trampling the sacred: multicultural education as pedagogical racism

RESPONSIBILITY

Trampling the sacred: multicultural education as pedagogicalracism

Lavonna Lea Lovern*

Native American Studies, Philosophy & Religious Studies, Valdosta State University,Valdosta, GA, USA

(Received 9 September 2011; final version received 18 June 2012)

The following paper is a critical examination involving the misuse of sacredcultural tools and practices in the name of multicultural education. NativeAmerican practices are identified to illustrate how such inappropriate usagespromote pedagogical racism. The misuse continues the hegemonic distributionof social capital. Through the irresponsible portrayal of complex and sophisti-cated cultures, American education continues to perpetuate pedagogical violenceagainst children who are already socially and educationally disenfranchised.Using Freire, Giroux, Deloria, and Grande, this paper will identify strategies ofcommunication and education necessary to eliminate pedagogical racism andbegin to reverse the violence against children.

Keywords: Native American; education; sacred

The spiral of violence begins as a spiral of distorted communication that leads throughthe spiral of uncontrolled reciprocal mistrust, to the breakdown of communication. Ifviolence thus begins with a distortion in communication, after it has erupted it ispossible to know what has gone wrong and what needs to be repaired. – Habermas(Borradori 2003, 35)

In this statement, Jurgen Habermas was referring to the events of 9/11, but theviolence to which he refers can be experienced at all levels in our society. The“distortion of communication” begins with the first step into a classroom. The vio-lence that occurred on this day has highlighted the need for cultural understandingand dialog in order to possibly avoid similar future events. For those who teach inareas of higher education, it also brought to light the need to increase the focus oninvestigating non-Western knowledge systems. The unfortunate academic result of9/11 is that much of the effort has remained focused on Arab and Muslim cultures.While these certainly deserve exploration, there are cultures beyond these that areexperiencing generations of violence that continue to be ignored. The creation ofmulticultural pedagogical programs has been put in place largely because of theevents of the 1960s and 1970s. These early programs focused largely on black andAfrican-American interaction with white and European American communities. Thelimited focus of multicultural programs seems to be a result of media and politicalagendas. Such myopic approaches relegate other racial and ethnic groups to the

*Email: [email protected]

International Journal of Qualitative Studies in EducationVol. 25, No. 7, November 2012, 867–883

ISSN 0951-8398 print/ISSN 1366-5898 online� 2012 Taylor & Francishttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2012.720729http://www.tandfonline.com

sidelines. There is little time left for Hispanic, Hawaiian, Inuit, or Native Americancultural study. These cultures are often only given a day of study and only whenother subjects have been completed. The relegation to “as time allows” is an indica-tor of just how little importance is given to these groups of people. Habermas’ con-cern is that this perpetual neglect of classes of people opens the door to variouslevels of violence. When a group of people is ignored or becomes invisible, theconsequences for them and for the surrounding groups may easily escalate into vio-lence. According to Habermas, one way to help head off violence is to bring theforgotten and ignored into dialog. For the purposes of this paper, the dialog willinvolve cultural competency in the pedagogical practices of multicultural programs.The focus will be on Native American and Indigenous cultures as these groups con-tinue to suffer the violence of neglect and invisibility. The violence to generationsof children has continued since the boarding school era. It can be found in the oftenwell-meaning multicultural programs which hide the underlying racist curriculum.The paper will begin by looking at the idea of multiculturalism and the usages ofsacred aspects and rituals of Indigenous cultures as pedagogical practices of racism.The paper will then focus on how these acts of pedagogical praxis are the currentbeard for the earlier ideas of Manifest Destiny and Social Darwinism. Finally, thepaper will give some discussion of Indigenous responses to these practices throughacts of revitalization and resistance.

Multicultural education

The first step in the comprehension of multicultural pedagogy should be to examinethe definition of the term. However, in researching this concept it becomes clearthat there is no single accepted definition or, for that matter, no few accepted defini-tions. Instead, what prevails is a cacophony of theories sharing a vague vision ofutopian equality. These visions talk of complete understanding from one culture toanother and of sharing experiences across boundary lines, but they give littlethought as to how such objectives should be accomplished. For that matter, the con-sequences of such attempts at social reformation are rarely discussed. There seemsto be little communication as to what the term “multiculturalism” means. Whatwould a true multicultural community look like? Would it be one of complete orperfect equity? Since the term “equal” needs a referent in order to be discussed,exactly what would it mean to be entirely equal? Given the limits of this paper,there will be no attempt to answer these questions, but it is important for thosedealing in multiculturalism to think about the implications of such questions. A briefdiscussion of one working definition of multiculturalism will be offered for consid-eration.

Gollnick (as cited by Sleeter and Grant 1994, 167) lists a set of goals that areshared by “most” definitions of multiculturalism:

(1) Promoting the strength and value of cultural diversity.(2) Promoting human rights and respect for those who are different from

oneself.(3) Promoting alternative life choices for people.(4) Promoting social justice and equal opportunity for all people.(5) Promoting equality in the distribution of power among groups.

868 L.L. Lovern

On the surface, these goals seem laudable, but in truth they defy precise definition.To promote the strength and value of cultural diversity seems a self-reciprocatinggoal in terms of defining multiculturalism. Moreover, the current political climatecontinues to call into question, with increasing frequency, the value of multiculturalteaching in public schools. To simply promote such a statement as though it hasbeen logically argued is vacuous. The same must be claimed for the promotion ofhuman rights and respecting those different from oneself. These ideas and termsmust be defined. Moreover, if one could define and implement social justice andequal opportunity, then the need for much of academia would come to an end.Number 5 in the above list proves problematic in both theory and praxis.

