School spaces and the construction of ethnic relations: conceptual and policy debates.

Mc Andrew, Marie

ABSTRACT/RESUME

This article discusses, on the one hand, the nature of ethnicity, a concept that is often taken for granted in education, but which is the subject of many debates in social psychology, anthropology and the sociology of ethnic relations, and, on the other hand, the role of education in the maintenance and transformation of its boundaries. In the first part, given the current delegitimisation of essentialism as a system of explanation for the production of ethnicity, the author reviews the strengths and limits of various constructivist perspectives, which put a different emphasis on social determinism or individual freedom, and argues that a further step is needed: a manifold perspective that better reflects the complexity of the process at stake. In the second part, the specific consequences of each of these conceptions on educational policies, programs, and practices, whether adopted or promoted by the State, school authorities, or minority groups themselves, are discussed in light of the two social functions traditionally performed by schooling: selection and cultural re/production. Finally, in a perspective that recognises that the desirable equilibrium between equality, the maintenance of pluralism, and the development of harmonious interethnic relations cannot be defined a priori, the author illustrates, with three specific examples, the complexity of the debates concerning various school policies and practices, as well as the necessity of context specific analyses in this regard.

Cet article traite, d'une part, de la nature de l'ethnicite, un concept souvent pris pour acquis en education, mais qui fait l'objet d'importants debats en psychologie sociale, en anthropologie et en sociologie des relations ethniques, et, d'autre part, du role de l'education dans le maintien et la transformation de ses frontieres. Dans un premier temps, suite a la delegitimisation actuelle de l'essentialisme comme systeme explicatif de la production de l'ethnicite, l'auteure examine les forces et les limites de differentes perspectives constructivistes, qui s'opposent selon l'importance qu'elles accordent au determinisme social ou a la liberte de l'individu, et plaide en faveur de leur depassement par une perspective multivoque sur l'ethnicite, permettant de refleter plus adequatement la complexite des processus etudies. Dans un deuxieme temps, les consequences differentes, au plan des politiques, programmes et pratiques scolaires, de l'adoption ou de la promotion de l'une ou l'autre de ces conceptions par l'Etat, les autorites scolaires ou les minorites elles-memes, sont debattues a a lumiere des deux fonctions sociales traditionnellement assumees par l'Ecole, soit celles de la selection et de la re/production culturelle. Finalement dans une perspective qui reconnait que l'equilibre souhaitable entre l'egalite, le maintien du pluralisme et le developpement de relations interethniques harmonieuses ne peut jamais etre defini a priori, l'auteure illustre, par trois exemples precis, la complexite des debats relatifs a la 1egitimite de diverses politiques et pratiques scolaires, ainsi que la necessite d'une analyse de la specificite des contextes a cet egard.

THE NATURE OF ETHNICITY

If one phenomenon has marked the second half of the twentieth century and will probably mark the new century, it is indeed the paradoxical maintenance of the relevance of ethnicity in our social debates and conflicts. The issue of the relationship between ethnic groups is more central now than ever, (1) while different analysts, whether Functionalists or Marxists, had predicted that it would become obsolete under the effect of globalised exchanges or the emergence of a classless society (Juteau-Lee, 1979). On one hand, most Western societies have witnessed for some thirty years an accentuation of the ethnocultural and "racial" (2) diversification of their population resulting from, among other things, the adoption of immigration policies that are less discriminatory than in the past, the intensification of the flow of refugees, as well as a geopolitical context marked by an increase in economic inequalities between developed and developing countries (Anderson and Frideres, 1987; OCDE, 1987; Schnapper, 1991). On the other hand, the continued maintenance of the "ethnicity" variable as a factor explaining inequalities or as a basis for identity or socio-political mobilisation has generated, from the 1960s onward, the phenomenon now classically known as ethnic revival. The latter has taken different forms--from autonomous or secessionist claims among various national minorities (Rothchild, 1981) to the delegitimisation of the traditional assimilationist model in favour of a greater recognition of pluralism within minority groups of immigrant origin (Taylor, 1992). (3)

The Limits of Cultural Essentialism

This "ethnic revival" has been theoretically understood from different perspectives. Within the academic community, only a few analysts have seen it as the justification of an essentialist paradigm, where the maintenance of "ethnic groups" is explained mainly by their cultural differences. Today, essentialism is almost agonising within the academic community due to the additional impact of the multiple criticisms it has been subjected to for thirty years, even if its popularity is still high in common sense discourses. The criticism directed toward the essentialist and "culturalist" vision of ethnicity comes from three perspectives: social psychology, the sociology of ethnic relations, and political philosophy.

In the first case, following numerous experimental studies, it is now widely accepted that ethnic identity is a moving phenomenon, and that its salience for an individual, in relation to its other ascriptive (gender, social class) or voluntary (lifestyle, professional) identities, is essentially situational (Tajfel, 1982; Oriol, 1988, 1991; Taboada-Leonetti, 1990; Bourhis et al., 1994). Moreover, social psychology clearly illustrates that the presence of cultural differences is not what creates ethnic identity. It is more likely that the reverse happens: in the process of constructing boundaries, intragroup differences are systematically underemphasised while intergroup differences are overemphasised by actors for whom national or ethnic allegiance is primordial. Furthermore, the current diversification of migratory flux brings individuals of different origins to increasingly share common institutions, and exogamy is increasing (especially among the second generation). Thus the entire concept of a single ethnic identity is undermined by the multiple identities borne by the same individual.

