|
Formulating a Cosmopolitan Approach
to Immigration and Social Policy: Lessons from American (North
and South) Indigenous and Immigrant Groups
Teachers College, Columbia University
Loyola Marymount University
Abstract
Throughout history the United
States has been constantly confronted with the responsibility
of integrating diverse groups of people into its society. This
paper uses current and historical ideas about the complex nature
of indigenous groups, globalization, and education as vehicles
for promoting the adoption of cosmopolitanism, a paradigm that
values inclusion, tolerance, and respect for the other. Cosmopolitanism
is discussed as a plausible alternative to historical assimilationist/nativist
practices. The paper uses the Otavalos, an indigenous population
in Ecuador, as an instructive example of a community that successfully
applies a cosmopolitan approach to its indigenous identity and
immigration behaviors to integrate itself into a modern global
society.
Introduction
Before 1965, immigrants
to the U.S. were primarily European (Takaki, 1993). More recent
data show significant changes in the ethnic configuration and
proportion of immigrants entering the U.S. According to the
2000 census, immigrants and their children constitute 20 percent
of the total American population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000).
Furthermore, Hispanics are overtaking African Americans as the
largest minority, while non-Hispanic whites have declined to
two-thirds of the population and have even become a minority
in California, the most populous U.S. state. Based on the latest
projections, ethnic groups of color will comprise approximately
half of the U.S. population by the year 2050 (U.S. Census Bureau,
2000). Given this minority-majority trend, what macrosystems
will be envisioned in order to promote relationships among immigrants,
minority groups, indigenous groups, and the larger society?
How might these relationships take into consideration a new
world order in an era of globalization?
This paper responds to these questions
by examining America’s historical response to indigenous
and immigrant populations. The purpose of the paper is to make
a case for a more inclusive approach to community building.
We focus on indigenous and immigrant populations because historically,
those in power have put serious, overt pressure on these two
groups to assimilate. We suggest cosmopolitanism, the practice
of valuing all cultures equally, as a plausible alternative
to the historical assimilationist/nativist practices. Finally,
we look at the Otavalo indigenous in Ecuador, who are both indigenous
and immigrant, as an example of a group coping with and taking
advantage of globalization to strengthen their community both
at home and abroad. The Otavalos may teach indigenous, immigrant,
and dominant groups how to embrace a more cosmopolitan perspective
toward each other.
The Assimilationist Tradition
in U.S. Immigration Policy
The primary theoretical framework
that social scientists and historians have traditionally used
to analyze the relationship of the immigrant culture to that of
the larger society has been assimilation. Scholars who write about
assimilation often describe it as an evolutionary process in which
immigrants gave up all traces of their old life in favor of the
superior values of America (Hirschman, 1983). Although the term
"assimilation" is a fairly new one in education, the
concept itself has been influencing American education for centuries.
The establishment of French and Spanish missions by colonists
in the sixteenth century was clearly intended to transform indigenous
Native American culture through the integration of Christian ideals.
By the early twentieth century, educational policy toward those
belonging to non-white groups was thoroughly assimilationist.
One scholar, in speaking of the Native American experience, has
summarized this phenomenon as follows:
In
the early 1900s, federal boarding schools forbade native language
use and religious practice, and they separated families. Policy
makers calculated these to achieve far-reaching social goals,
to civilize and Christianize young Indian people and so draw
them away from tribal identification and communal living. (Lomawaima,
1993)
More
recent stories of the "No Spanish Rules" in southwest
schools as late as the 1970s indicate efforts to Americanize Mexican
American students (Acuna, 1988). The consequences for speaking
Spanish on school grounds, according to a study by MacGregor-Mendoza
(2000), could include corporal punishment, and one individual
reported that he was not only "beaten with a stick"
when caught speaking Spanish, but also admonished by teachers
for using "a filthy language" (Salazar, 1992, p. 330).
Negative responses to students’ language and/or culture
that are deeply situated cultural practices of the community and
family do little to facilitate the educational desired outcomes
of assimilation. The case of Mexican Americans is particularly
interesting because it blurs the line between indigenous and immigrant
populations. Many Mexicans who cross the Rio Grande are entering
a land their ancestors lived in for generations before the Mexican
American war.
Given the greater acceptance of racial
diversity and inclusion in America following the ethnic revitalization
programs of the 1960s and 70s (Banks, 2006), it would be comforting
to believe that conformist-oriented policies are no longer given
serious credence. Unfortunately, as evidenced by the recent
success in banning bilingual programs from public schools in
Arizona and California (Crawford, 2000; Galindo, 1997), such
is not the case. This legislation reveals the resistant attitudes
towards cultural difference that still pervade Americans today.
