to change. Anti-colonial praxis rest on the premise that schools are saturated by colonial dynamics (Lyiscott, ­Caraballo & Morrell, 2018). Howard (2006) comments that only when educators recognize and are willing to point out the enduring colonial dynamics in our neo-colonial or global colonial times, the appropriateness of applying anti-colonial thought in this junction will become clear (p. 48). We argue that the time is now. In an increasingly connected, yet disconnected world, essentialist depictions of unassimilable immigrants encourage structural and physical violence (Weiner, 2018) that extend multiple real and symbolic borders. These approaches, grounded in critical theories and a social justice framework challenges educators to move towards what Keenan (1997) calls a “politics of possibility” through continual critical engagement with texts, images, events, and other registers of meaning which lead to transformation.

Conclusion Intercultural education is built on the concepts of valuing diversity and “super-­d iversity,” understanding and appreciating culture, gaining intercultural competence, supporting prejudice reduction and dialogue, and supporting social cohesion in an increasingly diverse and multi-ethnic Europe. By doing so, interculturalists argue, European nations will combat racism, xenophobia, Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, homophobia, and other systems of oppression. We do not concur with this line of thinking. In this chapter, indeed, throughout this book, we have put forth the argument that addressing culture, interculturality, and reducing prejudice, while important, does not address nor change structural injustice and systems of oppression, because while racism and other systems of oppression do exist on the interpersonal level, they must be addressed as institutionalized, systemic and cultural

140  Theory in practice

phenomena in sociopolitical and historical context. We also question who are the beneficiaries of this intercultural pedagogy and “dialogue.” As we noted in Chapter 4, immigrant students (and their “cultures”) can easily become objects in lessons on “culture” as dominant children learn/practice and gain “intercultural competence” because of their (immigrant children) presence in the educational context. In Chapter 2, we also posed questions about issues of power within these dialogues meant to move people towards “shared values” (do participants have equal access/power? Do they come to the table as equals? Who sets up the rules of the dialogues? Who invites the participants? Whose values are the “shared values” that participants are moving towards?). Clearly, “dialogues” are not neutral spaces are, themselves, contexts informed in dominant ideologies. For this reason, this chapter proposed social justice and anti-colonial frameworks of education. Informed in critical theories and ideologies; these theoretical paradigms and pedagogies intentionally call in the sociopolitical and lived experiences of students into the classrooms with a praxis focused on decolonizing education. As we delineate in this chapter, social justice (and anti-colonial) education proposes that we teach about structural inequality and oppression towards the goal of social justice and liberation from a liberatory perspective. These frameworks and praxis will require educators to decolonize classroom practice and emphasize collaboration, experiential and student-centered pedagogies, and engage in critical conversations about structural inequality, histories of colonial dynamics as well as contemporary neoliberal ideologies and neo-assimilationist practices that fuel and maintain neo-colonial and global colonial dynamics that perpetuate these structural inequalities. Social justice and anti-colonial education ask educators to bring these important and courageous conversations into the classroom to forge teaching and learning relationships with students towards social change and social action. In this way, these frameworks are markedly different than intercultural education’s focus on learning about “other cultures,” which we would argue can be essentializing and harmful. But we propose that if intercultural education and intercultural educators could do the important self-reflection work of decolonizing the framework and inform the praxis with this sort of critical work, intercultural education could become truly transformative in the European context.

Final thoughts

When we set out to plan this book two years ago, we did so with a sense of urgency as we observed the increasing rise of anti-immigration, racist, xenophobic, and Islamophobic popular discourses and populist, nativist, and right-wing political rhetoric and movements proposing legislation to further solidify structural inequality and institutionalized systems of oppression already in place. We were and continue to be deeply troubled by these dynamics. Within a swelling neoliberal context, we have seen a rise in ultra-­ nationalist discourses rooted in a racist ideology—an outgrowth of racial cleansing and racial purity ideology that have experienced a resurgence and form the basis for policy and language used to promote what Giroux (2018) calls an anti-immigration logic. More recently, as Ambrosini (2018) notes, the so-called refugee crisis has dramatically exacerbated this trend provoking alarm in public opinion and demanding protection at national borders and “tougher” stances against asylum seekers and immigrants. We wanted to write about these dynamics, which are transforming Europe and further wanted to explore how these challenges are being addressed (or not addressed) in educational contexts and in the proposed framework of intercultural education. We found it necessary to critically analyze and reflect upon the theoretical framework and pedagogy of intercultural education (as it is understood in the European context) as this is the framework which has been promoted over the last two decades by European institutions and documents in response to an increasingly multi-ethnic and diverse European society and system of schooling. As Ambrosini notes in the afterword: “an important part of the intellectual work, especially in social sciences, consists in deconstructing public discourse and official policies, showing their shortcomings or implicit biases” (p. 147). This work, then, enters the debate between multiculturalism and interculturalism historicizing and contextualizing the two models and contributes to the problematization of the complex internal articulation of the two paradigms highlighting the critical tensions within the frameworks both at the conceptual level as well as at their pedagogical manifestation. We delve deep into the intercultural framework to reveal its problem dynamics at multiple levels: the multiple dimensions within the concept of interculture, which are often at odds

142  Final thoughts

and in tension with one another; the problems related to translating the conceptual model into its pedagogical extension; and the dynamics related to the operationalization and implementation of intercultural education in schools. We also discuss how interculturalism focuses on the ways in which it distinguishes itself from multiculturalism and multicultural education. Contextualizing this debate within the sociological and political developments related to multiculturalism and interculturalism, we highlight that the intercultural approach is deeply connected to neoliberal ideology ( Joppke, 2016) and can be understood as one that extends out of neo-assimilationism (­A mbrosini, 2016), while multiculturalism can be understood as emerging from a critical ideology (Martin & Pirbhai-Illich, 2015). Interculturalists see themselves creating a new and improved iteration of a framework (multiculturalism) they saw as deeply flawed. They view multiculturalists as too pro-minority, pro-diversity, which they believe created a phenomenon of social fragmentation or “parallel societies,” by which immigrants did/do not integrate fully into European society. They also accuse multiculturalists of focusing myopically on diversity only as a function of race and ethnicity and not as diversity of gender, sexual orientation, disability, religious identity, and other social identities (Cantle, 2015). Therefore, interculturalists propose their framework as a more sophisticated and nuanced alternative to multiculturalism that could promote social cohesion through the valorization of true diversity or “super diversity” (intended as diversity of multiple identities), the valuing of cross-cultural dialogue, and the convergence towards “shared values,” understood as values from the Western liberal tradition (Council of Europe 2008; Council of the European Union, 2004). This version of interculturalism is supported in the European documents as an instrument of political, social, economic and cultural integration and social cohesion in culturally diverse societies (Council of Europe, 2008). As discussed throughout the book, from this perspective, the concept of “diversity,” “valuing diversity,” “intercultural dialogue,” is more acceptable to the dominant European elites, responds to a neoliberal ideology of “diversity management” (Ambrosini, 2016, p. 2; Faist, 2009) and points to go beyond multiculturalist policies considered as myopically or misguidedly focused on the rights of immigrant communities. Proposed in the European documents as policies to promote “social cohesion,” “intercultural dialogue,” “universal values,” “human rights,” “pluralistic democracies,” interculturalism, then, can be explained and promoted as a new project of “governance” of cultural diversity. Interculturalism, and its pedagogical extension, intercultural education, therefore, become a new form of “governmentality” and are in line with the reorientation towards new policies of immigration towards civic integration. The book connects bodies of literature often separated by discipline or context—interculturalism and civic integration in Euorpe, critical theory and pedagogy, social justice education in the United States—and offers new conceptual tools to strengthen the framework and pedagogical extension of intercultural education.

Final thoughts  143

Through critical theory and pedagogy, we capture that what is noticeably absent from the intercultural framework is a critical analysis of the structures of power and inequity that maintain inequality that demand that they be identified, studied, understood, analyzed, and deconstructed towards the goal of transformative education for social change. We argue that scholars and educators need to understand not simply the theoretical framework, but the antecedents that produced it, along with the current dynamics that point toward where it is moving. It is into this dynamic of motion that critical analysis and pedagogical interventions can be inserted in order to engage and expose students in a manner that allows them to think critically and become better informed and agentic citizens (Fischman, 2009). A critical exploration of students’ histories and experiences in contextualized spaces is then needed to understand particular linguistic, cultural, and social interactions, which both shape and are shaped by social, political, economic and cultural dynamics (Fischman, 2009). Furthermore, the book rethinks the conceptualization of intergroup contact contained in the intercultural model and highlights how it is misguided (and empirically unfounded) to theorize that intergroup contact alone will increase intergroup dialogue, which, in turn, will increase intercultural competence, decrease prejudice and bring about social change or social justice in schools or society at large. We spend much time in the book critically analyzing dialogue, the conceptual “innovation” and cornerstone of intercultural education and interculturalism, which interculturalists believe is both the mechanism through which intercultural competence is acquired as well as the end result, itself: the competency that enhances multiperspectivity and decreases prejudice. This, in turn, is important as this competence is understood to be a foundation upon which to build a society that values diversity and that can coalesce towards social cohesion for a pluralistic Europe. We make a strong case that there is little evidence that dialogue and interpersonal change, in and of themselves, lead to structural changes in systems of injustice in schools and in society at large. In revisiting an Italian case study, for example, we present Italian educators’ understanding and practice which they state are part of intercultural education. We apply a critical lens to analyze how educators take up, or not, intercultural education in the classroom and school community at large and propose that if intercultural education aims to support social justice and social change as some aspire it to do (Leclerq, 2002; Tiedt & Tiedt, 2010; Zembylas & Iasonos, 2010), then “valuing diversity” and “dialogue” cannot be enough. Schools as a notion of “public spheres” represent both an ideal and a referent for critique and social transformation (Giroux, 1983a). According to Giroux (1983), As an ideal, it posits the need for the ideological and cultural conditions necessary of civic citizenship. That is, it signifies the need for an enlightened citizenry able to rationalize power through the medium of public

144  Final thoughts

discussion under conditions free from domination. As a referent for critique, it calls into question the gap between the promise and the reality of the existing liberal public spheres. In one sense, the concept of the public sphere reveals the degree to which culture has become a commodity to be consumed and produced as part of the logic of reification rather in the interest of the enlightenment and self-determination. (p. 236) Throughout the book we make the case that a focus on culture, intercultural competence, and dialogue will never bring about social justice nor make schools more just spaces. Having privileged students and marginalized students’ dialogue will never, ever, change their conditions of dominance and marginalization. For this reason, we propose that while important, intergroup contact and dialogue are a necessary component of an intercultural education but not sufficient aspects of a transformative education towards social justice. We ponder what would it mean to provide the conditions where people can have the right of agency and act against rigid structures? Irrespective of the ongoing educational debates, dominant and politically motivated ideological seeds are planted into government- and school-sanctioned documents that will ultimately inform pedagogical practices as carried out by school-based educators who work within the confines of institutionalized structures, yet these individuals can and often do exercise a great deal of agency. At the end of the day, educators are the ones that need to implement policy directives in contextualized spaces imbued with contestation, power, and struggle which qualitatively changes because the structures of production, the state, the schools, and other institutions keep changing as a result of new issues and conflicts (Carnoy, 1989). The resurgence of unabashed, ultra-­ nationalistic discourses by the global elite permeates nation-states and public institutions charged with receiving and educating immigrant students. In a global economy, capitalist tendencies dominate and social conflict is deeply rooted in this dominance. Therefore, understanding power dynamics linked to larger ideological projects connected with capitalism, colonialism, and neoliberalism is crucial to bring about the much-needed changes in school and society. No society is ever just enough (Giroux, 2018), and when schools are viewed as sites of hope and possibilities, the potential for more just societies becomes a goal to continuously and collaboratively works towards. Never before has the need for more humane and inclusive pedagogical practices been greater. As we highlight, education is occurring at a time where the world is connected in ways that are at once promising and challenging. Critical theory attends to preoccupations related to “education, information, and transformation,” by providing a “school of thought” and a process by which to ask hard critical questions and pose critiques (Giroux, 1997b). It challenges us to explore the concept of education broadly conceptualized by exploring education by whom? We agree with Gorski’s sentiment in the foreword that it does not matter what we call the new frameworks du jour:

Final thoughts  145

Whatever language I use, I’m always driven by one grounding principle: the path to equity and justice begins with a direct confrontation with inequity and injustice. We cannot transform conditions we refuse to name. We cannot fix educational disparities if we refuse to acknowledge how they are rooted in structural societal disparities. If we cannot, or choose not to, recognize how those structural injustices inform everything we do in schools and how everything we do in schools affects the most marginalized students, we cement our complicities with the injustices intercultural education ought to destroy. (p.xi) Therefore, the call is to “recognize, acknowledge, and name” unapologetically to avoid being complicit in structures where some win and many more lose. Finally, the book hopes to contribute to an advancement both in the theoretical debate on interculturalism and multiculturalism and on their pedagogical extensions as well as an appeal to a strengthening of the conceptual framework of intercultural education so as to move beyond the current politically insititutionalized interculturalism as a new form of governmentality. In addition, the book aims to add a contribution to a conceptualization and operationalization of intercultural education and research in sociological and pedagogical contexts towards new solutions in the world of schooling to create more critical educational spaces that are more equitable for all students towards the goal of building a socially just and transformative institution of schooling.

Afterword Maurizio Ambrosini University of Milan

In recent years, international migrations have become one of the major issues on the political agendas of many governments around the world. In Europe, in particular, the growing salience of migration issues, together with the persisting problems in the social integration of migrant minorities, have generated growing disaffection with multiculturalism, at least as a discourse, in the political debate (Grillo, 2005). The terrorist attacks of September 2001 in the U.S.A. and the corresponding events in several European countries have fostered this trend. Europe has experienced growing anxiety, especially when Muslim minorities are concerned. Terrorist attacks have fueled mistrust and prejudice; and backlash against cultural and religious diversity has become a legitimate stance. Several national leaders, including Blair, Cameron, Merkel, and Sarkozy, have openly criticized the political idea of multiculturalism, even if this term can be understood in different ways. It can be defined, following Modood, as “the recognition of group difference within the public sphere of laws, democratic discourses and the terms of a shared citizenship and national identity” (2007, p. 2). But it can also be assumed, in practice, as an umbrella term covering many types of policy concerning ethnic and cultural diversities, migrants’ associations, promotion of ethnic minorities. More recently, the so-called “refugee crisis” in Europe has dramatically exacerbated this trend (Ambrosini, 2018), provoking alarm in public opinion, demands for protection of national borders, tensions among states, the electoral decline of established parties and the success of new political actors with tougher anti-immigrant and anti-asylum seeker stances. Religious and cultural diversity is in turn affected, as a kind of “internal front” of this struggle against what can be termed a kind of “globalization from below” concerning the mobility of (poor) human beings from less developed to more developed countries and their settlement in the Global North. As a consequence, the policies of most immigrant-receiving states have been aimed at reaffirming both the control of external borders and the values of identity and national belonging (Balibar, 2012). If physical walls have returned on the European soil, also cultural walls and fences have been erected with the aim of preserving the social and cultural order of receiving societies.

Afterword  147

Emphasis is now put on objectives of social cohesion and civic integration. For recently settled immigrants, these new guidelines have produced regulatory actions and public rhetorics of what can be termed a neo-assimilationist approach. Now a commitment to “civic integration” is often required of newcomers in terms of knowledge of the language, history, and customs of receiving countries, respect for their democratic values, loyalty to their institutions (Antonsich, 2016). In an increasing number of European countries, the new policies include language tests for immigrants, before their arrival, on renewal of their stay permits, and not only at the moment of the acquisition of citizenship. The formal signing of special “integration agreements” according to a demand for “civic integration” is also required in several countries, like France and Italy ( Joppke, 2007; Goodman, 2010). As Joppke (2016) points out, in the past European countries did not really pursue multicultural policies, but simply neglected developing integration policies. But in the present debate some ideas and normative stances are now widely accepted, and they could frame integration projects for the future: social cohesion, diversity, equality, intercultural dialogue and commitment to non-discrimination. In this framework, intercultural policies and intercultural education as their pedagogical version have been presented as a kind of third way between assimilationism and multiculturalism: an alternative to multiculturalism and a new way to promote dialogue and mutual understanding between people of diverse cultural backgrounds. This new approach has been embraced with enthusiasm by European institutions and national boards: in particular in Italy by the educational system. In practice every school manager or teacher engaged with cultural diversity now claims to develop “intercultural activities,” putting into the same basket all kinds of initiatives that could have some reference to immigration and ethno-religious pluralism. Concepts and labels are important in both policy-making and education: finding the right label to present a policy to public opinion, to build consensus on it, to connect the purpose of such policy to other desirable social goals, is part and parcel of political activity. A good leader is able to persuade the electors that his/her proposals are the best way to achieve a better society, and in this way to serve the interests of the majority of the population. This is particularly true in a contentious field like immigration policy. At the same time, an important part of the intellectual work, especially in social sciences, consists in deconstructing public discourse and official policies, showing their shortcomings or implicit biases. This is precisely what I find most relevant in this book. It has the value of critically analyzing the meaning and the implications of intercultural education, setting it in relation to educational and social justice. It is the right book at the right moment, and it deserves wide circulation among a public of educational experts, scholars, and practitioners on both sides of the Atlantic.