The current critical sociological and anthropological perspectives (Barth, 1969; Guillaumin, 1977; Roosens, 1989) also questions the rigid and a-historical nature of an essentialist perspective on ethnicity. They argue, among other things, that anyone--from ordinary citizens to academic analysts--can witness constant examples of cultural markers being re-defined among diverse communities which do not always imply a redefinition of intergroup boundaries. (4) Moreover, comparative analyses of acculturation processes of the same group within different societies clearly show the impossibility of predicting the outcome of interethnic contact (ranging from the maintenance of distinct identities to the assimilation of one group by another) based merely on the extent of their differences (Schermerhorn, 1970).

Finally, cultural essentialism has also been criticised from a normative perspective stemming from political philosophy. This perspective emphasises the risk of antidemocratic drift of a non-critical ascription of individuals to their groups of origin (Kymlicka, 1995; Touraine, 1994, 1997). Often popular among the intellectual elite within immigrant groups themselves, (5) the philosophical critique is also supported by the legal perspective on the recognition of pluralism, which, as we shall later see, views it as a right borne by the individual and not by the group.

Thus, it is not currently popular, at least in academic or government circles, to be considered a cultural essentialist. The dominant perspective is indeed constructivism, which views ethnic identity as a dynamic phenomenon, regardless of whether one takes an analytical point of view (from an individual perspective in social psychology or a political and group perspective in the sociology of ethnic relations), or a normative point of view in the realm of political philosophy. Rejecting the conception of ethnicity as a "given", the constructivist perspective is interested in boundaries between groups, the cultural markers used to legitimise their specificity, and the fluctuation of these two phenomena (Juteau, 2000). In this regard, the analysis of material and symbolic inequalities within different social fields, notably in education, and the identification of the competing interests of different groups and sub-groups, such as ethnic elites (Vermeulen and Govers, 1996), is considered essential. As was so eloquently stated by Danielle Juteau as early as 1979, the main task is to understand why groups, though their boundaries and markers change and are sometimes radically modified, are overall pretty resilient (even if this implies an identity redefinition) and to analyse this dynamic process through the social, political, economic, and institutional struggles which generate it.

Opposing Conceptions of Constructivism

Notwithstanding this wide consensus, at least three different versions of constructivism as it is used in the interpretation of ethnic relations have developed since its domination of the field some fifteen years ago.

The first conception (Bernier and Elbaz, 1978; Freitag, 1981; Zylberberg, 1994, 1995) can be characterised as "ethnicity as the production of the external boundary". (6) It focuses on the central role played by the dominant group in the maintenance of ethnic boundaries through its perceptions, its discourse and, above all, its sociopolitical and economic domination. According to this school of thought, the persistence of ethnic identity must be analysed, first and foremost, through the lens of inequalities. The belief, shared by individuals, of belonging to distinct groups or of being the carriers of cultural differences are often merely reduced to an ideology (in the critical meaning of the concept) which alienates them from their genuine interests.

One can distinguish two distinct visions within this school. The Marxist perspective (Hall, 1980) does not negate the reality of group allegiance, but stresses that priority must be given to class solidarity. Here ethnicity is seen as a plot of all elites, whether from majority or minority groups, to maintain their domination over dominated classes. The second perspective, the Republican (Schnapper, 1991), gives no legitimacy to intermediate allegiances between the state and the citizen, and sees the persistence of ethnicity, at best, as one of the symptoms of the failure of a genuine integrational blueprint.

In the North American context, where the dominant multiculturalist ideology often discusses ethnic relations through a non-critical paradigm, the school of "ethnicity as the production of the external boundary" (which dominates in France and is popular in different European countries, including Great Britain) reminds us of the importance of the social class variable and of unequal power relationships in the production of the phenomenon, a process that is of interest. Nevertheless, such a perspective has numerous inherent shortcomings. First, in some of its extreme versions, this perspective falls into "conspiracy", giving to a state (seen as being dominated in an unequivocal and monolithic way by the majority group) a quasi-monopolistic power in the production of ethnic identities (Fontaine, 1993). Moreover, it strongly underestimates the role of internal boundaries in the production of ethnicity, such as historical memory and the individual attachment to specific allegiances. This sometimes prompts its proponents to take strong positions against the non-desirability of the maintenance of pluralism, positions perhaps well intentioned but also extremely ambivalent. (7) By stressing only one dimension of ethnicity, the Marxist or Republican "egalitarians" thus often adopt a paradoxical and somewhat paternalistic stance: attempting to liberate, against their own will, exactly those oppressed members they purport to fight for. This claim often makes them objective allies of hard core, inegalitarian assimilationists, who generally do not present their own position with quite as much sophistication.