"The problem," as Wuthnow (2006) points out, "is
that large segments of white Americans still prefer to think
in assimilationist terms, hoping against hope that a color-blind
society can be created, in which all hues seem white" (p.
184). Having described the discriminatory, assimilationist nature
of social policy in the U.S., as experienced by Native and Mexican
Americans, the following discussion considers cosmopolitanism
as a viable alternative response to the education of immigrant
and indigenous groups.
Expanding notions of Global Equity
Much greater attention has
been devoted in recent years to the relationship between migration
and education, and the implications this has for addressing
the issues of integration, cohesion, language education, and
multicultural education (Luchtenberg, 2004). Educators today
have a responsibility to counteract the longstanding problems
associated with assimilationist and nativist education in the
U.S. by developing curricula that are sensitive to the concerns
of the rapidly changing global ethos. As Banks (2006) points
out, "Worldwide immigration and globalization raises new
questions about how to prepare students for thoughtful and active
citizenship" (p. 151), which essentially means teaching
students to value difference in themselves and others. Some
of the more significant effects of globalization on educational
policy include the creation of greater international policy
networks, more awareness of economic considerations, and a much
greater convergence of discourse relating to educational policy
objectives (George & Wilding, 2002).
Academicians and policymakers frequently
offer new theories for how to transcend the ever-present politicization
of race, ethnicity, and immigration in the U.S., with proposals
ranging from the assimilationist plea for strengthening Western
(namely, Anglo-Protestant) values (Huntington, 1996), to the
more pluralist suggestion of restoring the "melting pot"
(Barone, 2001). Others proclaim the necessity of a "new
assimilation theory" (Alba & Nee, 2003), or more optimistically
assert that the entrenched 'Anglo-American' culture has reached
its apogee and is now on the decline (Kaufmann, 2004). However,
one of the more intriguing proposals in the ongoing debate about
immigration and assimilation is Hollinger's Postethnic America:
Beyond multiculturalism (1995). In it, the author attempts
to transcend the debate about multiculturalism in America by
offering a "critical renewal of cosmopolitanism in the
context of today's greater sensitivity to roots" (p. 5).
The problem with multiculturalism, Hollinger contends, is that
it has come to denote a set of obsolete arguments that no longer
persuasively speak to contemporary conditions in the U.S. (p.
83). In his argument, Hollinger carefully sharpens the distinction
between those advocating multiculturalism, a term which has
come to be synonymous with pluralism, and those advancing cosmopolitanism;
whereas both groups promote diversity and tolerance, pluralists
accept ethnic segmentation as normative while cosmopolitans
espouse the importance of multiple affiliations (Hollinger,
pp. 3-4, 84-86; Vertovec & Cohen, 2003, p. 18).
Hollinger's discussion foreshadowed
a considerable revitalization of interest in cosmopolitanism
during the second half of the 1990s as globalization continued
its ascendancy (e.g., Appiah, 2006; Carter, 2001; Dower &
Williams, 2002; Heater, 1996; Hutchings & Dannreuther, 1999;
Linklater, 1998; Nussbaum, 1996; Papastephanou 2002, 2005; Snauwaert,
2002). This sea change is largely attributed to a variety of
social and political factors, which are enumerated by Turner
(2002) and include:
the partial erosion of national
sovereignty and the growth of dual and multiple citizenship;
the growth of global markets, especially a global labour market
and an expansion of migrant labour seeking forms of quasi-citizenship;
the growth of multiculturalism and cultural hybridity as an
aspect of mainstream contemporary political life; and the
globalization of the politics of migrant communities, giving
rise to diasporic cultures. (p. 58)
The critical point here is that cosmopolitanism
encompasses a particular project that places a high value on
the importance of inclusion, tolerance, and respect for the
other beyond the debated and limiting concept of 'multiculturalism'.
Given the nature of cosmopolitanism and its importance for considerations
of inclusivity and diversity, it becomes necessary to determine
more precisely what implications the concept has for addressing
the complex challenges associated with international migration,
indigenous populations, and education. Snauwaert (2002) discusses
the direct implications that cosmopolitanism might have for
citizenship education in his broad thesis: since a cosmopolitan
perspective calls for the cultivation of "moral reciprocity"
and "shared commonality" (p. 10), it is necessary
to move beyond the imperatives of the nation-state and consider
ways in which educational systems can specialize in the development
of "empathetic, respectful, and wide-awake cosmopolitan
citizens" (p. 12).