The final goal claims that what is desired is to promote equal distribution ofpower among groups. However, as Freire and other critical and Marxist theoristshave pointed out, the basis of modern education is itself to perpetuate a continuedinequality. The foundationalist model of education works to determine exactly whatlevel a child should be taught to, based on gender, race, and class. The practicesthat are designed off of the old tracking systems are established to maintain the sep-aration between the oppressed and the oppressors, the haves and the have nots.With the established “banking style” of education, those who are in power deter-mine what is of value and what is to be deposited into the minds of the children.“In the banking concept of education, knowledge is a gift bestowed by those whoconsider themselves knowledgeable upon those whom they consider to know noth-ing” (Freire 1996, 53). Freire argues that this very process “… negates educationand knowledge as processes of inquiry” (Freire 1996, 53). The negation of inquirythen further works to negate the goal to promote the equal distribution of powerclaimed by multiculturalism. In fact, it seems clear that the placement of multicul-turalism in education is, at best, a hope to pacify what are often seen in educationto be the disenfranchised and the liberal populations that show up at the schoolboard meetings. At worst, multiculturalism, as currently constructed, appears to beanother tool to teach children hegemonic ideals involving race, class, gender, andsexual orientation, which will maintain the power distribution as it is.

When used to promote the existing hegemony and social capital, multicultural-ism can be effectively used to teach children in the empowered groups that they arethe future of the society and more effectively to ensure that the children in theunempowered groups know that they are not. As Freire establishes the use of edu-cation as an instrument of social reproduction and oppression, Spring (2000),Grande (2000), and others have identified the manner in which multicultural educa-tion, as it is currently defined and used, promotes the internalized oppression hiddenin pedagogical theory and praxis. The child who expresses her disdain for the wayin which her culture is being portrayed is often subjected to the guilt perpetrated byher teacher when that teacher claims, “to be trying to do something to help thatchild.” The power differential between the teacher and the child creates a conditionwhere the child is either to accept the inaccurate and offensive treatment of her cul-ture or to risk disappointing her teacher, leading to disapproval or possible punish-ment. The child must then make a choice between betraying her family, herancestors, and her culture or entering into conflict with an authority figure. For thechildren of many Indigenous cultures this is a dilemma with no successful solution.

The failure to recognize that the child has been placed in this dilemma is a fun-damental flaw within multicultural education, as it currently exists. The informationgiven to teachers and used in classrooms is often inaccurate and incomplete.

International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 869

Moreover, the education of our teachers at the university level often contains inade-quate study of diversity. Discussions of these topics are often couched in vaguegeneralities with little to no exploration of differing cultural epistemologies. Ifcommunication is to be the way out of violence for and towards these children, interms of the perpetuation of continued racism, classism, and sexism, there must bea radical revision of university education programs.

At this point, illustration of the oppressive practices involved in multiculturalteaching may be beneficial. This paper will focus on the abuse of sacred items asthey are used in classroom instruction. One of the current themes in education hasbeen to allow the children to experience another culture by using “hands-on” activi-ties. The general pedagogical thought is that children will learn and retain morewhen they “experience” the ideas they are studying. In this case, the ideas to beexperienced are those of another culture. The elements of the culture that are chosenthen are those which supposedly will give the children the best understanding, ofthat culture. It is interesting to note that often the items chosen for experience arethose that involve the sacred or spiritual elements of these other cultures. Selectionof these sacred elements for study can not only violate the principle involving theseparation of church and state but also give the impression that no other aspect ofthe culture in question is seen to be useful or interesting. The areas of invention,science, and literature are ignored often with the phrase “we couldn’t find any evi-dence of those cultural aspects.” It has been suggested by some Indigenous scholarsthat the sacred is chosen because it provides the greatest contrast with the dominantscience, thereby justifying such labels as “primitive.” The sacred concepts are alsoset in opposition to the concepts of “objectivity” as if to suggest no such objectivityexists in Indigenous cultures. The irony being that Western postmodern philosophi-cal theories state the same about Western cultures, but this fact remains unspoken.In addition to the inherent disrespect, and damaging categorization, the selection ofthe sacred, spirituality, or any other single cultural construct, taken out of the appro-priate context, serves as an oversimplification of the richness and complexity of anygiven culture. It is as if Indigenous cultures can be reduced to a few concepts foundwithin the vast epistemological theories represented in these cultures. One wonderswhat impression would be left on a foreign student being presented with a study ofthe American or the European culture if it were done only through the decontextu-alized lens of Christianity. Should the inquisition, witch trials or consumption ofbody and blood be the focus of study, the student may indeed form a unique butmyopic view of Western culture.

A similar practice of decontextualizing common to classrooms involves dressingchildren in construction paper headbands, with colorful chicken feathers glued tothem, and encouraging them to dance around making “war whoops.” In America,these demonstrations are especially problematic during November, as the month isoften devoted to Native American studies because of the celebration of Thanksgiv-ing. This “holiday” is a day of protest for many Native Americans. On other occa-sions, children have been taught to create Indigenous masks and dance around fakefires or to create Totem Poles using whatever creative or funny faces they can thinkof to amuse each other. Another troubling practice involves the plays where some-one gets to dress up and be the “medicine man” smoking the “peace pipe” with thepilgrims or settlers. If any of the Indians have lines, they are often in broken Eng-lish and peppered with “how.” The misuse of “hau,” a Lakota greeting, representsmore than a semantic confusion. It rarely occurs to the directors of these plays that

870 L.L. Lovern

speaking a second language fluently is difficult and often leads to broken sentencesand mis-spoken phrases. It is also rarely noted that “how” is more of a questionthan a statement or sign of greeting. The educational value obtained from theseinaccurate and biased activities is more than a little questionable. In many cases,these plays are the embodiment of racist stereotypes.

Furthermore, the fact that another culture’s sacred objects and events are used astoys for children teaches that these things are not to be respected and that those whovalue them are not fully civilized or are not to be held with the same high regard asthose within the hegemony. Imagine a classroom of third graders given theassignment to paste funny faces on a cross and then told to play at crucifixion orcommunion. The reaction of the administration and the school board would beimmediate and no doubt harsh, as it should be. However, the same reaction andquick response should be given when sacred objects of other cultures are disrespect-ed. The social capital being dispersed here is clear, especially to the children of theculture being disrespected and whose rituals and objects are being used as toys andamusements. An Indigenous child comes away with the understanding that grandfa-ther’s pipe is a toy, everything grandmother knows is laughable, and they, them-selves, should be ashamed of participating in these “primitive” and “uncivilized”ceremonies. The child, thus conflicted, may begin to disrespect her family, her cul-ture, and herself in an effort to be “normal.” A program that, in sincerity, claims agoal of promoting equity of power, cannot reconcile these practices, built on suchblatant disrespect for the sacred items and practices of other cultures.

