Development of Cultural and Linguistic Tolerance in the Multicultural Society

Virginija Chreptaviciene, Aiste Urboniene

Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research, UniversityCollegeDublin, 7-10 September 2005

Introduction

Global processes, which determined the structural changes of society, at the same time inspired the birth of new multicultural society, distinguishing the variety of social, ethnic, political and other cultures. Constant confrontation with ‘otherness’ demands tolerance and cultural knowledge from everyone who strives for intercultural dialogue, as in the democratic multi-cultural society different cultures should not live separately but together and with each other, they communicate in the area of a culture meeting (Bergue, 1992; Saugeniene, 2000). In the context of the changed global and European dimensions of education it is pursued to educate a lettered citizen that is empowered to live on the multicultural society.

Contemporary Lithuanian society is on the way to become a more democratic one, thus an education of new generation is stressed. Globalisation raise new tasks for the education as well as highlights the importance of tolerance as value. Education as an important transmitter of public values and virtues has a task to educate people to be tolerant and democratic in evaluation of other’s opinions and concepts. Comprehensive education, as it is stated in the Lithuanian national school programme (1997), has to reflect the general European dimension – the coexistence of the European nations needs to reflect the linguistic, cultural, economical, technological, and legal as well as political cooperation and communication culture.

Striving to evaluate the expression of cultural and linguistic tolerance in the national curriculum in a country in transition raises a scientific problem that is formulated by following questions: 1.How should the tolerance be developed in the educational system, concerning its ambiguity as a value?2. Which peculiarities of cultural and linguistic tolerance development can be indicted in the content of comprehensive national school programmes in Lithuania as country in transition?

Assumptions for the development of tolerance in education

The phenomenon of tolerance is widely analysed in theoretical literature where different issues of ethics, morality, politics, social work, education etc. are discussed. The primary meaning of tolerance one can find in Latin, tolerantia, which means patience (Sykes, 1987, p.1126). Tolerance is defined as ‘indulgence or forbearance in judging the opinions, customs, or acts of others; freedom from bigotry or from racial or religious prejudice; the act of enduring, or the capacity for endurance’ (The new international Webster’s comprehensive dictionary, 1999, p.1320).

Current approaches in tolerance-issues are often based on philosophical political issues (Raz, 1986; Mendus, 1988; Gutmann, 1994; Pleckaitis, 1995, etc.) as well as in the sociological-educational discourse(Morrow & Torres, 1995; McLaughlin, 1997, etc.). For the multicultural society there are some typical public values, such as truth, liberty, freedom, democracy and tolerance, which are closely related to democracy and liberalism (McLaughlin, 1997).

Tolerance is characterised as a controversial value. On the one hand, tolerance is closely related to discomfort and disagreement, which we have to endure. In this phenomenon the conflict can be both hidden and open. Everyone has an experience when sometimes it is difficult to tolerate another person’s actions, ideals or values. On the other hand, everyone has his or her own understanding of tolerance, which usually possesses a positive relation to somebody or something. This subjectivity of tolerance understanding makes it complicated and attractive for theoretical discussion. These two main features of the tolerance as its ambiguity and a subjective evaluation of it cause the problematic approach how to find ways to develop tolerance in educational institutions.

Raz (1986) stresses on the ‘black’ side of the nature of tolerance when he states that it ‘implies the suppression or containment of an inclination or desire to persecute, harass, harm or react in an unwelcome way to a person.’ There is also a bright side of tolerance, namely, when it curbs dispositions, which are intolerant in the evaluation of other people opinions, tastes, and pursuits.

It is obvious that tolerance is very personal way of thinking, which influences human social interaction. Generally speaking, tolerance is closely related to ‘otherness’. If ‘otherness’ is represented of minorities, we can clearly see a process of assimilation when the dominant cultural environment influences all strongly expressed differences (Pleckaitis, 1995).

Thus, it is obvious that tolerance is a complicated social value, which ambiguity gives both positive and negative connotations. It is important to understand tolerance as an essential space between public and personal values. Tolerance development is possible in the way of dialog and understanding that one has to tolerate and respect other’s limits.

Today it is of high importance to talk not only about tolerance in general terms, but about the forms of tolerance that inevitably condition the value context of the society – i.e. about the cultural and linguistic tolerance. As the society is becoming more heterogeneous, multiculturalism is regarded as the practice which underlines the equal rights of all the groups of the society – and especially the traditional minority groups – to satisfy their needs and gain help in satisfying them (Webster New World Dictionary, 1995). Here the democratic view towards the variety in the society is stressed as well as the idea of equal possibilities, which encourages looking for the most suitable ways for all the members of the groups of the society to practically form the equal possibilities of the dialogue in the variety of the cultural contexts.

In this context, the cultural tolerance can be defined as the toleration towards different cultures and members of different nationalities and ethnic groups, without the negative attitude or prejudices in evaluating their traditions, customs, religion, etc. The linguistic tolerance is the toleration of different languages and their usage not following the hegemonial attitude.