The connection between cosmopolitanism
and education has important implications for the relationships
between immigration and schooling, particularly because of cosmopolitanism’s
emphasis on valuing difference. By teaching cosmopolitanism,
educators encourage minority groups to view their differences
as assets rather than deficiencies, thereby empowering these
groups to use their differences to advance themselves. This
is a stark contrast with earlier views of education which advocated
the elimination of difference as the sole path to successful
democracy. It is also particularly relevant considering the
worldwide phenomenon of transnational migration and the unprecedented
movement of diverse racial, cultural, ethnic, and religious
groups across nation states. A model of cosmopolitan education
is well equipped to address the needs of increasing numbers
of students who have multiple national identities and will have
professional and personal commitments around the globe (Banks,
2004; Banks, 2006; Papastergiadis, 2000). As such, well-envisioned
educational innovations would consider students’ intellectual,
linguistic, cultural, and social welfare to be central when
designing the experiences they would encounter in schools. Schools
would take advantage of the linguistic and cultural understandings
indigenous and immigrant students bring to the classroom to
advance the education of all students. In the final section
we turn to the Otavalos, an indigenous population in Ecuador,
as an instructive example of a community that has taken the
opportunities offered by global markets to secure, as well as
expand their culture and identity into one that can be truly
characterized as 'cosmopolitan'.
Cosmopolitanism, Globalization
and Transmigration: The Case of Otavalo Indigenous
Otavalo is two hours north
of Quito, Ecuador in the Andean highlands. The town, popular
among tourists, has a famous market well known for its local
textiles and crafts. The Otavalos, similar to American Indian
and Mexican American in the United States, have been accorded
an inferior social status. As such, the Otavalos have suffered
economically, politically, linguistically, socially, and culturally
(Bebbington, 2000; Korovkin, 1998; Kyle, 1999; Meisch, 1997).
As Buítron (1951) tells us, "they were conquered
and dominated by the Incas, later by the Spanish, and now by
priests, hacienda owners, lawyers and clerks, city officials
and political officers, tavern owners, etc." (cited in
Meisch, 1997, p. 85). As late as the mid-1970s the Otavalos
experienced great discrimination in their native Ecuador. In
the 1960s and 1970s, however, the indigenous population of Ecuador
began organizing for their rights, and in addition to more conscientious
legislation, opportunities for trade in Europe and the U.S.
helped the Otavalos find markets for their textiles, crafts
and music (Bebbington, 2000; Korovkin, 1998; Kyle, 1999; Meisch,
1997).
The Otavalos represent a minority cultural group that has managed
to exist and in some cases prosper in an industrialized society
using their traditional skills, social practices, language and
belief systems to maintain their culture and language, while
at the same time adapting new technologies and learning the
language and culture of others' to survive at home, as well
as in foreign lands (Kyle, 1999; Korovkin, 1998; Meisch, 1997).
Otavalos’ successful local economic development can, in
part, be attributed to their past practices. A history of Otavalo
and its people shows that weaving was a local tradition starting
in pre-Inca times that has evolved and been modernized throughout
the years (Korovkin, 1998). In addition to their textile and
craft production, Otavalos were also merchants, and as such,
they can be considered transnational as they build economic
relationships at home and abroad. In the past they traveled
across South America and, as early as the mid 1940s they traveled
to international markets (e.g., northern Caribbean and the U.S.)
to sell their textiles (Kyle, 1999). Today, they can be seen
in Europe, the U.S., and throughout South America selling their
textiles and handicrafts in outdoor markets and entertaining
crowds with their distinctive Andean sounds on street corners
(Meisch, 1997). According to Kyle (1999) Otavalo migrants travel
"to at least twenty-three countries with an average time
abroad of less than one year. In the course of the overseas
marketing of their own products and those of other indigenous
groups, Otavalos have carved out a global market niche for inexpensive
handicrafts manufactured by household labour using pre-industrial
and industrial technologies of scale" (p. 423).
Traditionally, Otavalos come from a non-literate society. However,
their increased economic success and travel crystallized the
need for formal education to learn "some Spanish and arithmetic"
in order to communicate and better understand the market system
(Korovkian, 1988, p. 135). They adopted new goals of sending
their children to colleges and universities. As education increased,
rates of illiteracy decreased from 44% in 1950 to 14% in 1990
(Korovkin, 1988; Meisch, 1997). Educational problems such as
lack of textbooks, overcrowded classrooms, language barriers,
and inadequate teacher wages led the community to enlist the
help of the university, government agencies, and international
governments to generate a creative solution (Korovkin, 1988).