It must be noted that it is not entirely the fault of teachers that they further thedisenfranchisement of these children through their classroom activities. In manycases, these activities were given to them in college and masters-level classes asgood examples for the promotion of “multicultural understanding.” Cases involvingthe miss-education of future teachers include giving them a “Sioux song” that begins“wakie wakie little sun” and telling them to teach the children this song so they canunderstand how the Sioux “worship” the rising of the sun. To equate the infantileterm “wakie” with the morning prayers of adult Native American people continuesto characterize them as childlike, unsophisticated and fairly unintelligent. Moreover,this song promotes the continued idea that Indigenous people need to be “lookedafter” or “protected.” Additionally, when teachings like this are used, Indigenouspeople are portrayed as superstitious or as not completely civilized into advancedlogic and scientific systems. Another example was observed when a university pro-fessor escorted her education majors to the sidewalk, handed them chalk and sand,and told them to create a sand painting. As the students drew, she told them to startchanting and if they could not make up a chant, she would give them one from abook. It remains unclear what this exercise was to teach the future educators otherthan the idea that such practices can be done by anyone who wishes to pick up a lit-tle sand and can carry a tune. The racism involved in this practice, however, helpedto cement an illusion involving the practices and the sophistication level of theIndigenous people for many of these future educators.

Inevitably, the response to questions regarding the above examples is that theseare well-meaning people trying to promote understanding of other cultures and, ifthey offend, it is unintentional. An appropriate response to such benevolent protestsmay be to recommend such sources as Giroux’s work Teachers as Intellectuals(1998), in which he refers to the “generosity of the oppressor.” The idea being thatthe actual practice of equality can be avoided by the appearance of interest. So,


practices of racism can be cloaked in what appear to be acts of good will and inno-cent attempts at understanding. Freire referred to these acts as “false generosity” typ-ical of the “generosity of the oppressor” (1996). Such false generosity occurs whenthe focus of what is given is done so as to allow the giver to feel proud and gener-ous. What or how the object is given becomes irrelevant, regardless of consequencesto the receiver. So, the recipients of the smallpox-infested blankets would be seen as“ungrateful” if they did not thank those who had given them the “gift.” The supposi-tion being that at least they were warm when they died. False generosity eliminatesthe responsibility of the giver regardless of the consequences of the gift. Ignorance,under this type of generosity, is not only allowable but often encouraged.

Giroux (1998) claims that teachers have a responsibility to be intellectuals and toeducate themselves as to what is racist, classist, and sexist. Moreover, he argues thelegitimacy of claims stating that there is nothing useful in a given culture except thesacred objects. The denial of cultural information beyond sacred information illus-trates either the lack of understanding of the community being studied or a careless-ness and callousness in current educational practices. As noted by Deloria andWildcat (2001), every culture consists of a variety of ideas. Each culture containsepistemological systems involving science, mathematics, architecture, agriculture,and inventions as well as ideas specifically oriented to the sacred and the religious.While it is true that many cultures do not separate the secular and the sacred, oneneed only choose a more secular aspect of the culture, and present it with knowledgeand within context, to promote respect in education. Indeed, by choosing aspects ofIndigenous science one would not only promote respect for the culture, but alsopromote the knowledge that European-based science is not the only science in exis-tence. It would seem that, in order to promote the equity of power and the equity ofcultures, the American school system must come to understand that Western scienceis only one of many, as is also true of history, technology, and literature. If thepedagogy of multiculturalism is to become praxis, such reform is necessary.

Multiculturalism and Manifest Destiny

The above discussion belies a systemic academic failure in the study and treatmentof Indigenous cultures. The concern is that these topics involving multiculturalpraxis continue to be discussed and evaluated, but the educational dynamic remainsthe same. After years of conference discussions, round table panels, and academicpapers, little change has been made in the way Native American cultures are stud-ied, even at the university level. Native American history, mathematics, science,and literature remain “specialty” topics to be discussed when time allows and whensomeone wants to explore the “exotic.” Often the discussions center on the pre-sumptions involving sacred objects or rituals that are decontextualized to representand support Western stereotypes as to what it means to be “Indian.” In a recent“Gothic” course, a special class was arranged to discuss the fiction and films sur-rounding the old Mothman legends as Native American lore. When the NativeAmerican guest speaker explained that such legends were not within any of hisexperiences and that the very websites the class was studying had Native Americanswho did not equate the Mothman with Thunderbird and further explained that theartifact being used by non-Natives to justify the equating of the two was not whatthey thought it was, the speaker’s comments were ignored or dismissed. It was farmore exciting and mystical to ignore the Native American voices and continue to

872 L.L. Lovern

put forth the gothic romance of Hollywood. When the speaker pointed out thatcontinuing to identify Native Americans in these ways perpetuated the notion thatNative Americans are “unsophisticated” and “childlike,” his concerns weredismissed by the course professor. Attempts to explain the sophisticated concepts ofNative American sciences as they rival current Western science concepts ofquantum mechanics were lost to the romance.

Similarly, during a discussion of similar Indigenous concerns, in terms of racialbias, the panel discussion devolved into a discussion of whether or not Indigenouspersons were simply mystical beings. The Indigenous participants involvedattempted to point out that, while indeed there was the possibility of mystical expe-riences, Indigenous epistemologies also contain advanced theories of multidimen-sionality, sophisticated methods of experimentation, and uniquely importanthistorical inventions. The conversation continued on what is all too often the typicalpath with one member pointing out that no racism occurs in pedagogical theoriesthemselves, but only in the application of individual teachers who fail to study theirsubjects. According to this person, there is no mistreatment of Indigenous culturesat the level of academic scholarship, only at the level of those less educationallyadvanced. When one of the Native panel members pointed out the irony of the“less-sophisticated,” “less-educated” reference being applied to the teachers, anothermember on the panel, an anthropologist, insisted that it was for this very reason thatthey worked to give a voice to the voiceless. So, the familiar conversation contin-ued with each discipline espousing party-line slogans until time was called.

