by
Snea Thinsan
Diversity necessarily implies that there are differences among human beings. Cultural, ethnic, and gender diversity is the issue of interest when we refer to diversity, but the scope can go much more beyond that. The diversity program at the School of Education, Indiana University confirms such a broad scope:
We recognize that diversity embraces a broad range of differences, including gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, social class, abilities, religion, and national origin. One of the important goals of achieving diversity at our institution and in our society is to include those groups that have historically been discriminated against, excluded or marginalized in school and society.
http://www.indiana.edu/~ediverse/mission.html
Strictly in the academia, diversity fits the best under the umbrella of multicultural education, which is very well defined by Sonia Nieto (2002) as follows:
Multicultural education is a process of comprehensive school reform and basic education for all students. It challenges and rejects racism and other forms of discrimination in schools and society and accepts and affirms the pluralism (ethnic, racial, linguistic, religious, economic, and gender, among others) that students, their communities, and teachers represent. Multicultural education permeates the curriculum and instructional strategies used in schools, as well as the interactions among teachers, students and parents, and the very way that schools conceptualize the nature of teaching and learning. Because it uses critical pedagogy as its underlying philosophy and focuses on knowledge, reflection, and action (praxis) as the basis for social change, multicultural education furthers the democratic principles of social justice. (Nieto, p. 208)
What does diversity mean to me? This question moves me deeper into the soul of the term through my personal world views philosophically influenced by Buddhism. The Buddha recognized differences that inevitably exist among human beings based on their past and present deeds, or according the karma law. Instead of emphasizing the differences, Buddha, however, saw all human beings, as well as all creatures, as equal or the same in that they all have certain destiny in common: they are to be born, aged, sick, and deceased, all alike as long as they have not reached nirvana. Differences in Buddhist view, therefore, should not create tensions or conflicts because, as friends of the same fate, people are taught to coexist to give and take in harmony. Hence, differences among human beings are, to me, the existing reality that we cannot avoid. In other words, we can say that diversity exists naturally and human beings have been living in diversity. However, issues surrounding how tensions, or conflicts caused by differences among people in given societies are created, viewed, and treated are not to be taken for granted. Given the rapidly changing world, in which differences lead to or are intertwined with discrimination and oppression, diversity issues must be examined seriously. Having watched the Last Samurai, I was led to see the following issues.
Diversity issues in The Last Samurai
A few most interesting themes that emerged in the Last Samurai deserve our attention.
How differences become conflicts
Differences are inevitable, but do not necessarily need to lead to conflicts or tensions, as I stated above. My personal analysis of the stories of the Last Samurai has led me to see a bigger picture of factors that turn differences into destructive confrontation.
Modernism, or capitalism to be precise, was responsible for the conflicts in Japan in the 19th century. In this film, the Samurai had worked faithfully to protect the Japanese Emperors for so long before the Emperor, under the influence of Omura and his business associates who dominated the congress, decided to modernize the country. Foreign experts and resources were brought in to Japan: lawyers from France, engineers from Germany, architects from Holland, and weapons from the U.S. The Samurai, led by Katsumoto--a main character, thought the changes were too fast and saw foreign forces as potentially harmful to Japan; thus, he led other Samurais to disrupt the process. Their actions were considered rebellious by Omura, who can be regarded as a representative of the capitalists in the modern world and who wished to gain wealth from trading exchanges with the U.S. and other foreign businesspersons.