References

Aboud, F. E. (1988). Children and prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Aboud, F. E., & Levy, S. R. (2000). Interventions to reduce prejudice and discrimination in children and adolescents. Aboud, F. E., & Mendelson, M. J. (1996). Determinants of friendship selection and quality: Developmental perspectives. In M. Bukowski, A. F. Newcomb, & W. W. Hartup (Eds.), Cambridge studies in social and emotional development: The company they keep: Friendship in childhood and adolescence (pp. 87–112). New York: Cambridge University Press. Aboud, F. E., & Sankar, J. (2007). Friendship and identity in a language-integrated school. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 31(5), 445–453. Aboud, F., Mendelson, M., & Purdy, K. (2003). Cross-race peer relations and friendship quality. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 27(2), 165–173. Aboud, F. E, Tredoux, C., Tropp, L. Spears Brown, C., Niens, U, & Noor, N. (2012). Interventions to reduce prejudice and enhance inclusion and respect for ethnic differences in early childhood: A systematic review. Developmental Review, 32, 307–336. Adams, M. (2007). Pedagogical Frameworks for Social Justice Education. In M. Adams, L. Bell, & P. Griffin (Eds.), Teaching for diversity and social justice (pp. 15–33). New York: Routledge. Adams, M. (2012). Social justice education. In D. Christie (Ed.), The encyclopedia of peace psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 1033–1036). New York: Wiley-Blackwell. Adams, M. (2014). Social justice and education. In M. Reisch (Ed.), The international handbook of social justice (pp. 249–268). London: Routledge. Adams, M., & Marchesani, L. (1997). Multiple issues course overview. In M. Adams, L. Bell, & P. Griffin (Eds.), Teaching for diversity and social justice (pp. 261–278). New York: Routledge. Adams, M., Bell, L., & Griffin, P. (2007). Teaching for diversity and social justice (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge. Adams, M., Jones, J., & Tatum, B. D. (1997). Knowing our students. In M. Adams, L. A. Bell & P. Griffin (Eds.), Teaching for diversity and social justice. New York: Routledge. Adler, S., & Goodman, J. (1986). Critical theory as foundation for methods courses. Journal of Teacher Education, 37(4), 2–8. Adams, M., & Zhou, Y. (1990). Some cognitive developmental characteristics of social diversity education. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association. Boston, MA.

150  References Agger, B. (1992). The discourse of domination. Chicago: Northwestern University Press. Aikman, S. (1997). Interculturality and intercultural education: A challenge for democracy. International Review of Education, 43(5–6), 463–479. Alba, R. D. (1990). Ethnic identity: The transformation of white America. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Alba, R. D., & Nee, V. (1997). Rethinking assimilation theory for a new era of immigration. International Migration Review, 31(4), 826–874. Aldana, A., Rowley, S. J., Checkoway, B., & Richards-Schuster, K. (2012). Raising ethnic-racial consciousness: The relationship between intergroup dialogues and adolescents’ ethnic-racial identity and racism awareness. Equity & Excellence in Education, 45(1), 120–137. Alighai-Brown, Y. (2000). After multiculturalism. Lodon: Foreing Policy Centre. Allemann-Ghionda, C. (2008). L’éducation interculturelle dans les écoles. Breuxelles: Parlement Européén. Retrieved from www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ etudes/join/2008/405392/IPOL-CULT_ET%282008%29405392_FR.pdf. Allport, G. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Althusser, L. (1976). Essays in self-criticism (G. Lock, Trans.). London: NLB, Humanities Press. Altschul, I, Oyserman, D., & Bybee, D. (2008). Racial-ethnic self-schemas and segmented assimilation: Identity and the academic achievement of Hispanic youth. Social Psychology Quarterly, 71(3), 302–320. Ambrosini, M. (2008). Un’altra globalizzazione. Il Mulino: Bologna. Ambrosini, M. (2014). Non passa lo straniero? Le politiche migratorie tra sovranità nazionale e diritti umani. Assisi: Cittadella Editrice. Ambrosini, M. (2016). Superdiversity, multiculturalism and local policies: A study on European cities. Policy & Politics, doi:10.1332/030557316X14745534309609. Ambrosini, M. (2018). Irregular immigration in southern Europe: Actors, dynamics and governance. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Anders, G. C. (1980). Theories of underdevelopment and the American Indian. Journal of Economic Issues, 14(3), 681–701. Antonsich, M. (2014). Living together in diversity: A journey from scholarly views to people’s voices and back. Bollettino della Società Geografica Italiana, 13(7), 317–337. Antonsich, M. (2016). International migration and the rise of the ‘civil’ nation. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 42(11), 1790–1807. doi:10.1080/13691 83X.2016.1155980. Antonsich, M., & Matejskova T. (2015). Immigration societies and the question of “the national.” Ethnicities, 15(4), 495–508. Apple, M. (1979). Ideology and the curriculum. New York: Routledge. Apple, M. (1995). Education and power (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge. Apple, M. W. & Teitelbaum, K. (1985). Are teachers losing control of their Jobs? Social Education, 49(5), 372–375. Araújo, M., & Maeso S. (2012a). History textbooks, racism and the critique of Eurocentrism: Beyond rectification or Compensation. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 35(7), 1266–1286. Araújo, M., & Maeso, S. (2012b). Slavery and racism as the ‘wrongs’ of (European) history: Reflections from a study on Portuguese textbooks. In D. Hamilton, K. Hodgson, & J. Quirk (Eds.), Slavery, memory, and identity: National representations and global legacies. London: Pickering & Chatto.

References  151 Aronowitz, M. (1984). The social and emotional adjustment of immigrant children. International Migration Review, 26, 89–110. Aronowitz, S., & Giroux, H. A. (1993). Education still under siege: Critical studies in education and culture (2nd ed.) Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey. Bagci, S. C., Kumashiro, M., Smith, P. K., Blumberg, H., & Rutland, A. (2014). Cross-ethnic friendships: Are they really rare? Evidence from secondary schools around London. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 41, 125–137. Bakhtin, M. (1984). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Balibar, E. (1991). “Is there a ‘neo-racism?” In E. Balibar & I. Wallerstein (Eds.), Race, nation, class: Ambiguous identities (pp. 17–28). London: Verso. Balibar, E. (2012). Strangers as enemies. Mondi Migranti, 6(1), 7–25. Banks, C. A. M., & Banks, J. A. (1995). Equity pedagogy: An essential component of multicultural education. Theory into practice, 34, 152–158. Banks, J. A. (2004a). Multicultural education: Historical development, dimensions, and practice. In J. A. Banks & C. A. M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (2nd ed., pp. 3–29). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Banks, J. A. (2004b). Teaching for social justice, diversity, and citizenship in a global world. The Educational Forum, 68(4), 296–305. Banks, J. A. (2005). Improving multicultural education: Lessons from the intergroup education movement. New York: Teachers College Press. Banks, J. A. (2006a). Cultural diversity and education: Foundations, curriculum, and teaching (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson. Banks, J. A. (2006b). Race, culture, and education: The selected works of James A. Banks. New York: Routledge. Banks, J. A. (2017). Failed citizenship and transformative civic education. Educational Researcher, 46(7), 366–377. doi:10.3102/0013189X17726741. Banks, J. A., & McGee Banks, C. A. (Eds.) (2009). Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives. Needham Heights, MA: Wiley. Barrett, M. (2012). Intercultural competence. EWC Statement Series, Second Issue. Oslo: European Wergeland Centre, 23–27. Barrett, M. (2013). (Ed.). Interculturalism and multiculturalism: Similarities and differences. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Bauman, Z. (1998). Globalization: The Human Consequences. New York: Columbia University Press. Baxter, L. (2004). Dialogues of relating. In R. Anderson, L. Baxter, & K. Cissna, (Eds.), Dialogue: Theorizing difference in communication studies (pp. 107–124). ­Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Beelmann, A., & Heinemann, K. S. (2014). Preventing prejudice and improving intergroup attitudes: A meta-analysis of child and adolescent training programs. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 35(1), 10–24. Bell, L. A. (1997). Theoretical foundations for social justice education. In M. Adams, L. A. Bell & P. Griffin (Eds.), Teaching for diversity and social justice (pp. 3–15). New York: Routledge. Bell, L. A. (2007). Theoretical foundations for social justice education. In M.  Adams, L. A. Bell, & P. Griffin (Eds.), Teaching for diversity and social justice (2nd ed., pp. 1–14). New York: Routledge. Bell, L. A. (2010). Storytelling for social justice: Connecting narrative and the arts in antiracist teaching. New York: Routledge.

152  References Bell, L. A., & Griffin, P. (2007). Designing social justice education courses. In M. Adams, L. A. Bell, & P. Griffin (Eds.), Teaching for diversity and social justice (2nd ed., pp. 67–88). New York: Routledge. Bell, L. A., & Roberts, R. A. (2010). The storytelling project model: A theoretical framework for critical examination of racism through the arts. Teachers College Record, 112(9), 2295–2319. Bell, L. A., Love, B. J., & Roberts, R. A. (2007). Racism and white privilege curriculum design. In M. Adams, L. Bell, & P. Griffin (Eds.), Teaching for diversity and social justice (2nd ed. pp. 15–33). New York: Routledge. Bellmore, A. D., Nishina, A., Witkow, M. R., Graham, S., & Juvonen, J. (2007). The influence of classroom ethnic composition on same-and other-ethnicity peer nominations in middle school. Social development, 16(4), 720–740. Belloula, T. (1965). Les Algériens en France. Algiers: Editions Nationales Algériennes. Benner, A. D., & Kim, S. Y. (2009). Experiences of discrimination among Chinese American adolescents and the consequences for socioemotional and academic development. Developmental Psychology, 45(6), 1682. Berman, S. (1993). A comparison of dialogue and debate. In Study Circles Resource Centers, Facing the challenge of racism and race relations: Democratic dialogue and action for stronger communities (3rd ed., p. 33). Pomfret, CT: Topsfield Foundation. Berman, P., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1978). Federal programs supporting educational change, Vol. 8: Implementing and sustaining innovations. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Bermudez, A. (2008). Thinking critically together: The intellectual and discursive dynamics of controversial conversations. Doctoral dissertation. Harvard University, ­Cambridge, MA. Bermudez, A. (2014). Four tools for critical inquiry in history, social studies and civic education. Revista Estudios Sociales, 52, 103–118. Bernstein, B. (1977; 1990). Class, codes and control, Vol. 3: Towards a theory of educational transmissions. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Berscheid, E, & Walster, E. (1983). Interpersonal attraction. Reading, MA: AddisonWesley. Besozzi, E. (2001). L’incontro tra culture e la possibile convivenza. Studi di sociologia. Anno XXXVIII, Gennaio-Marzo, 64–81. Besozzi, E. (2006). Società, cultura, educazione. Teorie, contesti, processi. Roma: Carocci. Besozzi, E. (2008). Culture in gioco e modelli di integrazione nella scuola italiana. In M. Clementi (Ed.), La scuola e il dialogo interculturale. Quaderni Ismu, 2/2008. Milano. Besozzi, E., Colombo, M., & Santagati, M. (2009). Giovani stranieri, nuovi cittadini. Le strategie di una generazione ponte. Milano: FrancoAngeli. Binder, J., Zagef ka, H., Brown, R., Funke, F., Kessler, T., Mummendey, A., & Leyens, J. P. (2009). Does contact reduce prejudice or does prejudice reduce contact? A longitudinal test of the contact hypothesis among majority and minority groups in three European countries. Journal of personality and social psychology, 96(4), 843–856. Boaler, J. (2006). How a detracked mathematics approach promoted respect, responsibility, and high achievement. Theory into practice, 45, 40–46. Bobo, L. D., & Fox, C. (2003). Race, racism, and discrimination: Bridging problems, methods, and theory in social psychological research. Social Psychology Quarterly, 66(4), 319–332. Bohm, D. (1996). On dialogue. New York: Routledge.

References  153 Boler, M. (2006). Democratic dialogue in education: Troubling speech, disturbing silence. New York: Lang. Bonilla-Silva, E. (2003a). Racism without Racists: Color-blind racism and the persistence of racial inequality in America. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Bonilla-Silva, E. (2003b). “New racism,” color-blind racism, and the future of whiteness in America. In A. Doane & E. Bonilla-Silva (Eds.), White out: The continuing significance of racism (pp. 271–284). New York: Routledge. Bonilla-Silva, E., & Forman, T. S. (2000). “I am not a racist but …”: Mapping white college students’ racial ideology in the USA. Discourse & Society, 11(1), 50–85. Bouchard, D. F. (1977). Language, counter-memory, practice: Selected essays and interviews by Michel Foucault. New York: Cornell University Press. Bouchard, G. & Taylor, C. (2008). Building the future: A time for Reconciliation. Report of the Consultation Commission on Accommodation Practices Related to Cultural Difference. Quebec: Government of Quebec. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). New York: Greenwood. Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. (1977, 1990). Reproduction in education, society and culture. London and Beverly Hills: Sage Publication. Boyatsis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101. Breunig, M. (2005). Turning experiential education and critical pedagogy theory into praxis. Journal of Experiential Education, 28(5), 106–122. Brooks, J. Knaus, B. C., & Chong, H. (2015). Educational leadership against racism: Challenging policy, pedagogy and practice, International Journal of Multicultural Education, 17 (1), 1–5. Brown, A. K. (2012). Trapped by narcissism: A disillusioned Dutch society. Macalester International, 30, 22–46. Brown, B. (2012). Daring greatly: How the courage to be vulnerable transforms the ways we live, love, parent, and lead. New York: Penguin Books. Brubaker, R. (2001). The return of assimilation? Changing perspectives on immigration and its sequels in France, Germany and the United States. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 24(4), 531–548. Brubaker, R. (2005). The diaspora. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 28(1), 1–19. Buber, M. (1965). Between man and man (M. Friedman, Ed.; R. Smith, Trans.). New York: Macmillan. Buber, M. (1970). I and thou (W. Kaufman, Trans.). New York: Scribner. Buhrmester, D. (1990). Intimacy of friendship, interpersonal competence, and adjustment during preadolescence and adolescence. Child development, 61(4), 1101–1111. Burbules, N. C. (1993). Dialogue in teaching: Theory and practice. New York: Columbia University Teachers College Press. Burrell, S. L. (2008). Assessing the effect of a diversity course on college students’ readiness for social action engagement. Unpublished dissertation. University of Massachusetts Amherst. Burrell-Storms, S. L. (2012). Preparing students for social action in a social justice education course: What works? Equity and Excellence in Education, 45(4), 547–560. Burton, P. (2010). Creativity in Hong Kong schools. World Englishes, 29(4), 493–507. Butler, J. (1993). Critically queer. GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian & Gay Studies, 1, 17–32.