These efforts resulted in community-based bilingual educational
programs that were eventually staffed by indigenous college
graduates. Otavalos also study abroad through foreign government
programs and their population now includes highly educated individuals
who are able to campaign for a continued emphasis on bilingual
and cultural education (Korovkin, 1988; Meisch, 1997). Education
is not flawless and illiteracy rates remain high, especially
among older Otavalos. However, the educated Otavalos serve as
a baseline that support educational programs for the population
at large and influence local, political, and social responses
to education.
As a result of their transnational interactions and cosmopolitan
approach, the Otavalos have improved the development of their
social group through an expansion of their international connections,
none of which would have been possible without the appreciation
for difference espoused in cosmopolitanism (Portes, Guamizo
& Haller, 2002). The Otavalos are neither confined to their
past existence nor coerced to assimilate to mainstream culture.
Indeed, they create and recreate their own identity as they
control their own situations (de la Torre, 2006). According
to Kyle (1999), the Otavalo example "illustrates that transnational
corporations are not the only ones able to take advantage of
economic opportunities spread around the globe by virtue of
their large budgets and organizational prowess" (p. 424).
For immigrants and indigenous groups, finding niche markets
may be easier in today’s globalized economy, especially
if a group has unique commodities to sell.
There are exciting lessons to be learned from the success of
this small 'peasant' group that has taken the opportunities
offered by global markets to secure, as well as expand their
culture and identity. As a result of their weaving and merchant
traditions, Otavalos have continually forged new ways of succeeding,
even in adverse situations. They have managed to organize a
bilingual education system, as well as affect changes in policies
that have constrained their opportunities within Ecuador and
across foreign lands. Throughout their struggles and adaptations,
the Otavalos managed to hold on to their indigenous identity
both at home and abroad. Their economic solvency has allowed
them to become more concerned with education and government,
and has increased their advancement in the two domains.
Conclusion
Our goal in this paper was to propose
a more cosmopolitan response to policies and education of immigrant
and indigenous groups as a way to respond to social policy needs
at home and abroad. Many of the U.S. educational policies have
focused on assimilating indigenous and immigrants into the status
quo so as to maintain the notion of "one nation," without
considering that a nation’s oneness is not in opposition
with diversity. Contrasting with the U.S. historical assimilation
response to education, the Otavalos are a more cosmopolitan example.
While it might be thought that the more 'cosmopolitan' a group
becomes there will correspondingly be less attachment to parochial/indigenous
values and customs, the Otavalos disprove this thesis altogether.
Inasmuch as they entered the global market, traveled around the
world selling their wares, and became more 'cosmopolitan,' they
did so in a manner that confirmed the value of their indigenous
roots. Indeed, this is further illustrated by Meisch’s (1997)
suggestion that the concept of an Otavalo diaspora is applicable
to the group because they have dispersed throughout the world
while retaining their Otavalo identity.
References
Acuna, R. (1988). Occupied America: A history
of Chicanos. New York: Harper-Collins.
Alba, R., & Nee, V. (2003). Remaking
the American mainstream: Assimilation and contemporary immigration.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Appiah, K. (2006). Cosmopolitanism: Ethics
in a world of strangers. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Banks, J. (2004). Forward. In S. Luchtenberg
(Ed.), Migration, education and change. (pp. xiii-xvi). New
York: Routledge.
Banks, J. (2006). Democracy, diversity,
and social justice: Educating citizens for the public interest
in a global age. In G. Ladson-Billings & W. F. Tate (Eds.),
Education research in the public interest: Social justice,
action, and policy. (pp. 141-157). New York: Teachers College
Press.
Barone, M. (2001). The new Americans: How
the melting pot can work again. Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing.
Bebbington, A. (2000). Reencountering development:
Livelihood transitions and place transformations in the Andes.
Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 90(3), 495-520.
Carter, A. (2001). The political theory
of global citizenship. New York: Routledge.
Crawford, J. (2000). At war with diversity:
U.S. language policy in an age of anxiety. UK: Multilingual
Matters Limited.
de la Torre, C. (2006). Ethnic movements
and citizenship in Ecuador. Latin American Research Review,
41(2), 248-259.