For those listening and participating, this discussion seemed a replay of so manysimilar conversations. The collapse of the dialog gave way to the frustration andanger predicted by Habermas as a result of failed dialog. The Native Americansattempting to express their epistemic theories, and the bias of Western academiaagainst these theories, and the voices of the academy responding that either theNative participants had failed to fully understand the theories, or that they neededan intermediary to explain what they were attempting, but failing, to express seemsthe inevitable result of failed attempts at communication. What becomes clear, everytime these conversations are trotted out for conferences or class discussion, is thatthere is a systemic bias that has yet to be brought into full light. Hiding beneath thesurface of these conversations are more foundational theories, involving the ideas ofManifest Destiny and Social Darwinism, and similar theories involving systems ofcultural hierarchies.

According to John O’Sullivan in 1845, God gave the American settlers the rightto expand to the Pacific (Rorabaugh and Critchlow 1994, 229–30; Tindall and Shi1996, 563–97). This God-given edict justified the superiority of the Europeandescendants by reaffirming their claims to superior resource use and technologicaladvances. As a matter of course, many of the Native American resource manage-ment and technological advances remained “undiscovered” until they were“invented” by the American settlers (Cajete 2000). Smith (2006) states that it wasunimaginable to those studying Native American cultures that such people couldproduce scientific and technological advances because:

… the logic of the argument would suggest that it is simply impossible, ridiculouseven, to suggest that the object of research can contribute to anything. An object hasno life force, no humanity, no spirit of its own, so therefore ‘it’ cannot make an activecontribution. (93)


As noted by Smith (2006), Cajete (2000), Deloria (2002) and others, it is themarriage of Manifest Destiny and Social Darwinism that was and continues to bean underlying cause of the bias against Indigenous cultures. Herbert Spencer’s con-cept of Social Darwinism was built from the evolutionary concept promoting theidea that survival of the fittest was a “law of nature” (Rorabaugh and Critchlow1994, 354). When this Western scientific theory was transported to the realm of thesocial sciences, the result was a theory stating that some races were more “fit forsurvival.” The concept of “fitness” reinforced the idea that Western epistemologyand ways of being were those destined, by God, not only to survive, but to thriveglobally. According to these theories, non-Western ways of being were in theprocess of decline and destined to suffer the fate of extinction. The American set-tlers, being benefactors of both God and evolution, were chosen to lift the Indige-nous from their savage and uneducated ways or to watch them sadly sink intohistorical extinction. For many in the privileged settler class, assimilation was theonly hope the savages had. The use of tactics such as boarding schools was justifiedas ways to civilize and educate Native American children to save both their livesand their souls. Those that refused saving were already slated for extermination bynature and God and were allowed to meet their fate. As Arendt (1994) pointed out,this line of thinking allows the justification of violence and genocide when a groupof people is labeled as “dying classes” (301). While Arendt was referring to theNazi “liquidation” of the Jews and other unwanted peoples in WWII, the sentimenthas also been employed against the Native American communities. Native Ameri-can cultures and people are often talked about in terms of “declining” societies orin terms that imply they have already faded into history. By discussing NativeAmerican cultures in terms of the dying or already dead, current issues involvingthese communities can be avoided entirely.

While one can easily sit back and shake her head at the sad events of historyand smile at the strides that have been made in cultural equality, it would be a mis-take to assume that these same sentiments, of Manifest Destiny and Social Darwin-ism, are not being employed currently both in the general public arenas and inacademic circles. This is demonstrated by the previous account of the panel discus-sion. The terms have changed, but the discussion and the underlying Western biasremain. Instead of using “savage” and “uncivilized,” the current terms revolvearound “underdeveloped” and “developing.” One need only consult Laffey’s (1993)discussion on the implementation of the word “civilization” to understand that whilea new word is being employed, the old sentiment remains. Interestingly, when usingthe new scale of “development,” Western cultures including the USA get to holdthe title of “developed.” So, first-, second- and third-world trophies have beenreplaced by designators indicating those that have reached the pinnacle of develop-ment and those still striving to reach such heights. Depending on one’s academicdiscipline, there are many components of these terms that need to be unpacked ordeconstructed. However, the components of interest for this paper involve the foun-dational elements dealing with logic and telos.

One of the interesting components of Western concepts of evolution, social orotherwise, is that these theories assume an Aristotelian concept of telos. So, bothscience and society are moving toward their perfection. They are evolving, andoddly enough, they evolve directly along the path of Western civilization. Thisassumption of evolutionary telos is rarely questioned or discussed. Moreover, thereare other theoretical options to evolution, but these are often dismissed without

874 L.L. Lovern

fanfare or investigation. It is also interesting that evolution has tracked directly withWestern civilization, as opposed to say Eastern or Indigenous civilizations, primarilybecause evolution seems to have an affinity for the industrial revolution and currentcomputer and mechanistic technologies. The designation of “developed” as opposedto “developing” seems directly in line with how much technological “progress” aculture has embraced. Indeed, alternative definitions for evolutionarily “developed”cultures are not even discussed. Currently, one simply expects to see a photo of theUSA or the phrase “see also the United States” next to the dictionary entry for“developed.” If the definition of “developed” was modified to reflect Indigenousepistemic concepts of environmental harmony and being-in-balance with the world,the designation of “developed” and “underdeveloped” would reverse. The USAwould fall into the “developing” category while Indigenous communities couldclaim the higher position of being the “developed.” It should be noted that Indige-nous cultures may be more inclined to model “differently developed” rather thanthe hierarchy of development built into Western epistemic models. So long as thetelos is defined in terms of the Western technological vantage point, other cultureswill be relegated to the status of “developing” by definition alone. Manifest Destinyand Social Darwinism will then require the developed to assist the developing cul-tures to choose either assimilation or the fate of extinction. A final note on being“developed” comes in the form of a question as to the achievement of the telos. Ifthe USA is “developed,” is there nothing left? If there is more to do and there aremore possible advancements, then the USA would have to be classified among theother “developing” countries and hope for some developed culture to save it fromits primitive and savage existence.