As indicated by Fiordo (1985), the linguistic tolerance is especially important in the bicultural or multicultural environments. Therefore the intercultural dialogue is possible only after having mastered several languages, which enables an individual to construct the discourse, which responds to the cultural context of the relevant linguistic community. On the other hand, every culture has its own values, the knowledge and acknowledgment of which also bear influence on the tolerance of a personality.

Coming to the analysis of the possibilities of the development of cultural and linguistic tolerance in the education system, there are evident tendencies that make this process difficult.

The contemporary society is characterized by a shifting value-system. It means that values become more dispersed and individualised compare with traditional societies. Value-fragmentariness characterises also changes in the social interaction and depends on a complex of factors (Anshelm, 1995). Toleration of social and political status, gender, racial and religious differences and interests forms a norm of respect to individual integrity. Different areas, such as family, religion, economics, policy becomes more autonomic from each other. More freedom towards security, as Giddens mentioned (1997), however such a radical, extreme autonomy of individuals challenges the tolerance.

As it was previously mentioned, tolerance is an individual reaction. However, it is also depending on upbringing, culture, education and an individual value-system. There are some main educational institutions in society, which actually build up the values: families, educational system, church, mass media and dominating culture are the main of them.

Educational activity of the family impacts a development of child’s moral, religious, ethical, sexual and other systems. In the family child obtains the foundations for public and individual values as well as for toleration. There are two ways of tolerance expression in the family space. On the one hand, there is the tolerance that parent present to the child in the evaluation of the world and other people. On the other hand, the tolerance as a way to respect of the own child and behave with one as a personality, which has a freedom to choose (McLaughlin, 1997). However, family as an educational institution is usually limited by it’s own culture or ethos. That is the reason why other educational institutions are also important in a development of children’s personality.

Secondly, the church as an educational institution is still powerful. It is important to point out on Christian morality, which stresses the humanity, toleration and humility issues. In glorifying the human being Christianity has the basic premises for tolerance. However, in its time of secularisation influence for the value forming has decreased considerably (Anshelm, 1995).

Thirdly, popularculture, authorities, mass media etc play a significant role defining limits of tolerance in the society and they can function as educational factors as well.

Lastly, the special feature of the educational system is that it presents and transmits public and traditional values (McLaughlin, 1997). Education has a general task not only provide disciples with knowledge in various scientific fields but also to transmit them values and virtues. Tolerance is demonstrated in interpersonal relations, what is very important in education. The sharing of knowledge between a teacher and a disciple is the most important moment as a value transmission. But how should the tolerance be developed in the educational system, concerning its ambiguity as a value?

One of the ways to understand it is to follow the ideas of the Jewish philosopher Buber. According to him, the educator-disciple relation has to remain not the relation I-that as subject-object but I-you as subject–subject (Buber, 1994). Buber claims that in economy, religion, education people are usually treated as objects or things. It allows naturally to use and manipulate them and not to take seriously one’s values or needs. In the way of the relation I-you, the space for other feelings is created. There is also a possibility for empathy to appear. Both teacher and disciple have to be equal partners. Only in such a way it is possible, as Buber mentions, to create the most productive educational environment and the friendly relationship (Ozmon & Craver, 1996).

From the perspective of the existentialistic philosophy every teacher has to be also a disciple and every disciple has to be a teacher. As in Buber’s philosophical work, the manipulation of a teacher with disciples is condemned and creative relationship is suggested (Ozmon & Craver, 1996).

Without humanistic and democratic values and special social circumstances, where individuals can train various patterns of behaviour, the personal development in the education is doomed. The presentation of different meanings of tolerance will show its ambiguity for children. This has to emancipate children’s activity and cherish democratic ideals of the society (Pleckaitis, 1995).

Concerning Dewey (1966), moral norms influence significantly the development of personalities. Individuals have to become moral during the social interaction in the groups. The development of moral and democratic values needs a space of pluralism and diversity. In order to avoid conformity and to acquire tolerant personalities, educators should create a possibility for discussions and group interaction. All these ideas of Dewey touch also the development of tolerance as a democratic way of behaviour and thinking.

To consider more practical ways to develop tolerance in educational system is quite difficult. First of all, it is important to get to know where boundaries of tolerance, expressed by disciples, lay. The discussion is the best way to find it out. However, the problem can be lack of teacher’s tolerance. Secondly, a right to be different should be respected both in families and in the education system. It is not easy because such social units as family or school class hardly accept ‘otherness’. Thirdly, the development of tolerance is possible only under conditions of a collision of values. Children have to learn that one’s values and beliefs are of the same importance as their own. It is also important to point out on the self-control, which has to be developed, as an ability to respect or tolerate someone that one considers as wrong, improper or silly. Fourthly, ethos in the educational institution influences considerably the manifestation of tolerance. Children and young people come to the school with different social and religious backgrounds. Teachers have to create an open and positive atmosphere wishing to develop the democratic way of interaction and also the tolerance. As Morrow and Torres (1995) states, ‘education should always include the plurality of values, voices, and intentions of subjects’ and try to engage a dialogical praxis ‘with all sorts of contradictions, tensions and conflicts among themselves’.