154  References Byrne, D., & Griffitt, W. (1973). Interpersonal attraction. Annual review of psychology, 24(1), 317–336. Callahan, R. & Muller, C. (2013). Coming of political age: American schools and the civic development of immigrant youth. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Camarotta, J., & Fine, M. (Eds.). (2008). Revolutionizing education. New York: Routledge. Cameron, D. (2011). Speech at the Munich Security Conference, February 5, 2011. Available at https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pms-speech-at-munichsecurity-conference (accessed September 16, 2017). Cameron, J. A., Alvarez, J. M., Ruble, D. N., & Fuligni, A. J. (2001). Children’s lay theories about ingroups and outgroups: Reconceptualizing research on prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(2), 118–128. Cameron, L., & Turner, R. N. (2010). The application of diversity-based interventions to policy and Practice. In R. J. Crisp (Ed.), The psychology of social and cultural diversity (pp. 322–351). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Cantle, T. (2012). Interculturalism: The new era of cohesion and diversity. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Cantle, T. (2015). Interculturalism: “Learning to live in diversity.” Ethnicities, 16(3), 471–479. Cantle, T. (2016). The case for interculturalism, plural identities and cohesion. In N. Meer, T. Modood & R. Zapata-Barrero (Eds.), Multiculturalism and Interculturalism: Debating the Dividing Lines (pp. 33–157). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Carlisle, L. R., Jackson, B. W., & George, A. (2006). Principles of social justice education: The social justice education in schools project. Equity & Excellence in Education, 39, 55–64. Carnoy, M. (1989). Education, state, and culture in American society. In H. A. Giroux & P. McLaren (Eds.), Critical pedagogy, the state, and cultural struggle (pp. 3–23). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Castles, S., & Miller M. (2012). L’era delle migrazioni. Popoli in movimento nel mondo contemporaneo. Bologna: Odoya (1st ed., 1993). Cesareo, V. (2015). La sfida delle migrazioni. Milano: Vita e Pensiero. Cherryholmes, C.H. (1980). Social knowledge and citizenship education: Two views of truth and criticism. Curriculum Inquiry, 10(2), 115–141. Chouinard, V. (1997). Structure and agency: Contested concepts in human geography. Canadian Geographer / Le Géographe Canadien, 41, 363–377. Churchland, P. S. (1986). Neurophilosophy: Toward a unified science of the mind/ brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Churchland, P. S. (1989). A neurocomputational perspective: The nature of mind and the structure of science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Churchland, P. S. & Sejnowski, T. J. (1992). The computational brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Clark, M. L., & Ayers, M. (1992). Friendship similarity during early adolescence: Gender and racial patterns. The Journal of Psychology, 126(4), 393–405. Coakley, J. (2013). “Primordialism” and the study of nationalism. In M. H. Williams (Ed.), The multicultural dilemma: Migration, ethnic politics, and state intermediation. New York: Routledge. Coburn, C. E. (2001). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate reading policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(2), 145–170.

References  155 Coburn, C. E. (2005). Shaping teacher sensemaking: School leaders and the enactment of reading policy. Educational Policy, 18(3), 476–509. doi:10.1177/08959048 05276143. Coiro, J., Knobel, M., Lankshear, C., & Leu, D. J. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of research on new literacies. Philadelphia, PA: Lawrence Erlbaum. Collins, P. H. (1990). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. New York: Routledge. Collins, R. H., & Cooper, P. J. (1997). The power of story: Teaching through storytelling (2nd ed.). Scottsdale, AZ: Gorsuch Scarisbrick. Colombo M., & Santagati, M. (2014). Nelle scuole plurali. Misure di integrazione degli alunni stranieri. Milano: FrancoAngeli. Colombo M., & Santagati, M. (2017). School integration as a sociological construct: Measuring multi-ethnic classrooms’ integration in Italy. In M. Espinoza-Herold, & R. M. Contini (Eds.), Living in two homes: Integration, identity and education of transnational migrants in a globalized world (pp. 253–292). Emerald Publishing. Commission of the European Communities (2008). Green Paper. Migration & mobility: Challenges and opportunities for EU education systems. Brussels. Retrieved from http://eurlex.europa.eu/. Connor, W. (1978). A nation is a nation, is a State, is an ethnic group, is a … Ethnic and Racial Studies, 1(4), 377–400. Connor, W. (1993). Beyond reason: The nature of the ethnonational bond. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 16(3), 373–389. Contini, R. M. (2012). Nuove generazioni nella società multietnica. Una ricerca nelle scuole d’Abruzzo. Milano: FrancoAngeli. Contini, R. M. (2014). Interculturality and social bonds formation: A case study on Immigrant and native preadolescents in Italy. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 149, 203–218. Contini R. M. (2017). Il paradigma interculturale. Questioni teoriche e declinazioni educative. Milano: FrancoAngeli. Contini R. M., & Pica-Smith, C. (2017). Problematizing the conceptual framework of interculturalism and its pedagogical extension of intercultural education: Theoretical perspectives and their implications. Italian Journal of Sociology of Education, 9(3), 236–255. Contini, R. M., & Pica-Smith, C. (2018). Education and diversity: Theoreticaland practical issues. Studi di Sociologia, (3), 239–256. Cornell, S. (2000). “That’s the story of our life.” In P. Spickard & W. J. Burroughs (Eds.), We are a people: Narratives and multiplicity in construction of Identities. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Cornell S., & Hartmann, D. (2007). Ethnicity and race making identities in a changing world (2nd ed). London: Thousand Oaks. Council of Europe (2008). White Paper on intercultural dialogue: Living together as equals in dignity. Strasburg. Retrieved from www.coe.int/t/dg4/intercultural/publication_ whitepaper_id_EN.asp, 10/08/2017. Council of Europe (2014a). Developing intercultural competence through education (J. Huber & C. Reynolds, Eds.). Pestalozzi Series, No. 3. Council of Europe Publishing. Council of Europe (2014b). Recommendation CM/Rec 5 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on the importance of competences in the language(s) of schooling for equity/quality in education and for educational success. https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=2180653&Site=CM&BackColorInternet=C3C3C3&BackColorIntranet=EDB021&BackColorLogged=F5D383.

156  References Council of the European Union (2004). Immigrant integration policy in the European Union. Brussels, 19 November, 14615/04 (Presse 321). Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1(8). Crul, M. (2015). Is education the pathway to success? A comparison of second generation Turkish professionals in Sweden, France, Germany and the Netherlands. European Journal of Education, 50(3), 325–339. Crul, M., Schneider, J., & Lelie, F. (2012). The European second generation compared: Does the integration context matter? IMISCOE Research. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Crul, M., & Thomson, M. (2007). The second generation in Europe and the United States: How in the transatlantic debate relevant for further research on the European second generation? Journal of Ethnic Migration Studies, 33(7), 1025–1041. Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Currarini, S., Jackson, M. O., & Pin, P. (2010). Identifying the roles of race-based choice and chance in high school friendship network formation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(11), 4857–4861. Curtrone, C. (2014). Theory and practice reconsidered: The role of “critical theory”. Retrieved from: https://philosophersforchange.org/2014/03/18/theory-andpractice-reconsidered-the-role-of-critical-theory/. Dalla Zuanna, G., Farina, P., & Strozza, S. (2009). Nuovi italiani. I giovani immigrati cambieranno il nostro paese? Bologna: Il Mulino. Darder, A. (2002). Reinventing Paulo Freire: A pedagogy of love. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Darder, A. (2009). The critical pedagogy reader (R. D. Torres & M. P. Baltodano, Eds.). New York: Routledge. Darder. A. (2011). Education in the age of “globalization” and “difference.” In A dissident voice: Essays in culture, pedagogy and power (pp. 135–160). New York: Peter Lang. Darder, A., & Torres, R. (2004). After race. New York: New York University Press. Darder, A., Baltodano, M., & Torres, R. (Eds). (1997). The critical pedagogy reader. New York: Routledge. Davis, J. E. (Ed.). (2002). Stories of change: Narrative and social movements. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. De Leeuw, M., & Van Wichelen, S. (2012). Civilizing migrants: Integration, culture and citizenship. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 15,195–210. De Vos, G., & Suarez-Orozco, M. (1990). Status inequality: The self in culture. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Press. De Vos, G., Harris, M., & Lottridge, C. B. (2003). Telling tales: Storytelling in the ­family. Edmonton: University of Alberta Press. Dean, M. (1999). Governmentality. Sage: London. De Hass, H. (2010). Migration and development: A theoretical perspective. International Migration Review, 44(1), 227–264. Delgado, R. (1995). Critical race theory: The cutting edge. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2001). Critical race theory: An introduction. New York: New York University Press.

References  157 Delpit, L. (1995). Other people’s children cultural conflict in the classroom. New York: The New Press. Delpit, L. (2006). Lessons from teachers. Journal of Teacher Educator, 57(3), 220–231. Dessel, A., Rogge, M. E., & Garlington, S. B. (2006). Using intergroup dialogue to promote social justice and change. Social Work, 51(4), 303–315. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York: Macmillan. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan. De Zwart, F. & Poppelaars, C. (2007). Redistribution and ethnic diversity in the Netherlands. Accommodation, denial and replacement. ACTA Sociologica, 50(4), 387–399. Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L, Stewart, T. L, Esses, V. M., ten Vergert, M. & Hodson, G. (2004). From intervention to outcome: Processes in the reduction of bias. In W. G. Stephan & W. P. Vogt (Eds.), Education programs for improving intergroup relations: Theory, research and practice (pp. 243–265). New York: Teachers College Press. Doyle, A. B., & Aboud, F. E. (1995). A longitudinal study of white children’s racial prejudice as a social-cognitive development. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 41(2), 209–228. Durakoglu, A. (2013). Paulo Freire’s perception of dialogue based on education. International Journal on New Trends in Education and their Implications, 4(3), 102–107. Eagleton, T. (1991). Ideology: An introduction. London & New York: Verso. Education Insider (2010). Generation me: Study finds college students lack empathy. Retrieved from http://education-portal.com/articles/Generation_Me_Study_Finds_ College_Students_Lack_Empathy.html. Ellinor, L., & Gerard, G. (1998). Dialogue: Rediscover the transforming power of conversation. New York: Wiley. Ellsworth, E. (1989). Why doesn’t this feel empowering? Working through the repressive myths of critical pedagogy. Harvard Educational Review, 59(3), 297–324. Entzinger, H. (2003). The rise and fall of multiculturalism: The case of the Netherlands. In C. Joppke & E. Morawska (Eds.), Toward Assimilation and Citizenship. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. EriCarts (2008). Sharing diversity: National approaches to intercultural dialogue in Europe. European Institute for Comparative Cultural Research. Retrieved from www. interculturadialogue.eu. Esser, H. (2004). Does the “new” immigration require a “new” theory of intergenerational integration?. International Migration Review, 38(3), 1126–1159. Esser, H. (2010). Assimilation, ethnic stratification, or selective acculturation? Recent theories of the integration of immigrants and the model of intergenerational integration. Sociologica, 1, 1–28. Ethnicity, introduction to sociology. (2017). Retrieved from https://courses.lumenlearning.com/cochise-sociology-os/chapter/ethnicity/. European Commission. (2008). A rewarding challenge: How the multiplicity of languages could strengthen Europe. Brussels. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu. European Council & Commission. (2008). Joint report 2008 of the Council and the ­Commission, delivering lifelong learning for knowledge, creativity and innovation. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/IT/TXT/?uri=URISERV %3Aef0005.

158  References Eurydice. (2004). L’intégration scolaire des enfants immigrants en Europe. Bruxelles: Eurydice. Retrieved from http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/Education/eurydice/documents/ thematic_reports/101FR.pdf. Eurydice. (2009). L’intégration scolaire des enfants immigrants en Europe. Agence exécutive Éducation, Audiovisuel et Culture. Bruxelles: Eurydice. Retrieved from http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/thematic_reports_fr.php#2009. Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. London: Longman. Fairclough, N. (2001). Critical discourse analysis as a method in social scientific research. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage. Faist, T. (2000). The volume and dynamics of international migration and transnational social spaces. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Faist, T. (2009). Diversity: New mode of incorporation? Ethnic and Racial Studies, 32(1), 171–90. Faist, T. (2010). Diaspora and transnationalism: What kind of dance partner? In T. Faist & R. Baubock (Eds), Diaspora and transnationalism: Concept, theories and methods. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Fanon, F. (1967). Black skin, white masks. New York: Grove Press. Feddes, A. R., Noack, P., & Rutland, A. (2009). Direct and extended friendship effects on minority and majority children’s interethnic attitudes: A longitudinal study. Child development, 80(2), 377–390. Fehr, B. (2000). The life cycle of friendships: The beginning of intimacy. Oxford: Blackwell. Fereday, J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 1–11. Fischman, G. (2009). Afterword. In S. L. Macrine (Ed.), Critical pedagogy in uncertain time: Hope and possibilities. New York: Palgrave Press. Fishbein, H. D. (1996). Peer prejudice and discrimination: Evolutionary, cultural, and developmental dynamics. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Fishbein, H. D., & Imai, S. (1993). Preschoolers select playmates on the basis of gender and race. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 14(3), 303–316. Fisher, M. J. (2008). Does campus diversity promote friendship diversity? A look at interracial friendships in college. Social Science Quarterly, 89, 631–655. Fisher, W. R. (1985). The narrative paradigm. Communications Monographs, 25, 347–367. Fisher, W. R. (1987). Human communication as a narration: Toward a philosophy of reason, value, and action. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press. Fishman, S. M., & McCarthy, L. (2005). Talk about race: When student stories and multicultural curricula are not enough. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 8(4), 347–364. Fletcher, A. C., Rollins, A., & Nickerson, P. (2004). The extension of school-based inter-and intraracial children’s friendships: Influences on psychosocial well-being. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 74(3), 272–285. Fletcher, B. R. (1999). Internalized oppression: The enemy within. In A. Cooke, M. Brazzel, A. Craig, & B. Greig (Eds.), Reading book for human relations training (8th ed., pp. 97–102). Alexandra, VA: NTL Institute. Foster, J. B. (1999). Marx’s theory of metabolic rift: Classical foundations for environmental sociology.American Journal of Sociology 105(2), 366–405.

References  159 Foucault, M. (1980). Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972– 1977 (C. Gordon, Ed.). New York: Pantheon Books. Foucault, M., & Deleuze, G. (1977). Intellectuals and power: A conversation ­between Michel Foucault and Gilles Deleuze. In D. F. Bouchard (Ed.), Language, counter-memory, practice: Selected essays and interviews. Oxford: Blackwell. Fraser, N. (1997). Justice interruptus: Critical reflections on the “postsocialist” condition. New York: Routledge. Freeman, G. (2003). Incorporating immigrants in liberal democracies. Center for Migration and Development, Princeton University, CMD Working Paper #03–09d. Freeman, G. (2004). Immigrant incorporation in Western democracies. International Migration Review, 38, 945–69. Freire, P. (1970; 1996). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum. Freire, P. (1993). Pedagogy of the city. New York: Continuum. Friedman, J. (1981). The political philosophy of the Frankfurt School. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Frijhoff, W. 2010. The relevance of Dutch history, or: Much in little: Reflections on the practice of history in the Netherlands. Low Countries Historical Review, 125, 7–44. Gandy, Jr., Oscar, H. (1998). Communication and race: A structural perspective. New York: Oxford University Press. Gaudet, M. J., & Clément, R. (2005). Identity maintenance and loss: Concurrent processes among the Fransakois. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 37(2), 110–122. Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York: Teachers College Press. Gee, J. P. (1990/1996/2007) Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. ­London: Taylor & Francis (2nd ed., 1996; 3rd ed., 2007). Gee, J. P. (2000). The new literacy studies: From “socially situated” to the work of the social. In D. Barton, M. Hamilton, & R. Ivanic, R. (Eds), Situated literacies: Reading and writing in context (pp. 180–196). London: Routledge. Gee, J. P. (2004). Situated language and learning: A Critique of traditional schooling. ­London: Routledge. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. New York: Basic Books. Giddens, A. (1971). Capitalism and modern social theory: An analysis of the writings of Marx, Durkheim and Max Weber. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Giddens, A. (1976). Functionalism: après la lute. Social Research, 43, 325–66. Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory action, structure and contradiction in social analysis. London: Macmillan. Gill, M. (2007). Exclusive boundaries, contested claims: Authenticity, language and ideology. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-sociology/chapter/ethnicity/. Giovannini, G., & Queirolo Palmas, L. (Eds.) (2002). Una scuola in comune. Esperienze scolastiche in contesti multietnici italiani. Torino: Edizioni Fondazione Giovanni Agnelli. Giroux, H. A. (1983a). Theory and resistance in education: A pedagogy for the opposition. South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey. Giroux, H. A. (1983b). Theories of reproduction and resistance in the new sociology of education: A critical analysis. Harvard Educational Review, 53(3), 257–293. Giroux, H. A. (1988). Teachers as intellectuals: Toward a critical pedagogy of learning. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey Press.