Discussing the element of “developing” uncovers yet another element involvingthe foundational logic claims of Western epistemic theories. As stated by JosephPugliese (1996), Western law and colonization practices are, “… driven by the logicof a transcultural universality, it claims to transcend the very ethnocentric conditionsthe colonial regime labors to establish …” (281). While talking specifically aboutthe Australian colonization of Paupa New Guinea, this Western claim of logicalsupervenience has been a mainstay of Western colonization. Academics at all levelscontinue to assert the superiority of Western logic claims. The concept of logicalsupervenience claims that, in overly brief terms, at the foundation of all languagesand cultures there is a shared and common logical base, which is the Western logicsystem based in Aristotelian claims. Pugliese (1996) draws on Nietzsche as a wayof explaining the process by which colonizing cultures impose their epistemic struc-tures as the rational position against the colonized, which represent the irrational orarational position. By establishing the logical dominance of the colonizing force,the colonizer’s history and justifications become the rational position. Opposition orresistance to colonization or assimilation represents irrational and unsophisticatedpositions. It should be noted that the failure to examine the logic of logical univer-sality or superiority places Western epistemic positions in the rational position bydefault, but not by valid argumentation. In lieu of argumentation, Pugliese (1996)points out that the most effective means of maintaining the superiority of the colo-nizer position is through violence and public displays of humiliation (286). Suchmethods remain effective when Indigenous scholars are met with relegation tofringe meetings at conferences along with the patronizing smiles when presentingpapers concerning Indigenous epistemic theories.


What remains unexamined is the legitimacy of logical universality based onWestern logic standards. Attempting to give an argument supporting logical super-venience often commits the fallacy of begging the question, by inserting theassumption of logical universality in the premise and then proving it in the conclu-sion. However, if one avoids the standard fallacies, an inductively strong argumentmay be created. While inductively strong arguments create a level of logical justifi-cation, they by no means indicate that equally strong arguments cannot stand along-side them. In other words, it is entirely possible, and often quite likely, that twocompeting arguments may show equal inductive strength. When this occurs, stu-dents are told they must suspend judgment as to which is superior. To make a judg-ment, or jump to a conclusion, would commit the fallacy of ignorance. Theproblem with differing logic systems and differing epistemic theories is that theyoften end up with equally strong induction, as far as equality of strength can bedetermined. Strength of arguments exists on a continuum and is subject to the judg-ment of the witness, which is often colored by acculturation. The belief in one overthe other becomes more a matter of faith, rather than reason, as one may be justi-fied in believing, from a position of faith, that one argument is superior to another.However, there is no possibility to advance one position over the other as there isno means of verification. Even when Western epistemic theories of causation anddefeasibility are employed, they do not shake the logical legitimacy of Indigenousepistemologies.

Should Western academics take seriously their commitment to logic, drasticchanges would have to take place in all disciplines. Theories at all levels wouldhave to be viewed through the eyes of induction with an understanding that theyare based on assumptions and facts. Assumptions are just that, claims that areassumed to be true, not proven; and facts are statements that are contingent, trueonly if indeed they correctly state the way the world is. Given the basics of logic,Ken Coates (2004) sets up an interesting dilemma. In his book, Coates (2004) givesboth an Indigenous explanation of human history and the Western explanation. Itshould be noted that there are multiple Indigenous theories, but for the purposes ofthis discussion, it is the polygenesis aspect that is important. Coates (2004) sets thepolygenesis theory of human history next to the monogenesis theory. What becomesclear is that while both represent strong inductive theories, there is no “tie breaker.”Instead, what usually occurs in these cases is that the theory one grows up with isthe theory one feels most drawn to. Yet, feeling or intuition is not reason, accordingto Western philosophical thought, and so the theories remain separate but equal intheir induction.

Coates (2004) offers an alternative to teaching the superiority of one systemover another. His solution is to teach the theories as simply that, differing theoriesheld by people of different cultures (35). The problem with this solution is thatmany pedagogical theories still hold to the concepts of cognitive development,which claims that students are not ready to understand competing theories or ideas.To introduce these different theories may cause them confusion and the trauma ofbeing ungrounded because they cannot readily find the security of “truth.” Interest-ingly, these pedagogical theories do not seem concerned with the masses of childrenwho live with these conflicting theories because they walk in two worlds. The chil-dren of Indigenous cultures, as well as children from other non-Western cultures,face living with conflicting theories as they are forced to adopt Western theories inorder to be successful in school, while living with the theories of their communities

876 L.L. Lovern

outside of school. Is it to be understood, that these children are to deal with balanc-ing the diversity of cultural theories, but that this is not something that is appropri-ate for the children of European decent? Surely, the ability to face multiple possibletheories is not an intellectual quality that is limited to non-Western children.

From a logical perspective, theories are the types of things that are built onassumptions and cultural socialization. Theories are not the types of things that oneusually even attempts to make into deductive argumentation, where the premisesnecessarily lead to the conclusion, because one gets stopped at the level of validity.Attempting to advance to a sound argument, where the premises are all true, is use-less when one faces the number of assumptions built in that cannot be proven trueor false. The necessity aspect required for validity is further stymied by the diffi-culty in verification of many of the sub-argument elements built into theories.Adjusting education to understand the logical foundations of Western epistemologymay assist the students being educated to understand that differing cultures mayhave differing theories, but from a logical perspective, “different from” cannot betranslated as “better than” or “worse than,” only “different from.” Translations of“better than” or “worse than” are normative judgments, not logical entailments.

It must be noted that, according to Indigenous Elders and scholars alike, Indige-nous epistemology and Western epistemology do not use the same logical founda-tions. This neither means that they do not have some similarities, nor does it meanthat translation is impossible between the systems of knowledge. What is meant isthat there are different systems at play which reflect different ways of being in theworld. For that matter, as Indigenous epistemologies are quite numerous in them-selves, even within the global Indigenous communities there are differences inknowledge theories. “Deloria long argued that the realities of precontact NativeAmerica cannot be understood within a conceptual framework built on the theoriesof modern science” (Pavlik and Wildcat 2006, xiv). The title of Pavlik and Wild-cat’s (2006) book, Destroying Dogma, is dedicated to Vine Deloria, Jr’s struggle todefeat the blind faith of academic and social dogma. Scholars that continue theseattempts find themselves all too often struggling through the same conversationsand the same panel discussions that began this section, all of which is born of anunreflective dedication to the dogma of Manifest Destiny and Social Darwinism.Until these dogmas are understood to be hidden within the curriculum and the dia-log of academics, elimination of racial and ethnic inequality will remain stalled.Terms like “unsophisticated,” “uncivilized,” and “savage” will remain hiddenbehind their descendants “unindustrialized,” “underdeveloped,” and “developing.”

