Introduction
Judging by the demographic composition and the government’s branding of pluralism, Hong Kong appears, and is perceived by many, to be a multicultural society where diverse groups, differing in ethnicity, religion and other social affiliations, live harmoniously together. However, drawing references from other societies’ continuous struggles and grappling with multicultural and intercultural theorizations and discourses in a variety of social aspects, many started to challenge the social reality of Hong Kong, where problems ranging from discriminative attitudes toward ethnic minorities to lack of intercultural communications contradict the veneer of “Asia’s world city” (Bun, 2006; Law & Lee, 2012). As the concept of multiculturalism and its various derivatives such as interculturalism became increasingly diversified and complicated across liberal democratic societies, how should Hong Kong, with its unique historical and sociopolitical circumstances, position its goals and strategize its policies in order to achieve the desired multicultural outcomes? What additions and modifications are needed in Hong Kong’s educational settings so that cultural diversity and sensitivity can be better attended to? This paper attempts to answer these questions by critically analyzing the progression and current state of Hong Kong’s multicultural education practices based on previous research focusing on Hong Kong as well as those discussed in a wider context. The author contends, after synthesizing and evaluating existing literature, that Hong Kong needs to expand its conceptualization of multicultural education, from one that prioritizes “capitalist and market-centric” (Gorski, 2008, p. 4) integration, to a more humanized and genuinely emancipatory cultural appreciation that leads to social reconstruction and social action intended for social justice. This paper starts by reviewing the development of multicultural education and the diversification of its interpretations and implications. With multiple perspectives comparatively presented in the background, it then investigates the Hong Kong scenario pertaining to the validity of its multicultural education policies and practices. In the end, some suggestions and recommendations are put forward so as to initiate a “deeper” and “thicker” form of multicultural education in Hong Kong.
Multicultural Education is Multifarious
It has become nearly impossible to state a concrete definition for multicultural education or multiculturalism due to the unremitting debates revolving around its underpinning philosophies, anthropological and sociological assumptions, goals and intentions, curricular and pedagogical applications and so on. The popularization of the concept of multicultural education began as a response to the growing cultural diversity in pluralist societies such as the U.S., the U.K. and Australia (Hill, 2007). Regarded by most as one of the earliest and most prominent proponents of multicultural education, James A. Banks (1993) described how the ethnic studies movement during the 1960s and 1970s and the subsequent multiethnic studies, partly fueled by the civil rights movement in America, laid an important foundation for the later inception and evolution of multicultural education. Though it emerged initially as a movement that mostly advocates justice for and empowerment of ethnic minorities in public education, other sociological factors that were believed to be associated with unfair treatments and representations in education, such as gender and social class, were soon incorporated into the multicultural education framework as well. Despite the early efforts of multicultural education that focused largely on supporting marginalized and disenfranchised groups, to perceive it as an entitlement for the victimized groups only, to James A Banks (1993, p. 1), would be “one of the most pernicious and damaging misconceptions”, as he emphasized “Multicultural education, as its major architects have conceived it during the last decade, is not an ethnic- or gender-specific movement. It is a movement designed to empower all students to become knowledgeable, caring, and active citizens in a deeply troubled and ethnically polarized nation and world.” James A Banks (1993) also noted how the complexity of multicultural education as a concept was often oversimplified and insufficiently understood at his time, which, as the author of this paper will illustrate in the following passage, is arguably still the case today in many parts of the world including Hong Kong. He elucidated five dimensions that he considers the most important components of multicultural education, namely content integration, knowledge construction, prejudice reduction, equity pedagogy and empowering school culture and social structure. These dimensions are espoused by E. Jackson (2013) in her analysis of Hong Kong’s multicultural and intercultural education prospects, which will be discussed later.