160  References Giroux, H. A. (1997a). Racial politics and the pedagogy of whiteness. In M. Hill (Ed.), Whiteness: A critical reader (pp. 294–315). New York: New York University Press. Giroux, H. A. (1997b). Pedagogy and the politics of hope: Theory, culture and schooling. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Giroux, H. A. (2001). Theory and resistance in education. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey. Giroux, H. A. (2004). Cultural studies, public pedagogy, and the responsibility of intellectuals. Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies 1(1), 59–79. Giroux, H. A. (2009). Youth in a suspect society: Democracy or disposability?. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Giroux, H. A. (2011). On critical pedagogy. New York: Continuum. Giroux, H. A. (2018). www.freshedpodcast.com/giroux/ (pod cast) March 5, 2018. Giroux, H. A., & McLaren, P. (1989). Critical pedagogy, the state, and cultural struggle. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Goldenberg, I. (1978). Oppression and social intervention: Essays on the human condition and the problems of change. Chicago: Nelwson-Hall. Goodman, D. (2001). Promoting diversity and social justice: Educating people from privileged groups. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Goodman, S. W. (2010). Integration requirements for integration’s sake? In Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 36(5), 753–72. Gorski, P. (2008). Good intentions are not enough: A decolonizing intercultural education. Intercultural Education, 19(6) 515–525. Gorski, P. (2013). Social justice: Not just another term for “diversity.” Retrieved from http://acpacsje.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/social-justice-not-just-another-termfor-diversity-by-paul-c-gorski/. Gorski, P., & Swalwell, K. (2014). Imagining equity literacy. Teaching Tolerance. https://www.tolerance.org/print/81962/print. Gorski, P., & Swalwell, K. (2015). Equity literacy for all. Educational Leadership, 72(6), 34–40. Graham, J. A., & Cohen, R. (1997). Race and sex as factors in children’s sociometric ratings and friendship choices. Social Development, 6(3), 355–372. Graham, J. A., Cohen, R., Zbikowski, S. M., & Secrist, M. E. (1998). A longitudinal investigation of race and sex as factors in children’s classroom friendship choices. Child Study Journal, 28(4), 245–245. Graham, S., Munniksma, A., & Juvonen, J. (2014). Psychosocial benefits of cross-­ ethnic friendships in urban middle schools. Child Development, 85(2), 469–483. Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebook (Q. Hoare & G. Smith, Eds. & Trans.). London: Lawrence & Wishart. Gramsci, A. (2000). The Antonio Gramsci Reader (D. Forgacs, Ed.). New York: New York University Press. Grant, C. A., & Gibson, M. L. (2013). “The path of social justice”: A human rights history of social justice education. Equity and Excellence in Education, 49(1), 81–99. Griffin, S. R., Brown, M. & Warren, N. M. (2012). Critical education in high schools: The promise and challenges of intergroup dialogue. Equity & Excellence in Education, 45, 159–180. doi:10.1080/10665684.2012.641868 Grillo R. (2005). Backlash against diversity? Compas, University of Oxford, WP 14/2005. Grinberg, L. & Grinber, R. (1989). Psychoanalytic perspectives on migration and exile. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

References  161 Grosby, S. (2002). Biblical ideas of nationality: Ancient and modern. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Guidikova, I. (2014). Cultural diversity and cities: The intercultural integration approach. EUO, RSCAS Policy Paper 2014/02. Guidikova, I. (2015). Intercultural integration: A new paradigm for managing diversity as an advantage. In R. Zapata-Barrero (Ed.), Interculturalism in cities: Concept, policy and implementation (136–151). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Gurin, P. (1999). Selections from The compelling need for diversity in higher education. Expert reports in defense of the University of Michigan. Equity & Excellence in Education, 32(2), 36–62. doi:10.1080/1066568990320207. Gurin, P., Nagda, B. A., & Zúñiga, S. (2013). Dialogue across difference: Practice, theory, and research on intergroup dialogue. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Hackman, H. (2005). Five essential components for social justice education. Equity and Excellence in Education, 38, 103–109. Hallinan, M. T., & Smith, S. S. (1985). The effects of classroom racial composition on students’ interracial friendliness. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48(1), 3–16. Hallinan, M. T., & Teixeira, R. A. (1987). Opportunities and constraints: BlackWhite differences in the formation of interracial friendships. Child development, 58(5), 1358–1371. Hallinan, M. T., & Williams, R. A. (1989). Interracial friendship choices in secondary schools. American Sociological Review, 54(1), 67–78. Handler, J. (2004). Social citizenship and workfare in the United States and Western Europe. Cambridge University Press: New York. Hansen, P. (1998). Schooling a European identity: Ethno-cultural exclusion and nationalist resonance within the EU policy of the European dimension of education. European Journal of Intercultural Studies, 9(1), 5–23. Hardiman, R., & Jackson, B. W. (1992). Racial identity development: Understanding racial dynamics in classrooms and on campus. In M. Adams (Ed.), Promoting diversity in college classrooms: Innovative responses for the curriculum, faculty, and institutions. New directions for teaching and learning, 52. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Hardiman, R., & Jackson, B. W. (1997). Conceptual foundations for social justice education. In M. Adams, L. A. Bell, & P. Griffin (Eds.), Teaching for diversity and social justice (pp. 16–29). New York: Routledge. Hardiman, R., & Keehn, M. (2012). White identity development revisited: Listening to white students. In C. L. Wijeyesinghe & B. W. Jackson (Eds.), New perspectives on racial identity development: Integrating emerging frameworks (2nd ed., pp. 121–137). New York: New York University Press. Hardiman, R., Jackson, B., & Griffin, P. (2007). Conceptual foundations for social justice education. In M. Adams, L. A. Bell, & P. Griffin (Eds.), Teaching for diversity and social justice (2nd ed., pp. 35–66). New York: Routledge. Harro, B. (2010a). Cycle of socialization. In M. Adams, W. J. Blumenfeld, R. Casteñeda, H. Hackman, M. Peters, & X. Zúñiga (Eds.), Readings for diversity and social justice (2nd ed., pp. 45–51). New York: Routledge. Harro, B. (2010b). Cycle of liberation. In M. Adams, W. J. Blumenfeld, R. Casteñeda, H. Hackman, M. Peters, & X. Zúñiga (Eds.), Readings for diversity and social justice (2nd ed., pp. 52–58). New York: Routledge. Hartup, W. W., & Stevens, N. (1997). Friendships and adaptation in the life course. Psychological bulletin, 121(3), 355.

162  References Hill, H. C. (2001). Policy is not enough: Language and the interpretation of state standards. American Educational Research Journal, 38(2), 289–318. Hill, M. (2009). Wounded healing: Forming a storytelling community in hip-hop lit. Teachers College Record, 111, 248–293. Hondius, D. 2009. Race and the Dutch: On the uneasiness surrounding racial issues in the Netherlands. In S. Alghasi, T. H. Eriksen, & H. Ghorashi (Eds.), Paradoxes of Cultural Recognition: Perspectives from Northern Europe (pp. 39–57). Farnham: Ashgate. hooks, b. (1984). From margin to center. Boston: South End Press. hooks, b. (1989). Talking back: Thinking feminist, thinking black. Boston: South End Press. hooks, b. (1990). Yearning: Race, gender, and cultural politics. Boston: South End Press. hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress. New York: Routledge. Horkheimer, M. (1972). Critical theory. New York: Seabury Press. Horowitz, M. (1986). Stress response syndromes (2nd ed.). Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson. Horton, M., Kohl, J., & Kohl, H. (1998). The long haul: An autobiography. New York: Teachers College Press. Howard, P. (2006). On silence and dominant accountability: A critical anticolonial investigation of the antiracism classroom. In G. J. S. Dei & A. Kempf (Eds.), Anticolonialism and education: The politics of resistance (pp. 43–63). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers Howes, C., & Wu, F. (1990). Peer interactions and friendships in an ethnically diverse school setting. Child Development, 61(2), 537–541. Huang-Nissen, S. (1999). Dialogue groups: A practical guide to facilitate diversity conversation. Blue Hill, ME: Medicine Bear. Hulme, P. (1995). Beyond the straits: Postcolonial allegories of the globe. In A. Loomba, S. Kaul, M. Bunzl, A. Burton, & J. Esty (Eds.), Postcolonial studies and beyond (pp. 41–61). Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Hunter, A. G., Friend, C. A., Williams-Wheeler, M., & Fletcher, A. C. (2012). Race, class, and religious differences in the social networks of children and their parents. Youth & Society, 44(3), 450–475. Hunter. L. (2012). Technology of human interaction. Retrieved from http://south east2012.thatcampdev.info/03/09/the-technology-of-human-interaction. Jackman, M. R. (1994). The velvet glove: Paternalism and conflict in gender, class, and race relations. Berkeley: University of California Press. Jackson, B. W. (2012). Black identity development: Influences of culture and social oppression. In C. L. Wijeyesinghe & B. W. Jackson (Eds.), New perspectives on racial identity development: Integrating emerging frameworks (2nd ed., pp. 33–50). New York: New York University Press. Jacobson, R. D. (2008). The new nativism. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Janks, H. (2002). Critical literacy: Beyond reason. Australian Educational Researcher, 29(7), 7–26. Janoski, T. (2010). The ironies of citizenship: Naturalization and integration in industrialized countries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jennings, N. E. (1996). Interpreting policy in real classrooms: Case studies of state reform and teacher practice. New York: Teachers College Press. Johnson, A. G. (2006). Privilege, power, and difference (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Johnson, E. (2011). “I’ve got swag”: Simone performs critical literacy in a highschool English classroom. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 10(4), 26–44.

References  163 Johnson, E. & Vasudevan, L. (2012). Seeing and hearing students’ lived and embodied critical literacy practices. Theory into Practice, 51, 34–41. Joppke, C. (2007). Beyond national models: Civic integration policies for immigrants in Western Europe. West European Politics, 30(1), 1–22. Joppke, C. (2016). After multiculturalism: Neo-assimilationist policies in Europe? In M. Ambrosini (Ed.), Europe: No migrant’s land? Milan: Epoké – ISPI. Jung, M. (2009). The racial unconscious of assimilation theory. Du Bois Review 6(2), 375–395. Kao, G., & Joyner, K. (2004). Do race and ethnicity matter among friends? Activities among interracial, interethnic, and intraethnic adolescent friends. The Sociological Quarterly, 45(3), 557–573. Katz, J. H. (2003). White awareness: Handbook for anti-racism training (2nd ed.). Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press. Katz, P., & Taylor, D. (Eds.) (1988). Eliminating racism. New York: Plenum Press. Kawabata, Y., & Crick, N. R. (2008). The role of cross-racial/ethnic friendships in social adjustment. Developmental Psychology, 44(4), 1177. Keehn, M. (2014). Fostering transformative points of connection: An examination of the role of personal storytelling in two undergraduate social diversity courses. Doctoral Dissertations. 100. https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_2/100 Keenan, T. (1997). Fables of responsibilities: Aberrations and predicaments in ethnics and politics. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Kennedy, M. M. (1982). Working knowledge and others essays. Cambridge, MA: The Huron Institute. Killen, M., Clark Kelly, M., Richardson, C., Crystal, D., & Ruck, M. (2010). ­European American children’s and adolescents’ evaluations of interracial exclusion. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 13(3), 283–300. Kincheloe, J. L. (2008). Critical pedagogy primer. New York: Lang. Kincheloe, J. L., & Steinberg, S. (1997). Changing multiculturalism. Buckingham: Open University Press. King, D. (1999). In the name of liberalism. Oxford University Press: Oxford. King, J. E., (1991). Dysconscious racism: Ideology, identity, and the miseducation of teachers. Journal of Negro Education, 60(2), 133–146. King, P. M., & Shuford, B. C. (1996). A multicultural view is a more cognitively complex view. The American Behavioral Scientist, 40(2), 153–164. King, T. (2008). The truth about stories: A native narrative. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Kitchener, K. S., & King, P. M. (1990). The reflective judgment model: Transforming assumptions about knowing. In J. Mezirow & Associates (Eds.), Fostering critical reflection in adulthood: A guide to transformative and emancipatory learning (pp. 159–176). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Kitschelt, H. (2000). Linkages between citizens and politicians in democratic polities. Comparative Political Studies, 33(6–7), 845–879. Kivel, P. (2002). Uprooting racism: How white people can work for racial justice. Gabriola Island, BC, Canada: New Society. Koser, K. (2007). Refugees, Transnationalism and the state. Journal of Ethics and Migration Studies, 33(2), 233–254. Kumashiro, K. (2001). Troubling intersections of race and sexuality: Queer students of color and anti-oppressive education. Boston, MA: Rowman & Littlefield. Kumashiro, K. (2002). Troubling education: Queer activism and anti oppressive pedagogy. New York: Routledge.

164  References Kymlicka, W. (1995). Multicultural citizenship. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kymlicka, W. (2007). Multicultural odysseys. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kymlicka, W. (2010). The rise and fall of multiculturalism? New debates on inclusion and accommodation in diverse societies. In Vertovec S. & Wessendorf S. (Eds.), The multiculturalism backlash: European discourses, policies and practices (pp. 32–49). Routledge: Abingdon. Kymlicka, W. (2016). Defending diversity in an era of populism: Multiculturalism and interculturalism compared. In N. Meer, T. Modood & Zapata-Barrero, R. (Eds.), Multiculturalism and interculturalism: Debating the dividing lines (pp. 158–177). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Ladd, G. W. (1990). Having friends, keeping friends, making friends, and being liked by peers in the classroom: Predictors of children’s early school adjustment?. Child Development, 61(4), 1081–1100. Ladson-Billings, G. (1998). Just what is critical race theory and what’s it doing in a nice field like education? International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 11(1), 7–24. Ladson-Billings, G. (2005a). Culturally relevant pedagogy. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Ladson-Billings, G. (2005b). The evolving role of critical race theory in educational scholarship. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 8, 115–119. Ladson-Billings, G., & Tate, W. (1995). Toward critical race theory in education. Teachers College Record, 97(1), 47–68. Lamont, M. (2000). The dignity of working men: Morality and the boundaries of race, class, and immigration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Larbalestier, J. (1990). The politics of representation: Australian aboriginal women and feminism. Anthropological Forum, 6, 143–157. Layton-Henry, Z. (1992). The politics of immigration. Oxford: Blackwell. Layton-Henry, Z. (1984). The politics of race in Britain. London; Boston: Allen & Unwin. Lease, A. M., & Blake, J. J. (2005). A comparison of majority-race children with and without a minority-race friend. Social Development, 14(1), 20–41. Leclerq, J.-M. (2002). The lessons of thirty years of European co-operation for intercultural education. Document DGIV/EDU/DIAL (2002). 8. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Lee, E. (1998). Anti-racism education: Pulling together to close the gaps. In E. Lee, D. Menkart, & M. Okazawa-Rey (Eds.), Beyond heroes and holidays. Washington: Teaching for Change. Lee, E., Menkart, D., & Okazawa-Rey, M. (Eds.) (2011). Beyond Heroes and Holidays. Washington: Teaching for Change. Leonardo, Z. (2004). Critical social theory and transformative knowledge: The functions of criticism in quality education. Educational Researcher, 33(6), 11–18. Leonardo, Z. (2009). Race, whiteness, and education. New York: Routledge. Lewis, C. & Tierney, J. D. (2013) Mobilizing emotion in an urban English classroom. Changing English, 18(3), 319–329. Lewis, A. E. (2003). Race in the schoolyard: Negotiating the color line in the classrooms and communities. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Loomba, A., Kaul, S., Bunzl, M., Burton, A., & Esty, J. (Eds.). (2005). Postcolonial studies and beyond. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Lopez, A. E. (2011). Culturally relevant pedagogy and critical literacy in diverse English classrooms: A case study of a secondary English teacher’s activism and agency. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 10(4), 74–93.

References  165 Lopez, G., & Zúñiga, X. (2010). Intergroup dialogue and democratic practice in higher education. In N. L. Thomas (Ed.), New Directions for Higher Education (pp. 35–42). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Lopez, G., Gurin, P., & Nagda, B. (1998). Education and understanding structural causes for group inequalities. Political Psychology, 19(2), 305–329. Love, B. J. (2004). Brown plus 50 counter-storytelling: A critical race theory analysis of the “majoritarian achievement gap” story. Equity and Excellence in Education, 37(3), 227–246. Love, B. J. (2010). Developing a liberatory consciousness. In M. Adams, W. J. Blumenfeld, R. Casteñeda, H. Hackman, M. Peters, & X. Zúñiga (Eds.), Readings for diversity and social justice (2nd ed., pp. 599–603). New York: Routledge. Love, B., DeJong, K. Holladay, S., & Pacheco, R. (2007). Toward a critical theory of liberation: Enacting liberatory consciousness in classrooms, communities, and collective spaces. Presented at the 8th Annual White Privilege Conference. Colorado Springs, CO. Lyiscott, J. J., Caraballo, L., & Morrell, E. (2018). An Anticolonial Framework for Urban Teacher Preparation. The New Educator, 14(3), 231–251. doi:10.1080/154 7688X.2017.1412000 McChesney, R. W. (1999). Rich media, poor democracy: Communication politics in dubious times. New York: New Press. MacDonald, M. (1977). Culture, class and the curriculum. In R. Dale, & M. MacDonald (Eds), Culture, class and the curriculum and the politics of curricular reform in Schooling and Society. Block III: Knowledge, Ideology and the Curriculum. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. McEwan, H., & Egan, K. (Eds). (1995). Narrative in teaching, learning, and research. Amsterdam, NY: Teachers College Press. McGlothlin, H., & Killen, M. (2005). Children’s perceptions of intergroup and intragroup similarity and the role of social experience. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 26(6), 680–698. McGlothlin, H., & Killen, M. (2006). Intergroup attitudes of European American children attending ethnically homogeneous schools. Child Development, 77(5), 1375–1386. McIntosh, P. (1998). White privilege: Unpacking the invisible knapsack. In E. Lee (Ed.), Beyond heroes and holidays: A practical guide to K-12 anti-racist, multicultural education and staff development (pp. 79–82). Wellesley, MA: Network of Educators on the Americas. McLaren, P. (2000). Paulo Freire’s pedagogy of possibility. In S. Steiner, H. Frank, P. McLaren, & R. Bahruth (Eds.), Freirean pedagogy, praxis and possibilities: Projects for the new millennium (pp. 1–21). New York: Falmer Press. McLaren, P. (2009). Education and the struggle for liberation. New York: Hampton Press. Macrine, S. L. (Ed.) (2009). What is critical pedagogy good for? In Interview with Ira Shor. In Critical pedagogy in uncertain time: Hope and possibilities (pp. 119–136). New York: Palgrave Press. Maley, A. (1997). Creativity with as small ‘c’. The Journal of the Imagination in Language and Teaching, 4. Marcuse, H. (1960). Reason and revolution. Boston: Beacon Press. Mares, M. L., & Pan, Z. (2013). Effects of Sesame Street: A meta-analysis of children’s learning in 15 countries. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 34(3), 140–151. Margie, N. G., Killen, M., Sinno, S., & McGlothlin, H. (2005). Minority children’s intergroup attitudes about peer relationships. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 23(2), 251–270.