The rise of critical academic theory

In order for academia to “wake from its dogmatic slumber,” the academy mustmove beyond the discrimination of Indigenous epistemic claims simply becausethey are Indigenous. Locust (1988) joined the voices of Basso (1996), LaDuke(1999), and a plethora of other scholars in attempting to explain traditional knowl-edge theory. By offering these academic works, the attempt was to begin to fill inthe missing theories necessary to form a complete history of humanity. Works byscholars such as Swidler (1986) and Bartolome and Macedo (1997) attempted toexplore the symbolism and cultural constructs that are used within Native Americancultures as a way to eliminate the racial discrimination in society and education.While the above works were recognized among Native American scholars, little


attention has otherwise been paid to the plethora of information available regardingIndigenous epistemology, science, technology, and general philosophy.

The continued marginalization of Indigenous cultures has had rather severe con-sequences for generations of people. Issues of poverty, health, and violence havebeen identified as being among the consequences. Besides governmental and UNreports documenting the consequences, a number of works have documented indetail the results of continuing the present dogma, including Sarah Deer et al.(2008) Sharing Our Stories of Survival: Native Women Surviving Violence, AndreaSmith (2005) Conquest: Sexual Violence and American Indian Genocide, and Bar-bara Perry (2008) Silent Victims: Hate Crimes Against Native Americans. Theeffects of Manifest Destiny and Social Darwinism in social and pedagogical praxisare far from unimportant. There are documented consequences to those who inhabitthe cultures that are continuously labeled as “uncivilized” or “under developed.”

The individuals labeled as such often suffer from what DelVecchio-Good et al.(2008) describe as postcolonial disorders. The edited works in that collection detailthe experiences of individuals within colonized cultures ranging from physical tosocial to mental disorders. In some cases, the disorders are described as misdiagno-sis because of cultural and linguistic misinterpretations by those in the dominantculture. However, some of the disorders are a direct result of being forced to endureas colonized classes, which are often viewed as inhabited by sub-humans. Lawson-Te and Liu (2010) documented the global legacy of colonization in Indigenous sui-cide rates. One of the points of her paper is that there has been a mishandling ofsuicides in Indigenous cultures because the focus has remained on the individualand has missed the interconnected social dynamic involved in Indigenous communi-ties. The loss of cultural identity and the dramatic consequences is a common themein all of the readings listed in this section. To deny the consequences of dogmasuch as Manifest Destiny and Social Darwinism in current pedagogical approaches,given the magnitude of evidence available, borders on academic malfeasance.

For all the disturbing reports resulting from acts of colonization and continuedattempts at assimilation, there are attempts to establish modes of reconciliation andrevitalization. Thompson (1997) established the cultural differences for independentversus interdependent societies. Her work, primarily in rehabilitation services, shedslight on ways to advance cultural competency and cultural equity within a sectorthat provides a social service. Thompson (1997) establishes the distinction of needand interactive qualities as determined by cultures that focus on individual versuscollective concerns and behaviors. These distinctions are built on an earlier work byMarkus and Kitayama (1991) that identifies the differences in the identification ofthe self in independent societies as opposed to interdependent societies. The differ-ences in self are defined by the way in which the individual relates to her commu-nity. Individuals in independent cultures are observed to express a focus on the selfand goals that are more ego-oriented. The motivations tend to be more in line withself-promotion and individual goals. The emotions expressed and behaviors tend tobe oriented around the self as individual. Markus and Kitayama (1991) contrastthese findings with those in interdependent societies where the individual is focusedmore on the community well-being, promotion of the community goals, and the selfbeing of secondary importance to the overall community. The motivations and emo-tions are also described as community-oriented to the extent that the “other” is con-sidered before emotion is expressed. The findings in this study offer an insight intothe differences between Western and Indigenous behaviors and values. Neither

878 L.L. Lovern

should be seen as logically superior, just as logically different. However, what thismeans is that greater success and well-being may be obtained in Indigenous com-munities by adopting pedagogical praxis that embraces familiar cultural constructs.For example, building education on competition may suit Western community val-ues, but will be in direct conflict with Indigenous values. A child entering the alter-native culture in order to be educated will likely find herself unfamiliar with thesocial cues and the cultural contexts needed to succeed. When applying her culturalvalues of cooperation and empathy, she may find herself disadvantaged and evenscoffed at by students and teachers. The consequences for this single child must bemultiplied by the generations that have already been subjected to these conditionsas well as those currently undergoing them.

Hall and Fenelon (2009) are among those writing on issues of resistance andrevitalization in Indigenous cultures. Their approach is to document specificcommunity acts of resistance and revitalization in order to allow those within thecommunities to express their own voice, instead of following the traditional aca-demic path of “giving a voice to the voiceless.” Although often well intended, thosewho adopt the “giving a voice” policy rarely ask the communities and individualsthey represent if they wish to be given a voice. Hall and Fenelon are among thosewho have recognized that the “voiceless” are often not so much without voice asothers are without ears. It is not so much that Indigenous cultures have had novoice, but that traditional academics have failed to recognize that these communitiesand individuals were even speaking. So long as academics hold the position ofneeding to give a “voice to the voiceless,” the arrogance of traditional dogma willmake dialog with Indigenous cultures impossible (Friere 1996, 1998a, 1998b;Habermas 1971, 1984, 1987, 1996).

In the spirit of dialog, Lois Meyer and Benjamin Maldonado Alvarado edited awork called New World of Indigenous Resistance: Noam Chomsky and Voices FromNorth, South, and Central America. The beginning of the text is devoted to state-ments by Noam Chomsky, but the bulk of the text is devoted to the analysis ofChomsky’s work by Indigenous individuals. Much of the work is devoted to thevoices that express a realization of just how significant a part education has playedin continuing colonization by discriminating against Indigenous means of educationand self-determination. By embracing some of the traditional Indigenous values andmodes of being, these voices have seen a revitalization of Indigenous communitiesand a decrease in postcolonial disorders. The voices in this text give specific andnumerous accounts of how governmental and transnational policies have negativelyaffected generations of Indigenous people. By revitalizing their own epistemic theo-ries, they have been able to move beyond the damage done. In order to begin tomove beyond the damage, these cultures have often traveled the difficult road ofthrowing off the yoke of the oppressors by refusing to accept the internalizedoppression that defined them as “uncivilized” and “underdeveloped.”