All above discussed issues makes an entire picture of the development of tolerance in the educational institutions and especially in the educational system. It has to be a task of education to point on importance of the tolerance and find out methods how to develop it.

Methodology

The conducted study is aimed at identifying peculiarities in the development of the cultural and linguistic tolerance in the Lithuanian comprehensive school programmes. Comprehensive national school programmes (1997, 1999, 2002, 2003) and comprehensive Educational Standards (1999, 2002) have been analysed the context of global and European educational dimensions.

The qualitative study based on the methodology of Zydziunaite (2002) was conducted in2005. Qualitative analysis of content is based on the systemic step performance - 1) identifying the manifest categories, while referring to the ‘key ‘ words; 2) the content of categories division into subcategories; 3) identification of intersecting elements in the category/subcategory contents; 4) interpreting the content data.

Results

Carrying out the content analysis in the aspects of cultural andlinguistic tolerance education, the attention is paid both to the local and the global multiculturalism of the society. According to the latest population census, there are people of 109 nations living in Lithuania. Lithuanians, Poles, Russians and Belarusians are major nationalities.

Comparing the Comprehensive national school programmes of 1997, 1999, 2002, 2003 and the Education Standards, it has been noticed that the essential provisions of the formation of the education content are changed in the renewed programmes, only the education content is renewed in order to respond to the needs of the contemporary life.

Tolerance is found among the most important values, the education of which is underlined in various education documents. The Lithuanian Education Conception (1993) states that „the education system is based on the essential values of the national and European culture: the personal freedom, the natural equality of people, the freedom of conscience, the acknowledgment of the rational and intuitive aspects of the human spirit, the love for the other, tolerance, the declaration of the democratic relationship of the society’.

The performed analysis of the documents allowed distinguishing the subcategories that form the categories of the cultural and linguistic tolerance.

Cultural tolerance. This category consists of 6 subcategories.

Toleration is mentioned as the essential valuable provision conditioning the ability of the disciple to live in a multicultural society. As it is noted in the analysed comprehensive programmes, the disciples are taught to ‘tolerate other cultures and lifestyles, in such a way cherishing the variety of the cultures of the nation’. Also the tolerant attitude towards the physical, religious, social, cultural differences of people is encouraged (Comprehensive national school programme, 2003).

Such subjects as Ethics, History and Geography are distinguished as most important among the subjects in the education of toleration. In teaching the subject of Ethics, the aim is to ‘help the disciples to obtain tolerance towards the other’s opinions and attitudes’. Analysing the aims, tasks and content of the programmes of History and Geography, the aim ‘to educate the disciple’s tolerance towards values of other cultures, other opinions, traditions and cultures’ (Comprehensive national school programme, 2003) is stressed.

It is evident that toleration in the process of education is encouraged not only towards a person of the other culture, ethnic group or community, but also towards a different individual practicing other religion or lifestyle. What is different is granted the connotation of value, which encourages getting familiar with it.

The second subcategory is cognition, the importance of which is stressed as an assumption for tolerance. In the documents, it is indicated that school creatively passes and educates the traditional cultural values of the nation and Europe; therefore it helps to learn the role of culture in the world (Comprehensive national school programme, 1997). The educational process seeks to make disciples learn the rules, norms and traditions of the (co) existence of human communities. It is stressed that it is necessary to learn more also about the lifestyle of people in Lithuania and other places.

The disciples are also taught to know and at the same time acknowledge the peculiarity and value of another person. It encourages basing the relationship with other people by love, respect and justice.

As it is seen, the cognition is related both to the acquisition of knowledge and to the education of the humane relationship with other people. Also the cognition as an important valuable act is related to two dimensions – quantitative in the sense of the cognition of other nations and cultures, and qualitative which is oriented towards another and different individual.

Understanding is a subcategory that is often conditioned by the acquired cognition. The understanding obtained at school is also oriented towards different levels. Understanding is educated in three levels – individual, local and global.

In the level of an individual, it is regarded that it is important to develop understanding that all people are equal, that the dignity of a person is not to be offended (Comprehensive national school programme, 1997). The skills of disciples to listen to the other opinion, to understand the arguments that ground it as well as to reach for an agreement are developed. The dialogue with other people and groups of people is encouraged. The comprehensive programme declare that the disciples should develop the perception of themselves as a person and an individual, understanding that all people are both similar and different, to realize themselves as a responsible member of a community and nation (Comprehensive national school programme, 2003).

In the standards of education it is also indicated that a disciple perceives the peculiarities of the Other and looks for their explanation; understands the importance of respect, trust, openness and criticism in communicating with the Other and the Different; understands the variety of the surrounding world; realizes that every culture has its own features and must be respected (Comprehensive national school programme, 2003).