Capitalism created consumption craze and more chaotic society, to the benefit of the more powerful elites, entrepreneurs and foreigners, who were considered the sources of knowledge, wealth, threatening external forces, and owners of superior cultures. Japan, after having closed itself to the world for over a century, found itself behind western countries and felt the threat brought around by the western countries seeking colonials and economic victims enslaved by unfair, if not unwanted, trade agreements. Modernizing the country seemed to be the only way out. Colonialism indeed began to disguise itself with capitalism as a tool then. Consumption of foreign goods and knowledge was evident in Japan during which era. Western clothes, watches, food, and even guns were not just normal commodities, but also symbolic representations of desired power and prosperity that the Japanese wished they had had then. Consumerism imposed by the influx of Western cultures can be negated. The harm that consumerism brings about cannot be overlooked because consumerism are at the roots of problems in our present world, not merely in Japan in the 19th centery. Sivaraksa (1999), a Noble Prize nominee from Thailand defines and negates 'consumerism' as follows:
Consumerism is the personification of greed and people don't realise that one can die for greed just as one can die for nationalism. It drives a person to work too hard, to desire money and to consume. One is conditioned to think that without consumer goods one is nobody. 'I buy therefore I am' is the slogan of the modern age. We must understand consumerism as a new demonic religion and find a spiritual alternative. (p. 13)
Capitalism, the twin of consumerism, on the surface promises wealth, comfort, convenience, physical satisfaction, and yet, at the roots, greed. Greedy tradesmen would do anything to get what they want, and Omura was a great example. In order for capitalism to prosper and yield him profits, he regarded the Samurai "terrorists" that needed to be eradicated. Little did he know that getting rid of that small group of people also meant dumping the Japanese's old virtues and ways of life. In all, we can see that greed that is usually provoked by capitalism and consumerism turn differences into conflicts and lead to destruction of the weaker force or culture.
Familiar consequences
When diversity becomes conflicting differences, the following scenarios are common.
Inferiority
Once "modernized", members of the local communities usually regard their old ways of life inferior to the new ways. Indeed, the word "modernize" indicates clearly that the old ways must be either ignored, abandoned or replaced, or even eradicated. The samurai suffered the same phenomenon, in which the ways they dressed, carried two swords, and lived their lives were insulted by modernized Japanese on the street. This is when diversity education counts. By promoting acceptance of differences without being judgmental of the different ways of life in light of the changing world, diversity education promises a more harmonious society. Whether and how well education can function in light of the fierce power of capitalism remains educators' duties and perhaps top priority.
Marginalization/ Otherness
When conflicts of interest occur, the weaker or smaller groups are generally marginalized in the capitalistic world. The samurai's interest of protecting Japan from foreign influences inevitably clashed with that of modernized, capitalistic Japanese and of the foreigners who had entered Japan looking for sources of profits and wealth: whale oil, new market, etc. In fact, the history of the samurai had been rough already before this era. Being elites, they had not been able to fit properly in the later Japanese society, where there were not wars in which to fight. They then already were the minority of the society, who could not do any work considered lower than their social ranks. Once Japan was lured into the capitalistic dreams under the modernization scheme, the samurai became the unwanted group of people. They were labeled rebels, barbarians, uncivilized group, and old-fashioned, unwanted minority.
Domination
Power relations among the Japanese and between them and foreigners were also very interesting as reflected in the film. Among the Japanese themselves, we could see that the ruling class changed from the Shogun and the samurai to be business-oriented groups. These business-oriented people under the umbrella of "modernization" imposed, with or without awareness, new ways of living and thinking. Their voices became louder than any other voice. People were told that Japan was modernizing itself and its promising future lied on the acceptance of foreign assistance. What they probably did not realize was that they were imposing on the Japanese the foreign culture and capitalism, that could potentially harm Japan at least because most of the actions would benefit only Omura and his colleagues and of course foreign firms/governments. Imposition is a one-way, top-down approach; thus, we can say that what happened in The Last Samurai was in line with Freire's notion of "cultural domination" (Freire, 2002). Foreign cultures became prominent in the Japanese society as a result. Cultural domination, according to Freire, occurs when the superior group as outsiders impose their way of thinking and conducting on the weaker, local groups. Domination can also come in the subtle form of cultural consumption under capitalism. I this case, the outsiders do not need to do much in order for their cultures to dominate the local one, because once the common goods and ways of operating things (i.e. uniform, weapons, experts, etc.) are accepted by the local as better and so are the culture embedded within them. Ironically, the film about the Japanese's strong virtues of keeping honor, discipline, and dignity was created by the U.S.-based producers!