Banks’ concern over the “shallowness” of how multicultural education may be promoted and pursued is shared by others. Hoffman (1996, p. 547) observed a kind of “hallway multiculturalism” where students are putting up posters with pictures of people from different ethnicities and positive slogans featuring words like “diversity” and “respect”. Instead of being pleased by it, he worried, “The very fact that the "lessons" of multiculturalism were so codified seemed to undermine the essential multicultural theme - an inherent openness and flexibility. Instead, there was a cant, a correct vocabulary, a proper way to think and be "aware". It seemed to me all too pre-packaged, a parroting of the "right" themes--a lesson, in a sense, too well learned.” While it seems almost intuitive that differences should be accepted and respected in most liberal democratic societies, what was frequently overlooked or minimally deliberated by less critical proponents of multicultural education, was on a less explicit level, a system of ways of viewing the nature of cultural diversity, usually informed, at times unconsciously, by individual’s and/or society’s established cultural and sociopolitical traditions and status quo, which strongly influences the “comfortable” extent of “acceptance” and “respect”. To be more specific, a multicultural education that celebrates cultural diversity superficially, without critically reflecting and reconstructing the underlying power relations and addressing the often normalized cognitive and affective processes that eventually lead to the social injustice that multicultural education is expected to resolve, becomes, paradoxically, an antithesis of the desired transformation, an affirmation of the prevailing social order, an education of “inaction” (Gorski, 2008). It is thus not only important, but in fact necessary, for any educator, policy maker, teaching professional and whoever is to be involved in multicultural education to be conscious, which requires dedicated exploration and contemplation, of what outcomes are being targeted at.
The disparities of perceptions of cultural diversity and goal-settings based on them gave rise to a plethora of approaches to multicultural education. L. Jackson (2014a) categorized them generally as assimilationism, pluralism, critical multiculturalism and interculturalism, regarding cultural diversity as a threat to national identity, positive opportunity, conflict between the “oppressor” and the “oppressed” and a moderately relativist common ground, respectively. Castagno (2009), differentiating by the goals, summarized the existing approaches to multicultural education by six major types, namely educating for assimilation, educating for amalgamation, educating for pluralism, educating for cross-cultural competence, educating for critical awareness and educating for social action. Beyond these specifications developed from multicultural education, the idea of “interculturalism” or “intercultural education” is gaining increasing preference in recent years. Proponents stress the “inter” element which refers to the attention paid to dialogical interactions and relational dynamics among cultural groups as well as the fluid nature of cultural identity, which is believed to be able to uplift multiculturalism from tokenistic and static political-correctness to a more critical and practical agency for real social change (Gorski, 2008; L. Jackson, 2014a). Others, however, assert that the claimed merits of “interculturalism” are found in or even fundamental to the basic principles of multiculturalism already, that the new term contains no new contributions but is rather a way to get by the criticisms against multiculturalism (Meer & Modood, 2012). There are also those who would use these terms interchangeably (Hill, 2007). Despite the on-going theorization of terminologies, one can actually see a convergent trend within the multifarious interpretations of multicultural education. For instance, in the intercultural framework of L. Jackson (2014a), “democratic deliberation” and “critical media literacy” are presented as two pillars, and a “moderate cultural relativism” is recommended, which suggests that cultural awareness and attitudes should be developed as skills with teachers, instead of inculcated as information by teachers. Castagno’s (2009, p. 47) last category, also the only category that he considers truly “multicultural”, the one that aims at social action, similarly intends to “prepares students to be active members of a democratic society, and works to deconstruct myths by centering multiple and various perspectives.” Gorski’s (2008, p. 11) declaration of the components he values in a genuine intercultural education also resonates with the themes found to be common in the previous two discourses, as he argues, “As such, my intercultural work must be explicitly political and value-laden, against domination and for liberation; against prevailing hegemony and for critical consciousness; against marginalization and oppression and for equity and justice.” The commonality among these recent ponderings is that they examine cultural diversity in societies to a deeper level, in a more substantive way, and comprehend culture and cultural identity in a thicker, more flexible manner.
No matter we call it intercultural education or multicultural education for social action, the now emphasized goal largely relates to the nurturing of an autonomous and informed “cultural literacy”, one that enables critical thinking and meaningful self-expression, which then enables individuals to think independently and act in ways that are free from, or at least less influenced by, dominant narratives and existing hegemonies. This notion contrasts with the less comprehensive way multicultural education was practiced before and is still practiced in many societies today in that it is student-centered rather than curriculum- or teacher-centered, that it is about transferable abilities rather than rigid facts, that it addresses prejudices, stereotypes, discrimination, marginalization, and other forms of social injustice by critically considering why and how they are constructed and actively combating these mechanisms rather than imposing normative standards and formalist conclusions. Therefore, the multicultural education as it is conceptualized now inevitably connotes complications and negotiations. It cannot and should not be a standardized and easily testable framework like a natural science subject. These complications and negotiations are sensitive to local context. Factors like the formation and evolution of national identity, cultural norms and traditions, historic socioeconomic, sociopolitical and legislative actions and reactions, all affect the process of seeking the most effective and feasible multicultural education practices in a particular society. Multicultural education, as a result, is not a monolithic model that can be universally applied across societies, but should rather be conceived and reified differently according to social context. This realization leads to the next section, where the author takes a closer look at the Hong Kong context with regard to its multicultural education development.