Downer, N., & Williams, J. (Eds.) (2002).
Global citizenship: A critical reader. Edinburgh University
Press: Edinburgh.
Galindo, R. (1997). Language wars: The ideological
dimensions of the debates on bilingual education. Bilingual
Research Journal, 21(2-3), 103-141.
George, V., & Wilding, P. (2002). Globalization
and human welfare. New York: Palgrave.
Gordon, M. (1964). Assimilation in American
life: The role of race, religion, and national origins. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Heater, D. (1996). World citizenship and
government: Cosmopolitan ideas in the history of political thought.
London: Macmillan.
Hirschman, C. (1983). America's melting
pot reconsidered. Annual Review of Sociology, 9,
397-423.
Hollinger, D. A. (1995). Postethnic America:
Beyond multiculturalism. New York: Basic Books.
Huntington, S. (1996). The clash of civilizations
and the remaking of world order. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Hutchings, K., & Dannreuther, R. (Eds.).
(1999). Cosmopolitan citizenship. New York: St. Martin's Press,
Inc.
Kaufmann, E. P. (2004). The rise and fall
of Anglo-America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Korovkin, T. (1998). Commodity production
and ethnic culture: Otavalo, northern Ecuador. Economic Development
and Cultural Change, 47(1), 125-154.
Kyle, D. (1999). The Otavalo trade diaspora:
Social capital and transnational entrepreneurship. Ethnic and
Racial Studies, 22, 422-446.
Linklater, A. (1999). Cosmopolitan citizenship.
In K. Hutchings & R. Dannreuther (Eds.), Cosmopolitan citizenship.
(pp. 35-59). N ew York: St. Martin's Press, Inc.
Lomawaima, K. T. (1993). Domesticity in
the federal Indian schools: The power of authority over mind
and body. American Ethnologist, 20(2), 227-240.
Luchtenberg, S. (2004). (New forms of) migration:
Challenges for education. In S. Luchtenberg (Ed.), Migration,
education and change. (pp. 40-63). New York: Routledge.
MacGregor-Mendoza, P. (2000). Aqui no se
habla español: Stories of linguistic repression in southwest
schools. Bilingual Research Journal, 24(4), (Fall 2000), 355-374.
Meisch, L. A. (1997). Traditional communities,
transnational lives: Coping with globalization in Otavalo, Ecuador.
Dissertation Abstracts International.. (UMI No. 9723393)
Nussbaum, M. (1996). Patriotism and cosmopolitanism.
In J. Cohen (Ed.), For love of country: Debating the limits
of patriotism. (pp. 2-17). Boston: Beacon Press.
Papastephanou, M. (2002). Arrows not yet
fired: Cultivating cosmopolitanism through education. Journal
of Philosophy of Education, 36(1), 69-86.
Papastephanou, M. (2005). Globalisation,
globalism and cosmopolitanism as an educational ideal. Educational
Philosophy and Theory, 37(4), 533-551.
Papastergiadis, N. (2000). The Turbulence
of migration: Globalization, deterritorialization and hybridity.
Cambridge, U.K.: Polity.
Portes, A., Guamizo, L., & Haller, W.
(2002). Transnational entrepreneurs: An alternative form of
immigrant and economic adaptation. American Sociological Review,
67(2), 278-298.
Salazar, R. (1992). Aqui no se habla Espanol.
In J. Crawford (Ed.), Language loyalties: A source book on the
official English controversy. (pp. 329-333). Chicago: University
of Chicago Press. (Reprinted from Stranger in one's land, by
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1970, Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office).
Snauwaert, D. T. (2002). Cosmopolitan democracy
and democratic education. Current Issues in Comparative Education,
4(2), 5-15.
Takaki, R. (1993). A different mirror: A
history of multicultural America. New York: Little, Brown &
Co.
Tarrow, S. (2005). The new transnational
activism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Turner, B. (2002). Cosmopolitan virtue,
globalization and patriotism. Theory, Culture & Society,
19(1-2), 45-63. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Statistical abstract
of the United States: 2000, 120th ed. Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
Vertovec, S., & Cohen, R. (2003). Introduction:
Conceiving cosmopolitanism. In S. Vertovec & R. Cohen (Eds.),
(pp. 1-22). Conceiving cosmopolitanism: Theory, context, and
practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wuthnow, R. (2006).
American mythos: Why our best efforts to be a better nation
fall short. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Copyright © 2006 Current Issues In Comparative Education
Teachers College, Columbia University
All Rights Reserved
|
|