166  References Martin, F., & Pirbhai-Illich, F. (2015). Service-learning as a post-colonial discourse. In R. Reynolds et al.,(Eds.), Contesting and constructing international perspectives in global education. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1970). The German ideology. New York: International Publishers. Massey, D., et al.,(1998). Worlds in motion: International migration at the end of the millennium. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Maxwell, B., Waddington, K., McDonough, K., Cormier, A.-A. & Schwimmer, M. (2012). Interculturalism, multiculturalism, and the state funding and regulation of conservative religious schools. Educational Theory, 62(4), 427–47. Maxwell, K., Nagda, B. A., & Thompson, M. (2011). Facilitating intergroup dialogues: Bridging differences, catalyzing change. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Mayhew, M. J., & Fernández, S. D. (2007). Pedagogical practices that contribute to social justice outcomes. The Review of Higher Education, 31(1), 55–80. Mazziotta, A., Mummendey, A., & Wright, S. C. (2011). Vicarious intergroup contact effects: Applying social-cognitive theory to intergroup contact research. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14(2), 255–274. Meer, N., & Modood, T. (2012). Interculturalism, multiculturalism or both? Political Insight, 3(1), 30–33. Meer, N., & Modood, T. (2016). Interculturalism, multiculturalism and citizenship. In N. Meer, T. Modood & Zapata-Barrero, R. (Eds.), Multiculturalism and interculturalism: Debating the dividing lines (pp. 27–52). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Mendelber, T. (2001). The race card: Campaign strategy, implicit messages, and the norm of equality. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Mendoza-Denton, R., Downey, G., Purdie, V. J., Davis, A., & Pietrzak, J. (2002). Sensitivity to status-based rejection: Implications for African American students’ college experience. Journal of personality and social psychology, 83(4), 896. Merriam, S. B., & Caffarella, R. S. (1999). Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive guide (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Messina, A. M. (2013). The limits of grand migration theory. Embedding experiences of immigration and immigrant incorporation within their appropriate national, regional, and local settings. In M. H. Williams (eds.), The multicultural dilemma: Migration, ethnic politics, and state intermediation. New York: Routledge. Mielants, E. (2009). From the periphery to the core: A case study on the migration and incorporation of recent Caribbean immigrants in the Netherlands. In R. Grosfoguel, M. Cervantes Rodríguez & E. Mielants (Eds.), Caribbean migration to the U.S. and Western Europe: Essays on incorporation, identity, and citizenship. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Miles, R. (1993). Racism after “race relations”. London and New York: Routledge. Mirra, N., Garcia, A., & Morell, E. (2016). Doing youth participatory action research: Transforming inquiry with researchers, educators, and students. New York: Routledge. Miur. (2007). La via italiana per la scuola interculturale e l’integrazione degli alunni stranieri. Retrieved from www.pubblica.istruzione.it. Miur. (2014). Linee guida per l’accoglienza e l’integrazione degli alunni stranieri. Retrieved from www.istruzione.it/allegati/2014/linee_guida_integrazione_alunni_stranieri.pdf. Miur-Ismu. (2016). Alunni con cittadinanza non italiana. La scuola multiculturale nei contesti locali. Rapporto nazionale A.s. 2014/2015 (a cura di M. Santagati & V. ­Ongini). Quaderni Ismu 1/2016. Milano: Ismu.

References  167 Modood, T. (2007). Multiculturalism: A civic idea. Cambridge: Polity Press. Montalto, N. (1982). A history of the intercultural education movement, 1924–1941. New York: Garland. Moody, J. (2001). Race, school integration, and friendship segregation in America. American journal of Sociology, 107(3), 679–716. Morrow, R. A., & Torres, C. A. (1995). Social theory and education: A critique of theories of social and cultural reproduction. New York: SUNY Press. Mpi (Ministero della Pubblica Istruzione). (1994). Dialogo interculturale e convivenza democratica: l’impegno progettuale della scuola (Parte II, 5 “Discipline e intercultura”), C. M. n. 73/1994. Multi-University Intergroup Dialogue Research Project. (2008). Guidebook. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan. Nagda, B. A. (2006). Breaking barriers, crossing boundaries, building bridges: Communication processes in intergroup dialogues. Journal of Social Issues, 62, 553–576. Nagda, B. A., Gurin, P., Sorensen, N., & Zúñiga, X. (2009). Engaging diversity for personal and social responsibility. Diversity and Democracy, 12(1), 1–6. Nagda, B. A., Gurin, P., Sorensen, N., Gurin-Sands, C., & Osuna, S. M. (2009). From separate corners to dialogue and action. Race and Social Problems, 1(1), 45–55. Nagda, B. A., Kim, C. W., & Truelove, Y. (2004). Learning about difference, learning with others, learning to transgress. Journal of Social Issues, 60(1), 195–214. National Task Force on Civic Learning and Democratic Engagement. (2012). A crucible moment: College learning and democracy’s future. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities. Nesse Network. (2008). Education and migration: Strategies for integrating migrant children in European schools and societies. Bruxelles: Education & Culture DG. Retrieved from www.nesse.fr. Newcomb, T. M. (1961). The acquaintance process. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Newell, A. & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Newgent, R. A., Lee, S. M., & Daniel, A. F. (2007). Interracial best friendships: Relationship with 10th graders’ academic achievement level. Professional School Counseling, 11, 98–104. Nieto, S. (2000). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education (3rd ed.). New York: Longman. Nieto, S. (2003). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education (4th ed.). New York: Longman. Nieto, S. (2010). Language, culture, and teaching: Critical perspectives for a new century. New York: Routledge. Nimako, K. (2012). About them, but without them: Race and ethnic relations studies in Dutch universities. Human Architecture, 10(1), 45–52. Nimako, K., & Glenn W. (2011). The Dutch Atlantic: Slavery, abolition, and emancipation. London: Pluto Press. Nimako, K., & Small, S. (2012). Collective memory of slavery in Great Britain and the Netherlands. In M. Schalkwijk & S. Small (Eds.), New perspectives on slavery and colonialism in the Caribbean (pp. 92–115). The Hague, Netherlands: Amrit and NiNsee. North, C. E. (2008). More than words? Delving into the substantive meanings(s) of “social justice” in education. Review of Educational Research, 76(4), 507–535.

168  References O’Meara, K., & Stromquist, N. P. (2015). Faculty peer networks: Role and relevance in advancing agency and gender equity. Gender and Education, 27 (3), 338–358. O’Reilly, K. (2009). For interdisciplinarity and a disciplined, professional sociology. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 22 (2 219–232. O’Reilly, K. (2012). Ethnographic returning, qualitative longitudinal research and the reflexive analysis of social practice, Sociological Review, 60(3), pp. 518–536. OECD. (2006). Where immigrant students succeed: A comparative review of performance and engagement in PISA 2003. OECD. (2007). Development and co-operation report – Statistical annex. OECD-PISA. (2006). Programmer for international student assessment, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. OECD. Omi, M., & Winant, H. (1994). Radical formation in the United States. New York: Routledge. Oyserman, D., Brickman, D., & Rhodes, M. (2007). Racial-ethnic identity in adolescence: Content and consequences for African-American and Latino and Latina youth. In A. Fuligni (ed.) Contesting stereotypes and creating identities: Social categories, identities and educational participation (pp. 91–114). New York: Russell Sage. Oyserman, D., Bybee, D., & Terry, K. (2003). Gendered racial identity and involvement with schools. Self & Identity, 2(4), 307–324. Page-Gould, E., Mendoza-Denton, R., & Tropp, L. R. (2008). With a little help from my cross-group friend: Reducing anxiety in intergroup contexts through cross-group friendship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(5), 1080. Palaiologou, N. Georgiadis, F. Evangelou, O., & Zisimos, A. (2012). The new textbooks in civic and religious education: Intercultural education and learning as an enlightenment approach. In N. Palaiologou (Ed.) Towards the development of a new citizen. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Parekh, B. (2016). Afterword: Multiculturalism and interculturalism – A critical dialogue. In N. Meer, T. Modood e R. Zapata-Barrero (Eds.), Multiculturalism and interculturalism: Debating the dividing lines (pp. 266–279). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Paris, D. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A needed change in terminology, stance and practice. Educational Researcher, 41(3), 93–97. Park, R. E., & Burgess, E. W. (1924). Introduction to the science of sociology. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Pascoe, P. (1996). Miscegenation law and ideology of race. The Journal of American History, 83(1), 44–69. Pécoud, A., & de Guchteneire P. (2007). Introduction: The migration without border scenario. In A. Pécoud & P. de Guchteneire (Eds.), Migration without borders: Essays on the free movement of people (pp. 1–32). Paris: UNESCO. Perlman, J., & Waldinger, R. (1997). Second generation decline? Children of immigrants, past and present – A reconsideration. International Migration Review, 31(4), 893–921. Perry, M. & Medina, C. (2011). Embodiment and performance pedagogy research: Investigating the possibility of the body in curriculum experiences. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 27, 62–75. Pessar, P. R., & Mahler, S. J. (2003). Transnational migration: Brining gender in. International Migration Review, 37(3), 812–846. Peters, M. A., (2005). Education, post-structuralism and the politics of Difference. Policy Futures in Education, 3(4), 436–445.

References  169 Pettigrew, T. F. (1997). Generalized intergroup contact effects on prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(2), 173–185. Pettigrew, T. F. (1997b). The affective component of prejudice: Empirical support for the new view. In S. A. Tuch & J. K. Martin (Eds.), Racial attitudes in the 1990s: Continuity and change (pp. 76–90). Westport, CT: Praeger. Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49(1), 65–85. Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2000). Does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Recent meta-analytic findings. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp. 93–114). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analysis test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751–783. Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2008). How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta-analytic tests of three mediators. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38(6), 922–934. Pettigrew, T. F., Tropp, L. R., Wagner, U., & Christ, O. (2011). Recent advances in intergroup contact theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35(3), 271–280. Pharr, S. (1996). In the time of the right: Reflections on liberation. Berkeley, CA: Chardon Press. Phipps, A. (2014). “They are bombing now”: “Intercultural dialogue” in times of conflict. Language and Intercultural Communication, 14(1), 108–124. Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. New York: International Universities Press. Piaget, J., & Weil, A. M. (1951). The development in children of the idea of the homeland and of relations with other countries. International Social Science Bulletin, 3(3), 561–578. Pica­Smith, C. (2009). Children speak about interethnic and interracial friendships in the classroom: Lessons for teachers. Multicultural Education, 17, 38–47. Pica-Smith, C. (2011). Children’s perceptions of interethnic and interracial friendships in a multi-ethnic school context. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 25(2), 119–132. Pica-Smith, C., & Veloria, C. N. (2012). “At risk means a minority kid:” Deconstructing deficit discourses in the study of risk in education and human services. Pedagogy and the Human Sciences Journal, 2(1), 33–48. Pipher, M. (2006). Writing to change the world. New York: Riverhead Books. Plant, E. A., & Devine, P. G. (2003). The antecedents and implications of interracial anxiety. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(6), 790–801. Portes, A. (Ed.). (1995). The economic sociology of immigration. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. G. (2001). Legacies: The story of the immigrant second generation. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Portes A., & Rumbaut R. G. (2005). Introduction: The second generation and the children of immigrants longitudinal study. Ethnic and Racial Studies, Special Issue. The Second Generation in Early Adulthood, 28(6), 983–999. Portes A., & Rumbaut R. G. (2006). Immigrant America: A portrait (3rd ed.). Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Portes, A., & Hao, L. (2002). The price of uniformity: Language, family and personality adjustment in the immigrant second generation. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 25, 889–912.

170  References Portes, A., & Zhou, M. (1993). The new second generation: Segmented assimilation and its variants. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 530, 74–96. Povinelli, E. A. (2005). A fight from freedom. In A. Loomba, et al.,(Eds), Postcolonial studies and beyond (pp. 145–165). Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Prins, B., & Slijper, B. (2002). Multicultural society under attack: Introduction. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 3(3–4), 313–328. Pulido, L., Kohl, E., & Cotton N.C. (2016). State regulation and environmental justice: The need for strategy reassessment. Capitalism Nature Socialism, 27(2), 12–31. Ramiah, A. A., Schmid, K., Hewstone, M., & Floe, C. (2015). Why are all the white (Asian) kids sitting together in the cafeteria? Resegregation and the role of intergroup attributions and norms. British Journal of Social Psychology, 54(1), 100–124. Ravitch, D. (2010). The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and choice are undermining education. New York: Basic Books. Richards, R. (2010). Everyday creativity: Process and way of life—four key issues. In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 189–215). New York: Cambridge University Press. Romney, P. (2004). The art of dialogue. Retrieved from www.americansforthearts. org/animatingdemocracy/resource_center/resources_content.asp?id =215. Romney, P., Tatum, B., & Jones, J. (1992). Feminist strategies for teaching about oppression: The importance of process. Women’s Studies Quarterly, 20(1/2), 95–110. Rose, N. (1999). Powers of Freedom. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Ruck, M. D., Park, H., Killen, M., & Crystal, D. S. (2011). Intergroup contact and evaluations of race-based exclusion in urban minority children and adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40(6), 633–643. Rutland, A., Cameron, L., Bennett, L., & Ferrell, J. (2005). Interracial contact and racial constancy: A multi-site study of racial intergroup bias in 3–5 year old AngloBritish children. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 26(6), 699–713. Sahoo, S. (2013). Civil society and democratization in India: Institutions, ideologies and interests. Abingdon: Routledge. Said, E. (1978). Orientalism. New York: Vintage Books. Said, E. (1994). Culture and imperialism. New York: Vintage Books. Santagati, M. (2009). La scuola. In Fondazione Ismu, Quattordicesimo rapporto sulle migrazioni 2008. Milano: FrancoAngeli. Santerini, M. (2010). La qualità della scuola interculturale. Nuovi modelli per l’integrazione. Trento: Erickson. Scales, P. C., & Leffert, N. (2004). Developmental assets: A synthesis of the scientific research on adolescent development. Minneapolis, MN: Search Institute. Schermerhorn, R. A. (1978). Comparative ethnic relations: A framework for theory and research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Schissler, H., & Soysal, Y. N. (Eds) (2005). The nation, Europe and the world: Textbooks and curricula in transition. Oxford: Berghahn Books. Schmidt, S. L. (2005a). Juggling the contradictions: An exploration of white college students’ understanding of meritocracy and racial inequality. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Massachusetts Amherst. Schneider, B. H., Dixon, K., & Udvari, S. (2007). Closeness and competition in the inter-ethnic and co-ethnic friendships of early adolescents in Toronto and ­Montreal. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 27(1), 115–138.

