Multicultural Literacy

As cultures begin to mix and change as a result of

globalization, conflicts inevitably arise over identity,
values, and worldviews. This situation consequently
needs for a literacy that enables us to quickly and easily
identify and resolve such conflicts, preferable before
they begin. This has come to be understood as
multicultural literacy.
Multicultural literacy as defined in American literature is
different from how it is deployed in a more European context.
In America, multicultural literacy has avery strong leanings
toward knowing or identifying the poly-ethnic origins of
knowledge with the express goal of fostering equality, diversity,
and social justice. This is in direct response to the “Euro-
centric” and “white-dominant” traditions of education that in
the eyes of American cultural minorities (particularly the
blacks) is a form of racial injustice. The Philippines doesn’t
have the same issues of discrimination.
In Europe , multicultural literacy comes more in the form of
intercultural communication competence (ICC), which is defined
by Dusi, Messetti, and Stienbach (2014) as a composite of skills,
abilities, attitudes, personality patterns, etc. Fantini (2006)
defines it as “ a complex of abilities needed to perform
effectively and appropriately when interacting with others who
are linguistically and culturally different from oneself”. This
definition is more fitting for the Philippine context.
Multicultural Literacy as the knowledge and skills necessary to
ensure that any communication with a culture different from
our own is clear, productive, and respectful such that their
differences are celebrated and neither culture is demeaned or
treated as inferior.
It is important to realize that under this definition, a
“different culture” is not just limited to “someone from another
country,” but could also include someone whose gender,
economic background, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, or
even sense of fashion is different from our own.
 The skills and knowledge required for one to be multi-culturally literate
are not mere language skills, since it is assured that some medium of
communication already exists between two cultures, rather, true
multicultural literacy consists of perspectives, attitudes, and beliefs about
other cultures that affect the manner in which we communicate and the
motives behind our communication.
Here are examples:
►Be selfless- An attitude of selflessness- one that is less concerned with
how I feel and more concerned with how I am making others feel- is
crucial to multicultural literacy, as so much of the offense and conflict
associated with the meeting of different cultures is the result of a “me
first” attitude: I should feel comfortable with you before I make
efforts to make you feel comfortable, etc. Such selflessness is not
instinctive to people, and is especially difficult when one feels
insecure of oneself and identity.
►Know that good and useful things can (and do) come from those
different from us- Hand – in – hand with a dismissive attitude towards
another culture is the idea that nothing good can come from them.
Furthermore, there is a tendency to ignore or outright dismiss
evidence to the contrary simply acknowledging that good ideas and
products have come from cultures we might not like goes a long way
in preparing our minds to perceive them as being equally valuable

►Be willing to compromise – any significant interaction with someone

from a different culture is governed by the principle of “He/She
wants something, and I want something.” In other words, cultures do
not interact out of pure magnanimity. If both of you are willing to
give the other what they want, well and good. But what happens
when one or both are unwilling to give what the other wants.. There
must be a compromise: a reciprocal adjustment of demends and
expectations to accommodate what the other party is willing to give.
►Accept that there are limits- At some point however, one
or both cultures will be unwilling/unable to adjust their
wants for the interaction or walk away, accepting that
what you want cannot be had from that particular source.
Attempting to force the other party to adjust ( when you
refuse to do the same) only results in misunderstanding,
hurt, and conflict. The sooner we accept this, the sooner
we can set realistic expectations of one another.
Conflicting Requirements for Peace

When all is said and done , the heart of

multicultural literacy is peace among different
cultures- that is, productive and non-violent
interaction. It is easy to assume that all cultures
value peace to the same degree and are
therefore willing to make the same compromises
in order to attain it, but this is not necessary
true.
Nationalistic and Regionalistic Pushback

Multicultural inclusiveness is by and large a good thing, it

comes at a cost. Part of the identity of the host culture
becomes dilutes and lost- the inevitable result of the
compromises necessary for it to have some form of
multicultural understanding. In effect, pushing for
multicultural inclusion might very well be asking some
cultures to decide which has more value: Inclusion or
identity?
We must be aware that these questions are easier to
answer for the culture that wants to be accommodated
( because it will cost them nothing), rather that the one that
must do the accommodating).
The Persistence of the Problem

Despite all out advances in science, technology,

and culture, why is this still a problem today?
Boutte (2008) suggest that issues of discrimination
in all its forms (racial, religious, tribal, cultural,
etc.) are really issues of hatred, which she defines
in an educational setting as “ the lack of compassion
and lack of respect for the rights of others,”.
What is the root of this hatred?
Boutte (2008) Such hate is often un intentional, but is usually
the result of lack of education.

►Is it awareness of the existence of those different from

us?

►Is it awareness that those different from us are worthy

of respect?
“Why should I treat people of another culture with respect?”
Answer: Peace
“Why should I value another culture,
another society, another person more
than myself and my own?”
Dawkins (2016) concept of “self gene” – where on a
genetic level, the more two individuals are genetically
similar to one another, the more sense it makes to
behave selflessly toward one another and selfishly
toward others who are different - then we can easily
frame the issue of cultural discrimination and injustice
as on both genetics and survival.
Freire (2000) “when the oppressed are freed from
their oppression, they inevitably become the new
oppressors.