Another example of revitalization has taken place in some Aboriginal communi-ties in Australia and New Zealand. These programs have focused on handing theeducation of the Indigenous children of these communities back to the communitiesthemselves. The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education is dedicated to a dia-log of how best to serve these populations in pedagogical praxis. The Contempo-rary Pacific: A Journal of Island Affairs similarly dedicates itself to voices ofIndigenous communities in the Pacific on a variety of academic topics. These andsimilar journals, both inside and outside the USA, offer a plethora of academic


information that can be used to help throw off the mantle of oppressive dogma.With a bit of effort, one can find gems such as A’o: Educational Traditions byChun (2006), which offers insight into traditional Hawaiian practices of education.This work would be familiar to many Indigenous communities in terms of the orga-nization of education: observation, listening, reflection, doing, and questioning(3–6). The order of these elements is of extreme importance, as is the idea ofremaining quiet while observing all the way through doing, with questions beingheld until after one has reflected and attempted what is being taught.

By taking seriously the idea that Indigenous cultures may have epistemologiesand praxis equal to or possibly superior to those found in the West, the chains ofdogma can be broken, giving way to the possibility of racial and ethnic equity. Byfocusing on the responsibility of the academy to honestly and seriously explore theepistemic theories of Indigenous cultures as well as the foundation of Westernepistemic theories a dialog can develop.

Respecting the sacred

In order to complete the circle, a final note on the sacred must be offered to unen-snare pedagogy from the dogmatic twins of Manifest Destiny and Social Darwin-ism. One fairly wide-spread characteristic of Indigenous cultures that should benoted is that, within these cultures, reality and the human experience are not cleanlycategorized into the secular and the sacred. In fact, there is often only an abstractseparation between the sacred and the secular. It could be argued then that noaspect of these cultures should be used within education. While the concept that allthings involve the sacred should be honored, there are aspects of the sciences,architecture, and agricultural practices that could be used. There is no need to useobjects involved in sacred ceremonial practices. Classes could study the farmingpractices involving “the three sisters,” or hydroponics, or the engineering of thegreat cities as well as the advances in food and medicine, which were later adaptedto the lifestyles of those who colonized the Indigenous people. In cases where oneis not sure if insult will be taken, or whether a method involves stereotyping or dis-crimination, it would seem appropriate to ask the people involved in the culturebeing studied rather than allowing those outside of the culture to decide what is tocount as insulting. Lomawaima (2000), in discussing research in Native Americaneducation, argues that: “[m]ost outside researchers simply do not have the kind ofcultural, genealogical, and local knowledge necessary to make informed decisionsabout when the use of culturally sensitive or spiritual information is appropriate ornot” (11). If the researcher, who may be immersed in the context of the culture can-not be expected to possess the requisite knowledge, how can a third grade teacherwho is following a board-approved, or federally or state-mandated, lesson plan? Toanswer these concerns, the academy must step up and embrace the acquisition andanalysis of cultural knowledge claims using academically honest dialog.

Which brings this paper to the true heart of the multicultural issue. In order forthere to be equity of power, the intellectual information of other cultures must beviewed as equal and even having the possibility of being superior to those of Euro-pean-based systems. Cajete (2000) gives an accounting of Indigenous sciences, whichfocuses on the sophistication and complexity of these sciences as they rival the levelsfound in quantum mechanics. Educators who are not familiar with the Hohokam sys-tem of irrigation, that was an example of early hydraulics, or the Indigenous ability

880 L.L. Lovern

to cross-breed plants in order to promote plant growth, have missed this exampledemonstrating the level of sophistication of cultures beyond their own. When a peo-ple are reduced to one aspect of their culture and that aspect is trivialized, there canbe no equity of power. The only possibility is the continued inequity in which thechildren of those cultures, and their inherent cultural capital, are denied validity.

Theorists such as Habermas and Freire have continued to promote the need forcommunicative action in order to promote equity and understanding. The idea isthat the failure of cultures to communicate promotes violence. The ready solution isa properly conceived communication. While this pragmatic approach to equity andunderstanding is laudable, the basis for communication remains in question. Haber-mas (2003) has examined how truth and justification fit into the model of pragmaticcommunicative theory that he has developed. The one issue that remains to beresolved within Habermas’ work is how to deal with alternative cultural theories ofknowledge. If one is to base the mode of communication between cultures on theepistemology of the European culture, then one fails to encompass the variety ofepistemological systems held by other cultures. In other words, if the dialogbetween the cultures is based on one specific cultural system of knowledge andcommunication, then the bias is already established and that culture wins the powerlottery. The other cultures are then required to adapt their systems to the chosenone in order to be “understood.” These alternative cultures then face the burden ofproof in terms of establishing themselves, as the sophisticated, advanced, and intel-lectual equals of the chosen one. Such a burden is heavy indeed and in many casesimpossible to achieve because of the differences in the epistemological foundations.For example, the difference between cultures that base knowledge on time versuscultures that base knowledge on space presents many difficulties in communication.The problem is illustrated by Einstein’s theory of relativity (1961). When time isthe absolute, space is relative and when space is the absolute, time will be relative.If one side is chosen as the preferred lens for the conversation, the other is left atan extreme disadvantage. With this in mind, it seems that the very basis of whatHabermas (1984, 1987) wishes to establish as communicative action must be a taskinvolving the different cultures coming together to create an equitable foundationfor communication without establishing one mode of communication, knowledge,or justification as superior to or preferable for the conversation.

The original problem of multicultural education seems now only a symptom ofthe real problem, which is the disease of systemic educational racism, classism, andsexism. The goals of multiculturalism are not accomplishable goals given not onlythe current educational system, but also the further issue involving the assumed epi-stemic superiority of European-based knowledge and logic systems underlyingManifest Destiny and Social Darwinism. While it is clear that the solution to thelatter must involve a lengthy system of communication, re-envisioning the practiceof multicultural programs can solve the problem of the former. The elimination ofthe use of sacred items and practices from the classrooms will force the teachers toeducate themselves on other cultures and will eliminate the discomfort for the childwho is faced with the disquieting portrayal of her people and her culture as “uncivi-lized” or “underdeveloped.” By choosing classroom assignments that focus on thesecular or historical aspects of other cultures, the teachers will further promote theconcept that these cultures have and are producing sophisticated and complex peo-ple and ideas which offer potential solutions to current political, environmental, andeconomic problems.