References  171 Schoem, D. (2003). Intergroup dialogue for a just and diverse democracy. Sociological Inquiry, 73(2), 212–227. Selman, R. L. (1980). The growth of interpersonal understanding: Developmental and clinical analyses. New York: Academic Press. Sewell, W. H. (1992). A theory of structure: Duality, agency, and transformation. American Journal of Sociology, 98(1). 1–29. Shibutani, T., & Kwan, K. M. (1965). Ethnic stratification: A comparative approach. New York, Macmillan. Shifter, D., & Fosnot, C. T. (1993). Reconstructing mathematics education: Stories of teachers meeting the challenge of reform. New York: Teachers College Press. Shor, I., & Freire, P. (1987a). A pedagogy for liberation: Dialogues on transforming education. South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey. Shrum, W., Cheek, N. H., & Hunter, S. M. (1988). Friendship in school: Gender and racial homiphily. Sociology of Education, 61, 227–239. Sikorskaya, I. (2017). Intercultural education policies across Europe as responses to cultural diversity (2006–2016). Centro Studi Europei (CSE) Working Papers 17, 4 December 2017. Fisciano: Università degli Studi di Salerno. Simon P., & Sala Pala, V. (2010). “We’re not multiculturalist yet”: France swings between hard integration and soft anti-discrimination. In S. Vertovec & S. ­Wessendorf (Eds.), The multiculturalism backlash: European discourses, policies and practices (92–110). Routledge: Abingdon. Singleton, L. C., & Asher, S. R. (1979). Racial integration and children’s peer preferences: An investigation of developmental and cohort differences. Child Development, 936–941. Slaughter, A. M. (1997). The real new world order. Foreign Affairs, 76, 183–197. Smith, M. S. (2000). Balancing old and new: An experienced middle school teacher’s learning in the context of mathematics instructional reform. The Elementary School Journal, 100(4), 351–375. Smith-Maddox, R., & Solórzano, D. (2002). Using critical race theory, Paulo Freire’s problem-posing method, and case study research to confront race and racism in education. Qualitative Inquiry, 8(1), 66–84. Solorzano, D. (1997). Images and words that Wound: Critical race Theory, racial stereotyping, and teacher Education. Teacher Education Quarterly, 24, 5–19. Solórzano, D. G., & Yosso, T. J. (2002). Critical race methodology: Counter-­storytelling as an analytical framework for education research. Qualitative Inquiry, 8(1), 23–44. Solórzano, D. G., Ceja, M., & Yosso, T. (2000). Critical race theory, racial micro-­ aggressions, and campus racial climate: The experiences of African American college students. The Journal of Negro Education, 69(1), 60–73. Soros, G. (2002). George Soros on Globalization. New York: Public Affairs. Quoted in H. Epstein & L. Chen “Can AIDS be stopped?” The New York Review of Books. March 14. Soysal, Y. N. (1994). Limits of citizenship: Migrants and postnational membership in Europe. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Spillane, J. P. (1999). External reform initiatives and teachers’ efforts to reconstruct their practice: The mediating role of teachers’ zone of enactment. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31(2), 1–33. Spillane, J. P. (2000a). District leaders’ perceptions of teacher learning (CPRE Occasional Paper Series, OP-05). Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania.

172  References Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2001). Investigating school leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 23–28. Spring, J. (1998). Education and the rise of the global economy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Spring, J. H. (2001a). Deculturalization and the struggle for equality: A brief history of the education of dominated culture in the United States. New York: McGraw-Hill. Spring, J. H. (2001b). American education. New York: McGraw-Hill. Stables, A. (2005). Multiculturalism and moral education: Individual positioning, dialogue and cultural practice. Journal of Moral Education, 34(2), 185–197. Stathi, S., Cameron, L., Hartley, B., & Bradford, S. (2014). Imagined contact as a prejudice-reduction intervention in schools: The underlying role of similarity and attitudes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 44(8), 536–546. Steinberg, S. R., & Kincheloe, J. L. (2010). Power, emancipation, and complexity: Employing critical theory. Power and Education, 2(2), 140–151. Steinitz, V. A., & Solomon, E. R. (1986). Starting out: Class and community in the lives of working class youth. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Stephan, W. G., & Finlay, D. (1999). The role of empathy in improving intergroup relations. Journal of Social Issues, 55(4), 729–743. Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (1985). Intergroup anxiety. Journal of Social Issues, 41(3), 157–175. Stiglitz, J. 2000. What I learned at the world economic crisis: The insider. The New Republic, April 17–24. Stone-Mediatore, S. (2003). Reading across borders: Storytelling and knowledges of resistance. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Stonequist, E. V. (1937). The marginal man: A study in personality and culture conflict. New York: Russell & Russell. Suarez-Orozco, C. (2005). Identities under siege: Immigration stress and social mirroring among the children of immigrants. In M. Suarez-Orozco, C. Suarez-­ Orozco, & D. B. Qin (Eds.), The new immigration: An interdisciplinary reader. New York: Routledge. Suarez-Orozco, M. (2007). Learning in the global era: International perspectives on globalization and education. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Suarez-Orozco, C., & Suarez-Orozco, M. (1995). Transformations: Immigration, family life, and achievement motivation among Latino adolescents. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Tannen, D. (1998). The argument culture: Moving from debate to dialogue. New York: Random House. Tatum, B. D. (1994). Teaching white students about racism: The search for white allies and the restoration of hope. Teachers College Record, 95(4), 462–476. Tatum, B. D. (1997). Why are all the black kids sitting together in the cafeteria? And other conversations about race. New York: Basic Books. Tatum, B. D. (2007). Can we talk about race? And other conversations in an era of school resegregation. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Tatum, B. D. (2010). Defining racism: Can we talk? In M. Adams, W. J. Blumenfeld, R. Casteñeda, H. Hackman, M. Peters, & X. Zúñiga (Eds.), Readings for diversity and social justice (2nd ed., pp. 66–69). New York: Routledge. Taylor, C. (1994). The politics of recognition. In C. Taylor, K. A. Appias, J. ­Habermas, S. C. Rockefeller, M. Walzer & S. Wolf (Eds), Multiculturalism: Examining the politics of recognition (pp. 25–73). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

References  173 Taylor, C. (2012). Interculturalism or multiculturalism? Philosophy and Social Criticism, 38(4–5), pp. 413–423. Taylor, E. (1998). A primer on critical race theory: Who are the critical race theorists and what are the saying? Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, 19(1), 122–124. Tiedt, P. L., & Tiedt, I. M. (2010). Multicultural teaching: A handbook of activities, information and resources. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Trimble J. E. (1988). Stereotypical images, American Indians, and prejudice. In P. A. Katz & D. A. Taylor (Eds.), Eliminating racism: Perspectives in social psychology (A Series of Texts and Monographs). Boston, MA: Springer. Tropp, L. R., & Pettigrew, T. F. (2005). Relationships between intergroup contact and prejudice among minority and majority status groups. Psychological Science, 16(12), 951–957. Tropp, L. R., & Prenovost, M. (2008). The role of intergroup contact in predicting interethnic attitudes: Evidence from meta-analytic and field studies. In S. Levy & M. Killen (Eds.), Intergroup attitudes in childhood through adulthood (pp. 236–248). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tropp, L. R., O’Brien, T. C., & Migacheva, K. (2014). How peer norms of inclusion and exclusion predict children’s interest in cross-ethnic friendships. Journal of Social Issues, 70(1), 151–166. Turkle, S. (2012a). The flight from conversation. The New York Times. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/opinion/sunday/the-flight-from-conversation. html?_r=2&pagewanted=all. Turkle, S. (2012b). Sherry Turkle: Connected by alone? [Video file]. Retrieved from www.ted.com/talks/sherry_turkle_alone_together.html. Turner, R. N., & Cameron, L. (2016). Confidence in contact: A new perspective on promoting cross-group friendship among children and adolescents. Social Issues and Policy Review, 10(1), 212–246. Turner, R. N., & Feddes, A. R. (2011). How intergroup friendship works: A longitudinal study of friendship effects on outgroup attitudes. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41(7), 914–923. Turner, R. N., Crisp, R. J., & Lambert, E. (2007). Imagining intergroup contact can improve intergroup attitudes. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 10(4), 427–441. Turner, R. N., Hewstone, M., & Voci, A. (2007). Reducing explicit and implicit outgroup prejudice via direct and extended contact: The mediating role of self-disclosure and intergroup anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(3), 369. Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward Utopia: A century of public school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. U.S. Census Bureau. (2008). An older and more diverse nation by midcentury. Retrieved from www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/population/cb08-123. html. UNESCO. (2006). UNESCO Guidelines on Intercultural Education. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001478/147878e.pdf. UNESCO. (2008). Investing in cultural diversity and intercultural dialogue: World report on cultural diversity. UNESCO: Paris. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/ images/0018/001847/184755e.pdf. United Nations. (1948). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Retrieved from www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/.

174  References Van Der Leeuw-Roord, J. (2009). Education for inclusion, awareness and tolerance: Key themes for relevance and significance. In S. Aketin, P. Harnett, M. Ozturk, & D. Smart (Eds.), Teaching history and social studies for multicultural Europe (pp. 127–141), Ankara: Harf Egitim Yayinciligi. van Dijk, T. (1992). Discourse and denial of racism. Discourse and Society, 3(1), 87–118. van Dijk, T. (1993). Principles of discourse analysis. Discourse and Society, 4(2) 249–283. van Dijk, T. (2008). Discourse and power. London: Palgrave. Van Hear, N. (2010) Theories of migration and social change. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 36(10), 1531–1536. Vaughan, D. (1996). The Challenger launch decision: Risky technology, culture, and deviance at NASA. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Veloria, C. N., & Boyes-Watson, C. (2014). Learning in circles: The power of humanizing practice. The Journal of Pedagogy, Pluralism and Practice, 1(6), 1–18. Verkuyten, M. (2001). National identification and intergroup evaluations in Dutch children. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 19(4), 559–571. Verkuyten, M., & Steenhuis, A. (2005). Preadolescents’ understanding and reasoning about asylum seeker peers and friendships. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 26(6), 660–679. Vertovec, S. (2007). Super-diversity and its implications. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30(6), 1024–1054. Vertovec, S., & Wessendorf, S. (2010). Introduction: Assessing the backlash against multiculturalism in Europe. In S. Vertovec & S. Wessendorf (Eds.), The multiculturalism backlash: European discourses, policies and practices (pp. 1–31). Routledge: Abingdon. Vezzali, L., & Giovannini, D. (2012). Secondary transfer effect of intergroup contact: The role of intergroup attitudes, intergroup anxiety and perspective taking. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 22(2), 125–144. Virgil, J. D. (1988). Barrios gangs: Street life and identity in southern California. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Weatherley, R., & Lipsky, M. (1997). Street-level bureaucrats and institutional innovation: Implementing special-education reform. Harvard Educational Review, 47(2), 171–197. Weber, M. (1968). Basic Sociological Terms. In G. Roth & C. Wittich (Eds.), Economy and society. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Weiler, G. (2003). Using weblogs in the classroom. The English Journal, 92(5), 73–75. Weiler, J. (2003). Finding a shared meaning: Reflections on dialogue. An Interview with Linda Teurfs. Seeds of Unfolding, 11(1), 4–11. Weiler, K. (1991). Freire and a feminist pedagogy of difference. Harvard Educational Review, 61(4), 449–474. Weiler, K. (2001). Rereading Paulo Friere. In K. Weiler (Ed.), Feminist engagement: Reading, resisting, and revisioning male theorists in education and cultural studies (pp. 67–87). New York: Routledge. Weiner, M. F. (2018). Curricular alienation: Multiculturalism, tolerance, and immigrants in Dutch primary school history textbooks. Humanity & Society, 42(2), 147–170. doi:10.1177/0160597617716965.

References  175 West, C. (1994). Race Matters. New York: Vintage Books. Wihtol de Wenden, C. (2009). La globalisation humaine. Paris: Press Universitaires de France. Wijeyesinghe, C. L., & Jackson, B. W. (Eds.). (2012). New perspectives on racial identity development: Integrating emerging frameworks (2nd ed.). New York: New York University Press. Williams, M. H. (2013). Introduction. In M. H. Williams (Ed.), The multicultural dilemma: Migration, ethnic politics, and state intermediation. New York: Routledge. Williams, P. (2008). Talking about not talking about race. New York Magazine. Retrieved from http://nymag.com/news/features/49140/. Williams, R. (1977). Marxism and literature. New York: Oxford University Press. Willinsky, J. (1998). Learning to divide the world: Education at empire’s end. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Willis, K. (2005). Merry hell: Humour competence and social incompetence. In M. Pickering & S. Lockyer (Eds.), Beyond a joke: The limits of humour (pp. 126–145). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Wilson, T. M., Rodkin, P. C., & Ryan, A. M. (2014). The company they keep and avoid: Social goal orientation as a predictor of children’s ethnic segregation. Developmental Psychology, 50(4), 1116. Winant, H. (2001). The world is a ghetto: Race and democracy since World War II. New York: Basic Books. Winant, H. (2004). Behind the blue eyes: Whiteness and contemporary us racial politics. In M. Fine, L. Weis, L. Pruitte & A. Burns (Eds.), Off white: Readings for power, privilege and resistance. New York: Routledge. Windizio, M. (2012). Integration of immigrant children into inter-ethnic friendship networks: The role of “intergenerational openness.” Sociology, 46(2), 258–271. Wohlwend, K. & Lewis, C. (2010). Critical literacy, critical engagement, digital technology: Convergence and embodiment in glocal spheres. In D. Lapp & D. Fisher (Eds.), The handbook of teaching English and Language Arts, (3rd ed., pp. 188–194). New York: Taylor & Francis. Wood, P. (2015). Meet me on the corner? Shaping the conditions for cross-cultural interaction in urban public space. In R. Zapata-Barrero (Ed.), Inter culturalism in cities: Concept, policy and implementation (pp. 53–75). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Yan, H., Russell, L., & Milanova, B. (2013). Bananas thrown at Italy’s first black minister Cecile Kyenge. https://www.cnn.com/2013/07/28/world/europe/italy-­politicsracism/index.html. Young, I. M. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Zapata-Barrero, R. (2011). Anti-immigration populism: Can local intercultural policies close the space? Discussion Paper. Policy Network, 1–9. Retrieved from http://dcpis. upf. edu/~ricard-zapata/~ricard-zapata/Policynetwork.interculturalism.discussion. paper-1.pdf. Zapata-Barrero, R. (2014). The limits to shaping diversity as public culture: Permanent festivities in Barcelona. Cities: The international Journal of Urban Policy and Planning, 37, 66–72. Zapata-Barrero, R. (2015). Interculturalism in cities: Concept, policy and implementation. Cheltenham, U.K.; Northampton, U.S.A.: Edward Elgar Publishing.