Death of indigenous cultures & identity loss
The above scenarios can lead to the most threatening effect on the local cultures; the death of indigenous cultures. Cultural diversity that many try to promote practically is at stake if we look at how capitalism, which carries the power of the stronger groups of people and more powerful cultures, can intimidate, marginalize, dominate, and even destroy the local cultures. New, usually foreign, cultures under capitalism always flourish on the expense of the local ones. The death of the samurai perhaps marked the beginning of the loss of, or changes in, identity among the Japanese. Experts typically are made from foreign education and are more likely to adopt the foreign ways of thinking, expressing, and operating. Increasingly, the medium of communication in local, regional, and global levels necessarily becomes the language from the dominant culture. Now, as a result, intellectuality and aptitude of non-English speakers are tested in such the dominant language of the world, GRE, GMAT, TOEFL, to name a few. How adoption of equipment, approaches, thinking, generally foreign cultures to replace the indigenous ones can affect members of the indigenous cultures has not been studied adequately. However, it is said enough in the literature of multicultural education that language policies and learning cultures that ignore the backgrounds of the students can put the students from the marginalized cultures at a disadvantage (See for instance, Walsh, 1996; Heath, 1999; Delpit, 2002).
Lessons
The Last Samurai does not only provide the typical reflections of how the world works, it also informs us of whatit takes to promote diversity in light of extreme tensions.
For people from two cultures to understand each other, it is necessary that both sides are willing to "have a good conversation." Perhaps, Freire's dialogic approach to co-learning when outsiders are trying to make sense of a new culture applies here. Mutual respect is also the tool that two peoples need in learning about each other.
Keen interest in each other's culture is also very important. Algren and Kutsumoto both show interest in each other. While Kutsumoto took Algren to his village, observed his movements, and read his confiscated diary to study about his new enemy, Algren had read translated books about the Samurai and later at the village always kept his eyes, ears, and mind open.
Cultural sensitivity is perhaps another quality required for living in diversity. Observing eyes, keen ears, and open minds, therefore, are very important. Algren often showed us such a quality. He, for example, took off his shoes entering the house after he had learned that Taka, the host, had to clean the floor messed with the dirt from his shoes.
Non-judgmental attitude appears to be important, too. The movie often presents us with the lines that reflect the characters' biases, stereotypes, and quick judgments. We can always find something to say about strangers, but time often reveals to us that we can be wrong.
A most important lesson we can learn from the movie is that, in spite of many differences, we human beings are similar in many ways. Algren and Kutsumoto came to understand each other so profoundly because they realized that they were both 'the students of wars". Perhaps, instead of focusing on differences alone, we should try to emphasize similarities in diversity promotion, too. In the Buddha's eyes, we are all friends of the same fate within the same circle.
To understand a new culture enough to appreciate its glory, Freire's praxis, which requires both critical reflections and actions, seems to fit well. It took Algren more than just reading books to appreciate the Samurai ways. Algren merged himself in the Samurai ways of life by living with a family and doing what the Samurai did. Perhaps, this can encourage us, educators, to be more ambitious; that is, we should do more than just having cultural fairs or talent shows.
The other obvious lesson is the notion of language as an important tool for cultural understanding. Not only can learning a new language be a way to get closer to the people in the new culture, it is also a tool to help facilitate understanding at a deeper level. The fact that Kutsumoto could speak English and that Algren learned to speak Japanese reflect the importance of learning the target culture's language.
References
Delpit, L. & Dowdy, J. K. (2002). The Skin That We Speak. New York: The New Press.
Heath, S. B. (1999). Ways with Words. New York: CUP.
Nieto, S.(2002). Affirming Diversity: The Sociopolitical Context of Multicultural Education, New York: Longman Publishers, 3 rd. ed., 2000 (first ed., 1992; second ed., 1996).
Sivaraksa, S. (1999). Global HealingWalsh, C. E. (Ed.) (1999). Education Reform and Social Change. Bangkok: Ruankaew Printing House.
Walsh, C. E. (Ed.) (1999). Education Reform and Social Change. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
from สยามเสวนา
No comments:
Post a Comment