The Language Teacher
01 - 2001

In Response

Marilyn Higgins

Yamaguchi Prefectural University



This month's response column is the final in a series of exchanges on Relativism and Universalism -- Opposing Views of Education for Internationalization, which appeared in the May 2000 TLT. Any readers wishing to hold further discussion on the issues raised here should contact the authors.

A logician with a sense of humor has observed that there are two kinds of people in the world: those who divide the world into two kinds of people, and those who dont. TLTs feature article entitled "Relativism and Universalism -- Opposing Views of Education for Internationalization" (May, 2000) was apparently written by the former about the latter. As one of the co-authors of the article, "Empowering ESL Students for World Citizenship" (Higgins and Tanaka, TLT, Feb. 1999), presenting ideas that seem to have provided the steam that motivated the "relativist" authors Shaules and Inoue to write, I would like to respond.

Shaules and Inoue, through their discussions with colleagues identified a sense of polarization between "globalists" -- whom they defined as "teachers who emphasized focusing student attention on a global vision of shared humanity," and "interculturalists" -- defined as "those who emphasized drawing attention to cultural differences as a way to defuse what was seen as inevitable cross-cultural conflict." They expressed difficulty reconciling these two points.

The key problem, as I see it, is the tendency to view issues from an "either-or" perspective, when they can be grasped more productively in terms of "both-and." There are actually numerous approaches to global education which have developed over the past 50 years in Japan and throughout the world. Is it helpful for those who may elect to focus on one aspect or another to spend time carving out some artificial theoretical turf to defend? In trying to define a line between the "globalist" as opposed to the "interculturalist" perspective, Shaules and Inoue have not only belittled, but misconstrued our underlying philosophy, as well as misrepresented our backgrounds and perspectives.

Their inaccurate assumptions and insinuations were too numerous to respond to in this space. But as a case in point, kindly take a moment to ponder and compare these two statements:

a) "Japanese need to overcome their culture to become international." (A statement Shaules believes is ethnocentric and "included . . . as an example of one danger of educational goals which stress universalistic thinking." [TLT, Nov. 2000, p. 7])

b) "We . . . share . . . activities that we have found useful in empowering our students . . . to overcome some of the cultural obstacles to its achievement." (The achievement referred to is the Japanese Ministry of Educations objective for students "to become capable of contributing to a peaceful international society.") (This is the statement made by Higgins and Tanaka, (TLT, Feb. 1999, p. 15) that Shaules is apparently referring to.)

There is a great difference in tone and meaning behind these two statements. The first one is a product of Mr. Shaules own pen and can be seen as a statement based on ethnocentric, or prejudiced attitudes. However, that is quite different than the comment we made. Our statement notes the need to overcome some cultural obstacles, which are widely recognized and referred to by the Japanese themselves, to achievement of their own educational goals. The particular obstacles we referred to were clearly noted and supported in our article. Going beyond, or overcoming cultural obstacles to "working well with others," is necessary, as we see it, for every human being from every culture on the planet, our own included. Each culture has its own strengths and beauty to offer, as well as deficiencies to recognize and redress.

To clarify further, although in our particular university classes we tend to stress the similarities and the oneness of mankind, in no way did we mean to suggest that we ignore cultural differences. Perhaps within the word-limitation of that article, we did not convey the rich tapestry of cultures we introduce to our students in the process of illustrating the various global issues. Our approach to the curriculum and its timing with our students actually fit very well into the theories of Bennett, which are supported by Shaules and Inoue. Since the majority of what the students now receive from the culture, as well as from the educational system is focused mainly on the differences between Japan and other cultures, what we have been offering in our university language classes is a balancing perspective that engages students thought processes to bring a sense of wholeness to their experience of the diversity of humankind.

We believe that the key for teachers and students is to keep one eye on the global scope, and objectives based on UNESCOs call to educate ourselves for a "culture of peace." Within that scope ESL teachers must identify the particular points that will be central to the students in their next stages of growth, and develop creative and practical instructional methods which will increase their students knowledge, and develop their language and consultation skills so that they are able to examine and appreciate and/or resolve perceived differences. We teachers must offer skills, knowledge, and attitudes that will be useful to our students in the context of their participation in local as well as the global paradigms of "unity in diversity."


Marilyn Higgins is an Associate Professor at Yamaguchi Prefectural University <mhig@po.fis.yamaguchi-pu.ac.jp>



All materials on this site are copyright © by JALT and their respective authors.
For more information on JALT, visit the JALT National Website