176  References Zapata-Barrero, R. (2016). Theorising intercultural citizenship. In N. Meer, T. ­Modood & R. Zapata-Barrero (Eds.), Multiculturalism and interculturalism: Debating the dividing lines (53–76). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Zembylas, M., & Iasonos, S. (2010). Leadership styles and multicultural education approaches: An exploration of their relationship. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 13(2), 163–183. Zhou, M. (1997). Segmented assimilation: Controversies, and recent research on the new second generation. International Migration Review, 31(4), 975–1008. Zirkel, S. (2008). The influence of multicultural educational practices on student outcomes and intergroup relations. Teachers College Record, 110(6), 1147–1181. Zolberg, A. R. (1991). One-party government in the Ivory Coast. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Zuberi, T. (2001a). Thicker than blood: How racial statistics lie. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Zúñiga, X., & Nagda, B. A. (2001). Design considerations for intergroup dialogue. In D. Schoem & S. Hurtado (Eds.), Intergroup dialogue: Deliberative democracy in school, college, community and workplace (pp. 306–327). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Zúñiga, X., DeJong, K., Keehn, M., Varghese, R., & Mildred, J. (2009). Listening and verbal engagement processes in race and gender dialogues. Presented at the Northeastern Educational Research Association Conference. Rocky Hill, CT. Zúñiga, X., Lopez, G. E., & Ford, K. A. (2012). Intergroup dialogue: Critical ­conversations about difference, social identities, and social justice: Guest editors’ introduction. Equity & Excellence in Education, 45(1), 1–13. Zúñiga, X., Mildred, J., Varghese, R., DeJong, K., & Keehn, M. (2011). Engaged listening in race/ethnicity and gender intergroup dialogue courses. Equity & Excellence in Education, 45(1), 80–99. Zúñiga, X., Nagda, B. R. A., & Sevig, T. D. (2002). Intergroup dialogues: An educational model for cultivating engagement across differences. Equity & Excellence in Education, 35(1), 7–17. Zúñiga, X., Nagda, B., Chesler, M., & Cytron-Walker, A. (2007). Intergroup dialogue in higher education: Meaning ful learning about social justice. ASHE Higher Education Report: Vol. 32, No. 4. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Index

Note: bold page numbers indicate tables. Aboud, F. E. 111, 116 Abruzzo, Italy, intercultural education case study in 66–80; and abstract/ generic practice 68–70; and “add-on” activities 68, 70, 79; and citizenship 72–73; and civic integration 68, 72–74, 77, 80; and cultural identity 74; data collection/analysis in 66–67; and educational policy 67; and history teaching 68–69; and “hybrid” practices 68, 70–72, 79; immigrant student population in 66; and Italian Constitution 69, 72–73; and Italian language teaching 71, 80; and language of instruction 75, 76–77; and linguistic/cultural diversity in classrooms 75–76, 80; and literature teaching 71; regional context in 66; and saliency of language/literacy theme 67, 74–77, 80; and social cohesion 72, 73; and sociology 66, 67; and ways of knowing/cultural competencies theme 67, 68–74; and welcoming practices theme 67, 77–79; and working knowledge 67–68 academic performance/achievement 28, 96–97, 108 access 4, 18, 22, 36, 41 acculturation 12, 96 Adams, M. 118, 123, 128, 135 “add-on” practices 68, 70, 79 additive multicultural education 29, 35 adolescents 98, 111, 112, 134 Adorno, Theodor 50, 57 affirmative action 15 agency 46, 47, 48–49, 53, 56, 61, 98, 138, 144

Alba, R. D. 11, 13 Aldana, A. 117, 134 Alighai-Brown,Y. 16 Allport, Gordon 103–104, 106, 131, 132 Althusser, L. 55 Ambrosini, M. 20, 141, 142, 146 Anders, G. C. 92 anti-colonial pedagogy 5, 45, 95–96, 138–139, 140, see also decolonizing education anti-immigration movements 1, 141 Apple, M. 54, 60, 84 Aronowitz, M. 96 assimilation 2, 10–13, 18, 22, 25, 46, 128, 137; and academic achievement 96–97; as colonizing ideology 10; and colour/racial difference 11; and critical race theory 12–13; cultural 11; as duty of immigrant 11; linear 11; multiculturalism as alternative to 14, 15; and race/racism 4; segmented 2, 11–12, 96; and universalist epistemological view 10–11; upward/ downward/selective paths of 12, see also neo-assimilation Austria 43 Bakhtin, Mikhail 131 Baltodano, M. 53, 54, 55, 57 banking model of education 61, 99 Banks, J. A. 7, 72, 80 Barrett, M. 17–18 Bauman, Z. 91 Belgium 16, 22, 43 Bell, L. A. 118, 124, 135 Bermudez, Angela 33–34 Besozzi, E. 41

178 Index bilingual education 15 black feminist scholarship 9 Boaler, J. 104 bodies 53, 55; racialized 87 Bohm, David 130, 132 Bonilla-Silva, E. 83, 84, 85, 89–90 border control 22 Britain (UK) 16, 18, 22, 43, 107 British Council 18 Brooks, J. 28 Brubaker, R. 11 Buber, Martin 131 Bulgaria 40 bullying prevention 33 Burgess, E. W. 11 business principles 51 Calderoli, Roberto 84, 85, 89, 90–91 Callahan, R. 72 Cameron, L. 103, 105, 108, 115, 116–117 Canada 16, 109 Cantle, T. 19, 63 capital accumulation 46 capitalism 50, 52, 73–74, 138, 144; and race/racism 83, 90, 95 Carlisle, L. R. 124 Castles, S. 9 Chicago School 10 Chieti (Italy) 66 Chong, H. 28 citizenship 14, 101, 131; active 18; ceremonies 22; democratic 27, 121; dual 15; failed 72–73, 80; global/ democratic 27, 31; multicultural 15; plural/shared 65–66; and tests for immigrants 22, 25, 147 citizenship education 27, 37, 39, 45, 64, 80 civic education 25, 33–34, 72 civic integration 10, 39, 147; and governmentality 2, 23, 142; and immigration policies 40, 65; and interculturalism 22–25, 31, 45, 68, 72; in Italy 65, 68, 72–74, 77, 80; and liberalism 22–23; and respect for values/rule of law 24; and tests for immigrants 22, 25; two-way 23–24 civic requirements 10, 22, 25 civil rights movement 13, 27, 123 class 52, 56, 60, 87, 118 classroom spaces 57, 137; multiethnic/ diverse 38, 45, 71, 75–76, 83; “race talk” in 83

co-construction of culture/community 17, 20, 23–24 Coakley, J. 89 collaboration see intergroup collaboration colonialism/colonizing ideology 55, 83, 84, 86–87, 99, 138, 144; and intercultural education 3–4, 80; and multiculturalism 14, 21; and othering 92–95, see also anti-colonial pedagogy; decolonizing education color, people of 13, 29; and interracial friendships 109 color-blindness 20, 28, 83, 89–90 common goals condition 104, 105, 107 communication 47, 49 community-building 4, 105 “confidence in contact” model 4, 103, 115–118; group factors in 115, 117; individual factors in 115–116; and literature/TV shows 116; and perceived similarity 116; and sense of self-efficacy 116–117 conflict resolution 22, 37, 121 consciousness-raising 132, 134 contact readiness 4, 115 Contini, R. M. 66 contributory multicultural education 29, 35 cooperative learning 28, 34, 76 Cornell, S. 86–87, 88, 93 critical consciousness 29, 55 critical educational approaches 2, 3, 27, 30, 30, 73–74 critical educational spaces 2, 5, 145 critical multicultural education 27–29, 30, 35, 121 critical pedagogy 2, 3, 37, 45, 47, 57–62, 57, 99–100, 128, 142–143; assumptions of 60; and hidden curriculum 60–61; and history teaching 58–59; and intergroup relationships/dialogue 109, 117; and knowledge 59–60, 61; need for 58; and social justice education 135–138 critical race theory 4, 12–13 critical theory 2, 3, 45, 46, 47, 49–57, 138; in educational context 51, 61, 142–143, 144; and Frankfurt School 50, 51–52, 53, 57; and hegemony see hegemony; and ideology 46–47, 54, 55; and reason/positivism 50–51; and theory–practice relationship 50, 51 critical thinking 37, 77, 118, 134, 135, 136, 143; four tools of 33–34

Index  179 critical-dialogic pedagogy 60, 80, 100, 117, 130, 131–134 cross-cultural dialogue 19, 21, 117, 118, 134, 142 cultural capital 12, 60 cultural competencies 47, 67, 68–74, 108 cultural difference 2, 16, 18, 32, 64, 69, 122, 124–125; and racism 84, 89, 95 cultural diversity 14, 19, 25, 37; governance of 10, 16, 18, 20, 142 cultural exchange 17, 35, 38, 135 cultural identity 16, 19, 32, 49, 91, 118, 135 cultural knowledge 30, 31, 65 cultural studies 56, 57 culture 31–34, 60, 122, 140, 144; instrumental 91–92; of origin 39–40; and power relations 47, 56 curricula 5, 61, 64, 66, 69, 70, 72, 136, 139; hidden 26, 60–61; and interculturalism education 35, 37–38, 39; multicultural see multicultural curricula Czech Republic 40 Darder, A. 52, 53, 54, 55, 57, 59, 61 de Guchteneire, P. 9 de Haass, Hein 48 de-centering 32, 102, 112, 116, 118, 128, 135 decolonizing education 34, 45, 70, 138–139, 140, see also anti-colonial pedagogy deculturalization 73, 92 Delpit, L. 99 democracy 26, 29, 33, 35, 36, 69, 122, 142 democratic education 118, 128, 135, 139 Denmark 22, 40 DeVos, George 98 dialectical thought 52 dialogue 49, 61, 64, 129–130, see also intergroup dialogue diaspora 47, see also immigrant communities disability 19, 29, 118, 142 discrimination 13, 18, 33; ignored by intercultural education 32 diversity 1, 4, 9–10, 15, 31, 79, 143; backlash against see multiculturalism backlash; cultural see cultural diversity; and intergroup dialogue 118; leveraging 118, 119, 123, 130, 135; linguistic 74–76; management 16, 20, 121, 135, 142; and micro/meso

levels 19–20; in schools 26; and social cohesion, tension between 64, 65–66, 79; “super-” 17, 21, 122, 139, 142 diversity education 30, 124 Doyle, A. B. 116 dress codes 15 Eagleton, T. 85 education policies 46, 48, 67, 92, 144 education, right to 42–44; and teaching language of instruction 44; and welcoming/orienting immigrant students/families 42–44 elites 18, 22, 25, 142, 144 empathy 37, 117, 134 empowerment 28, 60, 125 Enlightenment 50–51 epistemology 10, 99, 135 equal status 36, 104–105, 106, 113 equity 26, 27, 30, 32, 62, 145; education/ pedagogy 4, 5, 28, 35, 121, 122, 124 ESE (European Social Fund) 74 Esser, H. 12 ethnic communities 12, 88; as “ghettos”/parallel societies 16, 19; and interpreting/translation 43; recognition/representation of 15 ethnic networks see networks ethnic social capital 12 ethnicity 86, 87–89; defined 88; and primordialism 88, 89; social science approaches to 88–89 ethnocentrism 10, 11, 69, 87, 120 Europe: globally minded 31; growing diversity in 1, 9, 13, 25, 64; intergroup dialogue in 117, 118; multicultural backlash in 10; multicultural education in 30 Europe, Council of 16, 17, 18, 19, 23, 27; and intercultural competence 32, 33, 36; and language of instruction 76 European Commission 19, 74, 75 European Convention of Human Rights 18 European documents 2, 3, 22, 26–27, 31, 37, 142; on civic integration 24; and intergroup contact 104; and Italy 63, 65, 73, 74, 75; on language/literacy 40, 74, 75 European Social Fund (ESE) 74 European Union (EU) 1, 3, 16, 22, 23; Charter of Fundamental Rights 42; Council of 23, 24, 25, 75; and intercultural education 26–27, 31,

180 Index 37–39, 63; linguistic competence strategies of 74–75, 76 European Year of Intercultural Dialogue (EYID) 18–19 Eurydice network 38, 43 extracurricular activities 38, 41, 42, 106

group differences 14, 123, 124, 133, 146 Guidikova, I. 19

facilitators 44, 129, 130, 131, 133 Faist, T. 47, 142 families/parents 12, 42, 77 Fanon, F. 93 Fernández, S. D. 129 Finland 22, 43 Foucault, Michel 23, 25, 53, 55 France 20, 22, 107, 147 Frankfurt School 50, 51–52, 53, 57 Freeman, G. 23, 94 Freire, Paulo 49, 52, 58–59, 60, 61, 95, 99, 100, 125, 127, 132 Friedman, J. 51 friendship maintenance 110, 111, 112 friendship research 110 friendships see intergroup friendships Fromm, Erich 57 “full respect” principle 24, 40, 74–75

Hackman, H. 125, 128–129 Handler, J. 23 Hansen, P. 37–38 Hardiman, R. 125, 126, 127 Harro, B. 127, 132 Hartmann, D. 86–87, 88, 93 Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich 50 hegemony 49, 53–57, 57, 83, 121, 127; and ideology 54, 55; in schools 54, 55–56, 59 Hinton, Alexander 93 history teaching 39, 58–59, 68–69 homophobia 33, 35, 134, 139 Horkheimer, Max 50, 51, 57 Howard, P. 96, 139 Hulme, P. 55 human capital 12, 96, 97 human rights 14, 36, 69, 72, 73, 123, 142 humor 84–85 Hungary 40 Hunter, A. G. 111 “hybrid” practices 68, 70–72, 79

Gandy, Oscar H. Jr. 84, 85 Gee, J. P. 137 gender 9, 32, 35, 47, 52, 53, 56, 59, 91, 97, 100, 118, 142 geography teaching 39, 68, 69 George, A. 124 Germany 22, 50, 53, 107 ghettoisation 16, 19, 20 Giddens, Anthony 48 Giroux, H. A. 46–47, 50–51, 52, 55, 56, 59, 60, 141, 143–144; on racism in schools 98, 99–100 globalization 1, 23, 31, 40, 46, 146; and diaspora/transnationalism 47; and race/ racism 93, 94, 95 Goldenberg, I. 127 Gorski, Paul 34, 47, 121, 122, 144–145 governance of diversity 10, 16, 18, 20, 142 governmentality 2, 10, 16, 20, 23; and intercultural education 1, 45, 64, 121, 122, 142 Gramsci, A. 47, 53, 54 Gray, John 90 Griffin, P. 118, 135 Grinber, R. 96 Grinberg, L. 96 Grosby, Steven 89, 99

Iasonos, S. 37 identity 9–10, 15, 49, 56, 74, 96, 118, 119, 122; cultural 16, 19, 32, 49, 74, 91, 118, 135; formation/construction 97–98, 99; group 55; multiple/intersecting 9, 17, 32, 74, 132; national 14, 16, 20, 32, 146; racial-ethnic 96–97, 117; religious see religious identity; schools as sites of 26 ideology 46–47; and critical pedagogy 59, 60; and hegemony 54, 55; and language/power 3, 85 IGD see intergroup dialogue immigrant children: and colonizing education 3–4; integration of 40–42; and native language instruction 39–40; and race/racism 4 immigrant communities 18, 20, 38, 76, 95, 142; and global networks 47; solidarity in 12 immigration policies 22, 40, 45, 65, 147 immigration/immigrants 1, 4, 9, 26, 42, 49, 91, 146; and civic requirements 10; and discontinuous social spaces 96 imperialism 55; cultural 126; economic 46 incorporation, modes of 12 indigenous peoples 15

Index  181 Indigenous People’s Rights Movement 16 individual features 12 individualism 51, 52, 90 inequality 13, 16, 28, 121, 125; and critical theory 47, 52; and meritocracy 46; and power structures 37; and race 83; in schools 27 inequities 1, 3, 5, 21, 27, 36, 46, 106, 122, 145; and systemic thinking 33–34 institutional capital 13 institutional documents 16, 22, 23 institutions/institutional context 1, 4, 9, 10, 14–15, 18; and social cohesion 17, 20; and social justice 5, 21 integration 3, 11, 21, 40–42, 65, 147; civic see civic integration; and language of instruction 75, 76; regional 94; two models of 41 Intercultural Cities program (Council of Europe) 19 intercultural cities/communities 54, 187 intercultural competence 2, 31–33, 37, 143, 144; and educational policies/ practices 63; and four pillars of intercultural education 34; and intergroup contact 36; as set of attitudes 33 intercultural dialogue 5, 17, 23–24, 35–37, 38, 64, 121, 140, 142; European Year of (EYID) 18–19; and language teaching 71–72; and welcoming practices 79 Intercultural dialogue and democratic coexistence (Mpi) 69 Intercultural Dialogue,White Paper on (Council of Europe) 16, 17, 18, 23, 24 intercultural education 1–3, 26–45, 102, 103, 120, 121–122, 147; as colonizing education 3–4; and critical theory 45; and critical thinking 33–34, 37; and curricula 35, 37–38, 39; de-politicizing of 118, 135; decolonization of 34, 45; and dialogue see intercultural dialogue; intergroup dialogue; and EU/Council of Europe 26–27, 31, 33, 37–44; and extracurricular activities 38; and global citizenship 31; goals/orientations of 31–32; and individual responsibility/ action 33, 40; and integration 40–42; and intercultural competence see intercultural competence; and intergroup contact see intergroup contact; in Italy see italy; and language/

culture of origin 39–40, 74–77; and liberal/neoliberal ideology 3, 4, 27, 45; and macro view 25; and multicultural education, compared 26, 27–30, 32, 35, 142; and multiculturalism backlash 2–3; and multiple identities 32; and neoliberalism 3, 4, 27, 45, 142; pedagogical approaches to 3, 34–35; and power/privilege see under power/ privilege; pre-kindergarten 39; and right to education 42–44; role of culture in 31–34; and social change see under social change; and social cohesion see under social cohesion; and social justice see social justice education; transformative 37, 45, 65, 66, 70, 79, 83, 121, 122 Intercultural Education, UNESCO Guidelines on (2006) 34 intercultural praxis 3, 69 interculturalism 1, 2, 16–25, 26, 98, 103, 141–142; and civic integration 22–25, 31, 45, 68, 72; and civic requirements 10, 22, 25; and co-construction of culture/community 17, 20, 23–24; and dialogue see intercultural dialogue; and diversity 9–10, 16, 18; and governmentality 10; and host society’s language/history 24–25; and intergroup dialogue see intergroup dialogue; key concepts in 16–17; and micro/meso levels 19–20, 21; origins of 16; and power relations 17–18; prescriptive/multidimensional character of 17; and universal values 18; versus multiculturalism 10, 16, 19–22, 25 intergroup action 132, 134 intergroup anxiety 102, 108, 110, 114, 115, 116 intergroup collaboration 42, 105, 108, 133 intergroup contact 17, 21, 24, 35, 101, 102, 119, 143, 144; and barriers to participation 106; and common goals/ intergroup cooperation 104, 105, 107; and confidence in contact see “confidence in contact” model; and de-centering 102, 112, 116, 118; and equal status 104–105, 106, 113; and friendship see intergroup friendships; and institutional support 104, 105; and intergroup relations, distinction between 35–36, 109; optimal 104–106,