Multicultural Education in Hong Kong
“Is Hong Kong thus a multicultural society? We believe that, over the past years, Hong Kong can only be considered as multicultural in a descriptive term. People from different ethnic groups live in this city. However, a social exclusion and certain discrimination exist against non-white ethnic minorities, which are worsened by the denial of the presence of these issues.” (Law & Lee, 2012, p. 130)
Indeed, others have also commented that Hong Kong has been rather heedless of or indifferent toward its internal problems of racial discrimination and cultural insensitivity, particularly before the 21st century, while chanting a “descriptive” multiculturalism. There are different reasons explained for this void of awareness. L. Jackson (2014b, p. 888) argues, “The society has been outward-facing rather than internally focused, a world city but not a locally united community, as transitization and depoliticization of education precluded a historical curricular focus or intentionality related to multiculturalism.” Unlike many other pluralist societies where certain values or historic attachments are held strongly to be essential to a unifying national identity, such as the constitutional values of the U.S., Hong Kong, as a British colony previously and a special administrative region of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) currently, hardly ever formed a perceptible local identity. While from one perspective, such a lack of identity definition seems beneficial in that it prevents nationalism and supremacism, the ambiguity of what it means to be a “Hongkonger” is also problematic on many levels. Bun (2006, p. 291) contends that “Hong Kong’s cultural identity is formed through the otherization of non-Hong Kong people, including mainland Chinese, Southeast Asians and South Asians.” Moreover, when “inclusion” doesn’t have a well-elaborated reference, exclusion can often go unnoticed or unquestioned, causing insidious harms and subtle institutionalization, desensitization and legitimization of division (Chan, Lam, Teng, & Lee, 2015). Another possible reason, as Gorski (2008, p. 4) acutely stated, is that maintaining the status quo serves the interests of the capitalist corporates, who purposely influence what should and should not be included in the public education system, which is used as “a vehicle for socializing citizens into compliance and complicity”. After the sovereignty of Hong Kong was handed over to PRC in 1997, the amount of research inspecting multiculturalism in Hong Kong rose, due perhaps mainly to a retrospection of Hong Kong’s cultural composition amidst the Chinese central government’s support for Hong Kong’s sinicization , the “recollection, reinvention, and rediscovery of historical and cultural ties between Hong Kong and China” (Ma & Fung, 1999, pp. 500-501).
Progress has been made since then. The Race Discrimination Ordinance (RDO) was finally approved in 2008 and came into force in 2009 after more than a decade of continuous struggle. The Race Discrimination Bill was rejected several times because the government basically concluded that there was no such problem as racial discrimination in Hong Kong, at least not salient enough for legislation to intervene (Law & Lee, 2012). Such a position was not baseless, rather it was supported by misleading information from surveys on people’s perception of racial-ethnic discrimination in Hong Kong, which the majority of local Chinese consider less than problematic (Chan et al., 2015). As more insights into the experience of ethnic minorities were studied and presented (see Bun (2006), Ho (2001), and Loper (2001) for example), and their voices represented, the government was eventually compelled to admit that discrimination does exist considerably and needs addressing. The divergent perceptions of racial-ethnic discrimination between the ethnic majority (Chinese) and ethnic minorities is alarming in and of itself. Chan et al. (2015) explained, many ethnic minorities have developed a certain level of tolerance for negative experience related to local Chinese’s prejudicial perception of and unfriendly reaction to their cultural identities and expressions, because of their fondness of the material prosperity, opportunities and resources in Hong Kong. Such tolerance desensitizes the Hong Kong Chinese to the detrimental effects of their attitudes and behaviors vis-à-vis cultures that “deviate” from the norm that they are used to and are consciously or unconsciously solidifying. As a result, under the ostensible harmonious and “multicultural” surface, racial-ethnic discrimination is sustained and minimally challenged. However, even when it is challenged, the way that it occurs appears to be sharing some of the same problems that are precluding social justice. For instance, when Bun (2006) presented his investigation of cultural exclusion experienced by Pakistani women in Hong Kong, notwithstanding his diligent background research on the Islamic tradition (though a lack of understanding can also be identified, such as calling the place of worship “church” while it should be “mosque” or “masjid”), his narrative consistently insinuated a sense of cultural superiority that monolithically represents the Islamic tradition and “others” it as a less appreciated entity. He assertively commented that “Islamic social body exerts control over women’s dress and the presentation of their physical bodies” (p.292) and “Dress can be used to measure one’s level of commitment to the community and cited as evidence to show that s/he is on the right and true path.” (p. 294) without specifying references for these claims or scopes of their applicability, overlooking the internal diversity of Muslims, assuming that the over 1.6 billion people (Kettani, 2010) in different parts of the world are uniformly under one overarching “social body”. One might reasonably wonder, does such a discourse practically combat cultural exclusion, or exacerbate it? That is why, relating to the previous section, multicultural education has to head towards an action-driven and communication-based critical awareness, instead of empathetic but hegemonic well-wishing, lest its results contradict the good intentions.