Notes on contributorLavonna Lea Lovern is an assistant professor at Valdosta State University. She holds a PhDin Philosophy with an emphasis on postmodern and existential theories. She has taughtphilosophy and religious studies for more than 20 years at VSU and Central MethodistCollege. She specializes in global Indigenous cultures with an emphasis on Indigenousontology, epistemology, and phenomenology as these compare to Western cultures. She is afounding member and teacher in the VSU Native American Studies Program. Her recentpublications include chapters in Disability and Religious Diversity: Cross-cultural and Inter-religious Perspectives (2011).

ReferencesArendt, H. 1994. Mankind and terror. In Essays in understanding, 1930–1954, ed. J. Kohn,

297–306. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace.Bartolome, L.I., and D. Macedo. 1997. Dancing with bigotry: The poisoning of racial and

ethnic identities. Harvard Educational Review 67, no. 2: 222–46.Basso, K.H. 1996. Wisdom sits in places: Landscape and language among the Western

Apache. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico.Borradori, G. 2003. Philosophy in a time of terror: Dialogues with Jurgen Habermas and

Jacques Derrida. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Cajete, G. 2000. Native science: Natural laws of interdependence. Santa Fe, NM: Clearlight.Chun, M.N. 2006. A’o: Educational traditions. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii.Coates, K.S. 2004. A global history of indigenous peoples: Struggle and survival. New

York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan.Deer, S., B. Clairmont, C.A. Martell, and M.L. White Eagle, eds. 2008. Sharing our stories

of survival: Native American women surviving violence. New York, NY: Altamira Press.Deloria, V. Jr. 2002. Evolution, creationism and other modern myths. Golden, CO: Fulcrum.Deloria, V. Jr., and D.R. Wildcat. 2001. Power and place: Indian education in America.

Golden, CO: Fulcrum Resources.DelVecchio-Good, M., S.T. Hyde, S. Pinto, and B.J. Good, eds. 2008. Postcolonial disor-

ders. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Einstein, A. 1961. Relativity: The special and the general theory. Trans. R.W. Lawson. New

York, NY: Crown Trade Paperbacks.Freire, P. 1996. Pedagogy of the oppressed. Trans. M.B. Ramos. New York, NY: Continuum.Freire, P. 1998a. Education for critical consciousness. New York, NY: Continuum.Freire, P. 1998b. Pedagogy of hope. New York, NY: Continuum.Giroux, H.A. 1998. Teachers as intellectuals: Toward a critical pedagogy of learning. West-

port, CT: Bergin & Garvey.Grande, S.M.A. 2000. American Indian geographies of identity and power: At the crossroads

of Indigena and Mestizaje. Harvard Educational Review 70, no. 4: 467–98.Habermas, J. 1971. Knowledge and human interest. Trans. J. Shapiro. Boston, MA: Beacon

Press.Habermas, J. 1984. The theory of communicative action: Reason and the rationalization of

society. Trans. T. McCarthy. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.Habermas, J. 1987. The theory of communicative action: Lifeworld and system: A critique of

functionalist reason. Trans. T. McCarthy. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.Habermas, J. 1996. Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law

and democracy. Trans. W. Rehg. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Habermas, J. 2003. Truth and justification. Trans. and ed. B. Fultner. Cambridge, MA: MIT

Press.Hall, T.D., and J.V. Fenelon. 2009. Indigenous peoples and globalization: Resistance and

revitalization. Boulder, CO: Paradigm.LaDuke, W. 1999. All our relations: Native struggles for land and life. Cambridge, MA:

North End Press.Laffey, J. 1993. Civilization and its discontented. New York, NY: Black Rose.

882 L.L. Lovern

Lawson-Te Aho, K., and J.H. Liu. 2010. Indigenous suicide and colonization: The legacy ofviolence and the necessity of self-determination. International Journal of Conflict andViolence 4, no. 1: 124–33.

Locust, C. 1988. Wounding the spirit: Discrimination and traditional American Indian beliefsystems. Harvard Educational Review 58, no. 3: 315–30.

Lomawaima, K.T. 2000. Tribal sovereigns: Reframing research in American Indian educa-tion. Harvard Educational Review 70, no. 1: 1–21.

Markus, H.R., and S. Kitayama. 1991. Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emo-tion and motivation. Psychological Review 98, no. 2: 224–53.

Pavlik, S., and D.R. Wildcat, eds. 2006. Destroying dogma: Vine Deloria, Jr. and hisinfluence on American society. Golden, CO: Fulcrum.

Perry, B. 2008. Silent victims: Hate crimes against Native Americans. Tucson, AZ: Universityof Arizona Press.

Pugliese, J. 1996. Rationalized violence and legal colonialism: Nietzsche “contra” Nietzsche.Cardozo Studies in Law and Literature 8, no. 2: 277–93.

Rorabaugh, W.J., and D.T. Critchlow. 1994. America!: A concise history. Belmont, CA:Wadsworth.

Sleeter, C.E., and C.A. Grant. 1994. Making choices for multicultural education: Fiveapproaches to race, class and gender. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill.

Smith, A. 2005. Conquest: Sexual violence and American Indian genocide. Cambridge, MA:South End Press.

Smith, L.T. 2006. Colonizing knowledges. In The indigenous experience: Global perspec-tives, ed. R.C.A. Maaka and C. Andersen, 91–110. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press.

Spring, J. 2000. The intersection of cultures: Multicultural education in the United Statesand the global economy. 2nd ed. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

Swidler, A. 1986. Culture in action: Symbols and strategies. American Sociological Review51, no. 2: 273–86. Washington, DC: American Sociological Association.

Thompson, V.C. 1997. Independent and interdependent views of self: Implications for cultur-ally sensitive vocational rehabilitation services. The Journal of Rehabilitation 63, no. 4:16–20.

Tindall, G.B., and D.E. Shi. 1996. America: A narrative history, volume one . 4th ed. NewYork, NY: W.W. Norton.


trampling the sacred: multicultural education as pedagogical racism

Documents