182 Index 117; and prejudice reduction 102, 102–103, 103–108, 118 intergroup dialogue (IGD) 1, 2, 4, 5, 31, 35–36, 64, 117–118, 119, 120, 129–135, 143, 144; and building relationships across difference 132, 134; and consciousness-raising 132, 134; critical dimension of 132; and critical pedagogy 72, 103, 109, 130, 131–134; curriculum 131, 132; and definition/ uses of dialogue 129–130; dialogic dimension of 131; flaws/assumptions in 17–18; four-stage model of 133, 134; goals of 132; initiatives in secondary schools 134; in intercultural education framework 134–135; and intergroup collaboration project (ICP) 133; and personal storytelling 129, 132, 133–134 intergroup friendships 4, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107–115, 117, 119; and adolescents 111, 112; challenges to 108–109; children’s perceptions of 114; and cognitive development 113–114; determinants of 109–115; and friendship maintenance 110, 111, 112; and intergroup anxiety 108, 110, 114, 115, 116; and out-group homogeneity 111–112, 113, 116; and peer group norms 114–115; and preschool children 108–109, 111; and propinquity/proximity 110–111, 112– 115; and reciprocity 110, 112–115; and similarity 110, 111–115, 116 intergroup relations 28, 30, 31, 101, 102– 120; and intercultural education 35, 72; and intergroup contact, distinction between 35–36, 109; and power 21 intermarriage 11 international student exchanges 37 interpersonal skills 32 interpreters 43 intersectionality 97, 122 Ireland 43 Isaacs, William 130 Islamophobia 26, 103, 119, 131, 139, 141 ItaL2 74, 77 ItalStudio 74 Italy 3–4, 39, 40, 62, 63–80, 143, 147; Constitution of 69, 72–73; Courses for Action/Italian Way document 65–66, 71, 77, 79; diversity–social cohesion tension in 64, 65–66, 79; and European documents 63, 65, 73, 74,

75; implementation issues in 63, 64, 65; intercultural education case study in see Abruzzo; linguistic competence strategies in 74, 75, 80; race/racism in 84, 85, 87, 89, 90–91, 94, 95; regional discrepancies in interculturalism in 63–64; welcoming practices in 77–78 Jackson, B. W. 124 job skills 12 Joppke, C. 22, 23, 24, 25, 147 Jung, M. 11, 12–13 Kahne, J. 80 Kant, Immanuel 50, 90 Keenan, T. 139 Kennedy, M. M. 67–68 Killen, M. 111–112, 113, 115, 116 Kincheloe, J. L. 50, 53, 127, 137 King, D. 22 King, J. E. 83 Knaus, B. C. 28 knowing, ways of 29, 67, 68–74 knowledge 35, 44, 53, 136; and banking model of education 61; corporatization of 61; and critical pedagogy 57, 59–60, 101; and critical theory 51; objective 46–47; prior 67, 68, 79; transformative 55; working 67–68 knowledge construction 28, 53, 55, 57; and dialogue 49 Kyenge, Cecile 84, 87, 89, 91 Kymlicka, W. 14, 15, 16, 20 Ladson-Billings, G. 99 language 22, 24, 39, 74–77, 80, 83; environment 45, 76, 83; and interpreters 43; and mother tongue courses/material 39–40, 43; and power/ideology 3; proficiency 12; and racism 84–85; and second language instruction 44, 65, 75, 80 language of instruction (L1) 39, 44, 65, 71–72, 75, 76–77, 80 L’Aquila (Italy) 66 Larbalestier, J. 96 leadership 35, 65, 69 Leclerq, J.-M. 37 Lee, Enid 95 Leonardo, Z. 53, 58, 87, 93 LGBTQ people 29 liberal humanism 90 liberalism/liberal state 19, 22–23, 24, 27, 30, 142; abstract 90, 91; and

Index  183 intercultural education 33; and modernity 90; Rawlsian/Foucauldian 23, 25 liberation 49, 125, 127, 128, 140 linguistic capital 12 listening skills 116, 129, 131, 133 literacy 70, 75, 80, 136; critical/new 136–137; cultural 4; equity 47 Lithuania 40 Love, B. J. 125 Luxembourg 39, 43 McGlothlin, H. 111–112, 113, 116 McLaren, P. 58, 59–60 Mahood, T. 21–22 Maley, A. 71 Marceuse, Herbert 50, 52, 57 Marx, Karl 50, 87 Marxism 73–74, 87, 93 Maxwell, B. 19 Mayhew, M. J. 129 meaning-making 3, 32, 117, 118, 135, see also sense-making media 1, 14, 15, 48, 116, 136 Meer, N. 21–22, 63 Mendelson, M. J. 111 Mendoza-Denton, R. 107 middle-class 12 migration patterns 21, 26, 48, 50 migration studies 48, 57 migration, theories of 2, see also assimilation theory migration/migrants see immigration/ immigrants Milanova, B. 84 Miller, M. 9 modernity 90 Modood, T. 14, 63, 146 Moody, J. 104 Muller, C. 72 multicultural citizenship 15 multicultural education 2, 27–30, 102, 117; and contributory/additive approaches 29, 35; critical 27–29, 30, 35, 121; and equity 27, 30; five foundational dimensions of 28; “fun/ food/festivals” approach to 16, 29, 121; and intercultural education, compared 26, 27–30, 32, 35, 142; and intergroup relations 28, 30; pedagogy of 3; and school policies/procedures 30; and transformative/social action approaches 29–30; and U.S police racist killings 28

multiculturalism 9, 13–16, 25, 90, 141, 146; as alternative to assimilation 14; as human rights revolution 14; and macro level 19; pro-minority orientation of 15–16; and recognition/ representation 14–15; rise of 13; versus interculturalism 10, 16, 19–22, 25 multiculturalism backlash 1, 10, 15–16, 20; and interculturalism 2, 25, 31 multiculturalism curricula 14, 28–30; and essentializing of minoritized groups 29; four approaches in 29–30 multiethnic society 1 multilingualism 75, 95 multiperspectivity 32, 33, 35, 120, 143 music 4, 68, 70 nation-state 2, 36, 40, 45, 144; and exclusion/marginalization 72–73, 80; and identity 74; multicultural 20; and race/racism 88, 90, 91, 101 national identity 14, 16, 20, 32, 146 nationalism 3, 101, 144 nationality 87 Nee,V. 11, 13 neo-assimilation 10, 11, 13, 25, 72, 142, 147; and neoliberalism 140, 142 neoliberalism 2, 10, 22, 23, 27, 30, 40, 44, 61, 141, 144; and autonomy/ self-sufficiency 25; and intercultural education 3, 4, 27, 45, 142; and racism 83, 95 Netherlands 22, 39, 75, 107 networks 12, 65, 77, 79; Eurydice 38, 43; transnational 25, 47 new literacies 137 Norway 40, 43 objective knowledge 46–47 Omi, M. 89, 99 oppression 125, 126, 127, 128 O’Reilly, K. 48, 49, 55 other/othering 4, 10, 19, 36, 87, 91–95, 119; and citizenship 93; and colonialism 92–95; and essentializing/ annihilating 93; and schools 92 out-group anxiety 4, 107 Page-Gould, E. 107 Palaiologou, N. 31 parallel societies 16, 20, 24, 142 Parekh, B. 15, 19, 21, 22 parents/families 12, 42, 77 Park, R. E. 11

184 Index participative approaches 36, 70, 117, 128 peace 33, 34, 64, 69, 73 Pécoud, A. 9 peer education/tutoring 76, 78 Perlman, J. 11 perspective-taking 112, 113, 116, 117, 119, 129, 134 Pescara (Italy) 66 Pettigrew, Thomas 105, 106–107, 114 Piaget, J. 111, 113 Pica-Smith, C. 66 placement of students 42, 65, 77 pluralism 9, 15, 26, 31, 32, 69, 102–103, 119, 142, 143, 147 plurilingual skills 31, 33 populism 1 Portes, A. 12, 13, 96–97 Portugal 22, 43 positivism 50–51 poverty 12, 29 Povinelli, E. A. 55 power/privilege 3, 16, 17–18, 20, 21, 24, 27, 118, 119–120; and bodies 53, 55; and culture 47; and discipline 23; and intercultural education 32, 34, 35, 36, 44, 45, 64, 121, 122, 140; and knowledge 59; and race/racism 83, 84, 85, 94, 96, 101; and social justice education 126–127, see also hegemony praxis 57, 60, 61, 63, 66, 99, 115; anti-colonial 138–139, 140; intercultural 3, 69 pre-kindergarten (Pre-K) education 39, 74 prejudice reduction 17, 19, 21, 22, 119, 120; and cultural competencies 65, 71; and governmentality 20; and intercultural education 31, 36, 71, 103; and intergroup contact/dialogue 1, 4, 102–108, 118; and intergroup friendships see intergroup friendships; and multicultural education 28 primordialism 88, 89 privilege see power/privilege problem-posing 33, 136 public opinion 48, 91, 141, 146, 147 Québec (Canada) 16 “race talk” 83, 84–85, 89 race/racism 1, 4, 11, 14, 26, 27, 33, 64, 80, 83–101, 119, 121, 131, 139, 141; and academic tracking 104–105;

biological/genetic 86, 89; and capitalism 83; and colonialism 83, 84, 86–87, 92–93; and color-blindness 20, 28, 83, 89–90; cultural 86, 89, 90, 91; and ethnicity see ethnicity; four modernist frames of 90–91; and intercultural dialogue 35; minimization of 90, 91, 103; and othering see other/ othering; and power/privilege 83, 84, 85; in schools see racism in schools; as social construction 83, 86–91; and social relations 86, 91, 92, 93, 100; and U.S. police killings 28 racial formation theory 87 racism in schools 95–100, 101; and agency/resistance theory 98; and assimilation trajectory 96–97; and critical pedagogy 99–100; and intersectionality 97; and sense of self/ identity formation 96, 97–98; and textbooks 95 radicalization 16, 24 Ravitch, David 51 Rawlsian liberalism 23 recognition 14–15 refugee crisis 1, 141, 146 religious identity 1, 4, 9, 26, 32, 42, 71, 74, 131, 142 resistance 56, 57; theories 98 right to education 42 right-wing movements 1, 2–3, 10, 119 rights 19, 22; individual/group 17, see also human rights Roman Empire 93, 94 rule of law 18, 24 Rumbaut, R. G. 12, 13, 96–97 Russell, L. 84 Said, Edward 92–93 Sala Pala,V. 15, 20 school administration/governance 37, 63, 67, 69, 79, 105 school climate 117 school culture 28, 63, 105–106, 108 school theater productions 105–106 schools: as agents of dominant culture 47; and critical pedagogy see critical pedagogy; impact of racism in see racism in schools; intergroup relations in 28; as microcosms of society 46, 49; as political arenas 54; power/privilege/inequities in 27; as sites of identity 26, 102; and social

Index  185 cohesion 64, 65, 66, 72, 73, 75, 92; as vehicles of economic/cultural reproduction 45, 84; as vessels of social change 51–52, see also classroom spaces second language instruction 44, 65, 75, 80 second-generation immigrant children 11, 66, 72 second-generation people 1, 72 segmented assimilation 2, 11–12, 96 segregation 13, 20, 24, 28, 32, 41–42, 55, 95, 96; and intergroup friendships 105, 109, 111, 112; self-109, 112 self, sense of 26, 92, 96, 98, 102 sense-making 58, 67, 80, 137, see also meaning-making separated schooling models 41 Sewell, W. H. 48 sexual orientation 53, 59, 92, 97, 118, 142 shared values 64, 65, 66, 120, 140, 142 Sikorskaya, Irina 30 Simon, P. 15, 20 SJE see social justice education skepticism 30, 33 slavery 84, 86 Slovakia 40 Smith-Maddox, R. 100 social action multicultural education 29–30; criticism of 30 social capital 12, 97 social change 51–52, 72, 102, 118, 120, 121, 122; and intercultural education 3, 21, 29, 30, 32, 33, 35, 37, 64; and intergroup friendships 4; and social justice education 5, 129, 134 social cohesion 1, 2, 12, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 92, 147; and diversity, tension between 64, 65–66, 79; and intercultural education 31, 37, 40, 45, 64, 65, 66, 72, 73, 121, 122; in Italy 64, 65, 66, 72, 73, 75; and language of host nation 75; and race/racism 92 social disconnection 47 social fragmentation 16, 19, 20–21, 142 social identity groups 109, 117, 124, 125, 128, 130–131, 133, 134 social inclusion 25 social inequities 1, 3 social justice 1, 3, 5, 21, 26, 64, 102, 121, 122, 123, 132, 140, 147; and intergroup contact 117, 119; and multicultural

education 28; origin/definition of concept 123–124 social justice education (SJE) 2, 5, 45, 109, 121, 121–140, 142; and anticolonial praxis 138–139; and critical pedagogy 135–138; defined 124–125; goals of 125; and intergroup dialogue (IGD) see intergroup dialogue; key concepts of 125–129; and liberation 125, 127, 128, 140; and oppression 125, 126, 127, 128; pedagogy 128–129; and privilege/disadvantage 126–127; process-orientation of 128; and social groups see social identity groups social media 32, 136, 137 social relations 59–60, 86, 91, 92, 93, 100 social theory 48, 73 social transformation 37, 45, 50, 51, 64, 99, 143 socialization 26, 47, 78, 79; citizenship 73, 80 sociology 39, 67, 88; of education 64, 66; of migration 11 sociopolitical context 1, 2, 5, 25, 83; and intercultural education 31, 35, 45; and multicultural education 27 Solomon, E. R. 26, 102 Solórzano, D. 100 Soros, G. 91 Spain 22, 40, 43 Spring, J. 73, 94 Steenhuis, A. 112 Steinberg, S. R. 50, 53, 137 Steinitz,V. A. 26, 102 stereotyping 17, 19, 69, 83–84, 103; and intergroup friendships 111–112 Stiglitz, J. 91 Stonequist, E.V. 95 storytelling, personal 129, 132, 133–134 structure 48 student-centred pedagogy 117, 128, 130, 140 Suarez-Orozco, Carola 91, 92, 95, 97–98 Suarez-Orozco, Marcelo 49, 98 super-diversity 17, 21, 122, 139, 142 support systems 44, 45, 83, 102 Swalwell, K. 47 Sweden 75 systemic thinking 33–34 tales/myths, teaching of 70, 71 Tate, W. 99 Tatum, Beverly 109

186 Index Taxel, Joel 60–61 Taylor, C. 14–15, 16 teacher training 65, 74 technological change 47, 137 Teramo (Italy) 66 terrorism 16, 19, 146 tests for immigrants 22, 25, 147 textbooks 95 Tiedt, P. L./Tiedt, I. M. 37 Torres, R. 53, 54, 55, 57 tracking, academic 104–105 transformative education 64, 100, 134, 144, 145; intercultural 37, 45, 65, 66, 70, 79, 83, 121, 122; multicultural 29–30, see also critical pedagogy transnational/cross-border networks 25 transnationalism 47, 50 Tropp, L. R. 106–107 Turner, R. N. 103, 105, 108, 115, 116–117

Verkuyten, M. 112 Vertovec, S. 16, 21, 31

underclass 12, 13 UNESCO Guidelines on Intercultural Education (2006) 34 UNESCO World Report on Cultural Diversity (2008) 16 United States (U.S.) 4, 10, 11–12, 28, 104, 123, 126, 142, 146 universal values 18, 142

Yan, H. 84 Young, I. M. 126, 127 YPAR (youth participatory action research) 70

Van Dijk, T. 85 Van Hear, Nicholas 48

Waldinger, R. 11 Weber, Max 50, 88 Weil, A. M. 113 Weiler, K. 58 welcoming practices 42–44, 67, 77–79, 83 welfare state 23 Wessendorf, S. 16, 31 West, Cornel 86 Westheimer, J. 80 Williams, M. H. 94 Williams, R. 54, 55, 61 Winant, H. 87, 89, 99 Windizio, M. 111 women 29 working-class 12, 29 xenophobia 1, 21, 26, 35, 103, 119, 121, 131, 139, 141, see also race/racism

Zapata-Barrero, R. 19, 31, 35–36, 63, 71, 129 Zembylas, M. 37 Zhou, M. 12 Zirkel, Sabrina 28, 30, 35, 104 Zúñiga, X. 124, 130, 132, 133