The government has also increased efforts in supporting the Chinese language learning of ethnic minorities. In Existing and Planned Measures on The Promotion of Equality for Ethnic Minorities published by the Education Bureau (2017, p. 1), the government expressed its commitment to “supporting the early integration of non-Chinese speaking (NCS) students (notably ethnic minority (EM) students) into the community, including facilitating their adaptation to the local education system and mastery of the Chinese language” through, among others, Chinese Language Curriculum Second Language Learning Framework, Articulation to Multiple Pathways, and Promotion of early adaptation. These efforts are pleasing and deserve appreciation. By strengthening ethnic minority students’ linguist capacity required for social participation, a foundation is laid for future intercultural dialogues and self-representation and self-expression of minority cultures in society, which is a promising direction forward, as discussed earlier. Enabling students to have the functional prerequisite (language in this case) for democratic deliberation and critical cross-cultural communication is an important step toward realizing content integration, prejudice reduction and student empowerment, which are among the dimensions of effective multicultural education according to James A Banks (1993) (L. Jackson, 2014b). The policy document, however, provides almost no mention of these expectations. “Integration” and “adaptation” are instead thematically repeated, which again, may point to an underlying “colonizing” mentality in the government’s multicultural paradigm (Law & Lee, 2012) that should continue to be challenged. Nevertheless, with progressively articulated awareness of racial-ethnic discrimination and cultural prejudice, coupled by educational policies and practices that aim at enhancing marginalized groups’ linguistic competitiveness, multicultural education in Hong Kong has been deepening in effect, and is evolving toward the “thicker” sense of “multiculturalism” that entails retrospection, action and reconstruction. In the next section the author will contemplate upon some possible ways to reinforce the evolution of multicultural education in Hong Kong.
What Next
So far multicultural education in Hong Kong has largely focused on the difficulties and inequalities faced by ethnic minorities and how to resolve them. Recalling that James A. Banks (1993) disapproved of the idea that multicultural education is concerned only with protecting and empowering victimized groups, educators and policy makers need to understand and to make understand how multicultural education is relevant and meaningful to all members of the society, and that social injustice cannot be effectively destabilized if it is practiced as a fragmented piecemeal curriculum instead of as a significant social responsibility. To address racial discrimination, for example, the majority group of the society needs to be made critically aware of its multidimensional nature and to be motivated to actively respond to it in ways that drive deconstruction of the status quo. The RDO may have increased people’s awareness of the legal implications of racial discrimination, but for positive changes to happen on a sociocultural level, multicultural education has to play its part in helping the next generation gain the skills and habits of developing opinions from multiple perspectives and analyzing others’ opinions critically. Similarly, as discussed earlier, the empowering of ethnic minority students’ language learning is a means rather than an end. Efforts should be made to facilitate the marginalized groups to represent and express themselves. Intercultural communication should be encouraged, not as tokenistic celebration of diversity, but to deliberate on important social and cultural issues.
More empirical research is much needed. Hoffman (1996) warned about the tendency to overly theorize multicultural education to an extent that it is disconnected from social reality and offers minimal or no practicable indications to educational services. It is important for educators and policy makers to remind themselves constantly of what kind of results they are trying to achieve before they delve into the complexities and particularities of theoretical and epistemic endeavors. Noticing that a large amount of educational research talk about, but not for the minority students, that “we do not hear their voices, nor learn about their concerns, hopes or dreams”, Phillion (2008, p. 283) proposed a methodology of “narrative inquiry”, which can “develop our ability to reflect on experience, to question assumptions, and to actively empathize with others. They also foster critical self-examination of who we are, and how we live and relate to others in a global society.” (p. 284).
On a more practical level, curriculum design and teacher education need to be devised in a way that embodies the vision of multicultural education. Biased and unbalanced representations in textbooks and other educational materials need to be confronted (see the analysis of the representation of religions in Hong Kong Liberal Studies textbook by L. Jackson (2015) for example). Perhaps more importantly, as information-bearers can hardly be free of bias, teachers need to be trained in a multicultural manner so that they can help students develop the critical media literacy and deliberational skills needed to form autonomous stances.
