What are the dangers of using the terms “culture”, “cultural competence”, “cultural proficiency” when addressing issues of access in education?
Paul Gorski explains that framing issues of equity in education through the term of “culture” actually disguises educational inequity, since it disregards underlying obstacles (i.e. economic injustice, racism, sexism, etc) in order to make conversations about differences more comfortable for the privileged. Thus, when cultural frameworks are practiced, they place the root of inequality on the “culture” and characteristics of marginalized children rather than on the systemic problems that they actually face. Focusing on “culture” falsifies progress toward achieving equity within schools. Additionally, many of these frameworks assume a common culture based on marginal identity, which is a false premise to begin with because commonalities in culture cannot be assumed based on class, race, nationality, sex, or any similar identity. This prevents students from being seen and treated as individuals with individual needs. Gorski presents a brilliant argument, and an important critique of the understanding and application of “culture”.
How should the frame shift? What should be the focus of such programming? Which term or terms might improve our concept of “intercultural competence” in terms of this course and minor?
Gorski came up with the term “equity literacy” in order to use language that places systemic issues at the center of conversation and methods used to reduce inequity. Since language can be used to disguise uncomfortable topics and feign progress, it is important to be conscious of language and use it to properly advance equity. Along with “equity literacy” or “equity proficiency,” which can be adapted to be used in the GEM minor, we can use more specific and concrete terms related to language, self-expression, power, social and economic dynamics, and structures of inequity to understand some of these concepts within intercultural competence.