Conclusion
This paper reviewed the development of multicultural education in Hong Kong and the theoretical discourses around it. Taking the diverse but plausibly convergent interpretations of multicultural education in other societies as reference, the author analyzed the conceptualization and implementation of multicultural education in the Hong Kong context and argues that while progress has been made, the paradigm is still insufficiently critical and comprehensive, minimally challenging the prevailing social order, paying less than needed attention to social action and reconstruction. Based on previous research and a synthesis of scholarly suggestions, the author recommends that multicultural education in Hong Kong should be broadened in its scope, enriched by empirical research and practicalized by incorporating multicultural education principles in curriculum design and teacher education. The author is optimistic that, with increasing intercultural dialogues and critical reflections, multicultural education in Hong Kong will continue developing so that its goal and effect goes beyond simplistic integration, to social action and improved social justice.
References
Banks, J. A. (1993). Multicultural education: Development, dimensions, and challenges. The Phi Delta Kappan, 75(1), 22-28.
Banks, J. A. (1993). Multicultural Education: Historical Development, Dimensions, and Practice. Review of Research in Education, 19, 3-49. doi:10.2307/1167339
Bun, K. H. (2006). Body, dress and cultural exclusion: Experiences of Pakistani women in ‘global’Hong Kong. Asian Ethnicity, 7(3), 285-302.
Castagno, A. E. (2009). Making sense of multicultural education: A synthesis of the various typologies found in the literature. Multicultural Perspectives, 11(1), 43-48.
Chan, C. W. S., Lam, B. O.-y., Teng, Y., & Lee, M. (2015). Making Sense of Divergent Perceptions of Racial-Ethnic Discrimination in Hong Kong. Multicultural Education Review, 7(1), 18.
Education Bureau. (2017). Existing and planned measures on the promoion of equality for ethnic minorities. Retrieved from http://www.cmab.gov.hk/doc/en/documents/policy_responsibilities/the_rights_of_the_individuals/agpre/EDB-Education-e.pdf.
Gorski, P. C. (2008). Good intentions are not enough: A decolonizing intercultural education. Intercultural Education, 19(6), 515-525.
Hill, I. (2007). Multicultural and international education: Never the twain shall meet? International Review of Education, 53(3), 245-264.
Ho, W.-Y. (2001). Historical Analysis of Islamic Community Development in Hong Kong: Struggle for Recognition in the Post-colonial Era. Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, 21(1), 63-77. doi:10.1080/13602000120050631
Hoffman, D. M. (1996). Culture and self in multicultural education: Reflections on discourse, text, and practice. American Educational Research Journal, 33(3), 545-569.
Jackson, E. (2013). Multicultural or Intercultural Education in Hong Kong? International Journal of Comparative Education and Development.
Jackson, L. (2014a). Muslims and Islam in US education: Reconsidering multiculturalism: Routledge.
Jackson, L. (2014b). Under Construction: The Development of Multicultural Curriculum in Hong Kong and Taiwan. The Asia - Pacific Education Researcher, 23(4), 885-893. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40299-014-0199-9
Jackson, L. (2015). Religion in Hong Kong education: Representation in liberal studies textbooks. Asian Anthropology, 14(1), 43-56.
Kettani, H. (2010). 2010 world muslim population. Paper presented at the proceedings of the 8th Hawaii Internafional Conference on Arts and Humanifies.
Law, K.-y., & Lee, K.-m. (2012). The myth of multiculturalism in ‘Asia's world city’: Incomprehensive policies for ethnic minorities in Hong Kong. Journal of Asian Public Policy, 5(1), 117-134.
Loper, K. (2001). Cultivating a multicultural society and combating racial discrimination in Hong Kong: Civic Exchange Hong Kong.
Ma, E. K., & Fung, A. Y. (1999). Re-sinicization, nationalism and the Hong Kong identity. Press and politics in Hong Kong: Case studies from 1969 to 1997, 1997, 497-528.
Meer, N., & Modood, T. (2012). How does Interculturalism Contrast with Multiculturalism? Journal of Intercultural Studies, 33(2), 175-196. doi:10.1080/07256868.2011.618266
Phillion, J. (2008). Multicultural and cross-cultural narrative inquiry into understanding immigrant students' educational experience in Hong Kong. Compare: A Journal of Comparative Education, 38(3), 281-293. doi:10.1080/03057920802066568