A second school of thought adopting a constructivist perspective on ethnic relations can be characterised as "ethnicity as the production and the prerogative of the individual". Strongly influenced by social interactionism (Berger and Luckman, 1967), its partisans are mostly interested in the interactional processes by which the individual is led to believe that he is different and by which he gradually defines his allegiances. In a version which one could classify as modern (Bourgeault et al., 1995) (since it still gives a unifying role to the Subject in this regard and is largely compatible with liberal discourses in political philosophy), one insists on the moral autonomy of the individual who must construct his cultural formula for himself by weighting various claims and influences linked to individual or social belongings. Some French academics use the revealing formula of "bricolage identitaire", identity crafting (Camilleri et al., 1990; Laperriere et al., 1991) in this regard. In the more radical version (which can be qualified as post-modern if one accepts that the essence of the postmodernist project is precisely the dissolution of the Subject), ethnicity is more or less reduced to one of the narratives which crosses the split and perpetually redefined conscience of the Subject that is increasingly unable to produce meaning (Sarup, 1988; Hoerder, 2000).

The main interest of the "ethnicity as the production and prerogative of the individual perspective" is to give back an important role to social actors in reaction to social determinism. Nevertheless--and this critique would also apply to the interactionist theory as a whole--this ideology often appears to be limited by a somewhat unsophisticated voluntarism. It is as though individual subjects would construct their identity or their "narratives" independent of major social relations. To quote Orwell's whim here, individualist constructivists (whether modern or post-modern) often seem to ignore the fact that if all individuals are free to choose their identities, some are freer than others in this regard (Probyn, 1987)! Furthermore, as partisans of the first school of thought, (8) although for different motives, they sometimes underestimate the autonomy and the permanence of group allegiances embodied in a specific history and in common institutions. They are thus oblivious of Anderson's injunction--presented in his classic, 1983 analysis of nations--that although the latter are "imagined communities", this does not mean they are "imaginary communities".

Given the shortcomings of these two competing visions, which reduce ethnicity to the power relationships between dominant and dominated groups or to the actions of an autonomous Subject, more or less coherent or carried by discordant narratives, I believe that two complementary tasks must be carried out to better theorise ethnicity.

First, we should revisit, in a critical manner, the good old cultural essentialism, which we may have too quickly cast aside, in order to reintroduce into our analysis what Danielle Juteau (2000) has so aptly named the "internal boundary of ethnic identity". Indeed, recognising that the minority is defined and redefined by its relation with the majority should not cause us to think, as is often the case in a reductionist perspective, that the former is a mere creation of the latter, nor that cultural differences or community allegiances are only an epiphenomenon of this relation, one which a "genuine equality" would cause to magically disappear. (9) Moreover, in opposition to the deterministic position held by both perspectives of cultural essentialism or "ethnicity as a production of the external boundary", we need, in conjunction with the social interactionists, to reaffirm the Subject's central role and its autonomy in this dynamic process. Nevertheless, if we do not want to replicate the limitations deplored above, the Subject cannot be considered as the creator of ethnicity, but rather as a mediator whose influence is maximised at the point of contact between the external and internal boundaries of ethnicity. The various strategies the actor privileges, that have been well documented by social psychologists and anthropologists (see the work of Camilleri et al., 1990, amongst others), do not develop in a social vacuum.

This third perspective, which could be characterised as "ethnicity as the combined production of external and internal boundaries and of the mediation by the Subject", presents, in my opinion, the decisive advantage of best reflecting the complexity of the process we are studying. On a normative plan it also provides an answer to the dilemma of citizenship in a pluralistic society which tries, at the same time, to recognise the reality of inequality and exclusions and the legitimacy of multiple forms of diversity, while preserving the moral independence and autonomy of individuals (Page, 1996). Nevertheless, it is not without shortcomings and presents important theoretical and normative weaknesses.

On the one hand, its complexity renders it a better descriptive, rather than a predictive, tool. Indeed, in contrast with the other, more daring approaches, it recognises that, given the state of current knowledge, it is yet impossible to identify, within a Grand Theory, the relative priority of each of the three factors that can contribute to the emergence and maintenance of ethnicity. Thus, at this stage, one should limit oneself more modestly to describing the specificity of contextualised situations of ethnic relations.

On the other hand, from a normative point of view, this third perspective creates much more insecurity than univocal perspectives which identify more clearly, albeit in opposition, the priority that should be given to three social objectives, often complementary but sometimes antagonistic: the maintenance of pluralism, the promotion of equality, and the freedom of individuals to define their community attachments. (10)

THE ROLE OF EDUCATION

Competing Visions

Whatever theoretical perspective one adopts on the nature of ethnicity, there is a wide consensus on the central role played by educational structures, programs, and initiatives in its maintenance or transformation. In this regard, the difference between the various schools of thought we have just explored appears to lie not in the intensity of the mission attributed to education, but in its more or less complex nature.

For example, as historians of education are all well aware, "good old cultural essentialism" has always paid a great deal of attention to education. The control of specific institutions constitutes one of the dominant themes of this current, which is mainly interested in the cultural reproduction function of schooling (Krukowski et al., 1969; Holmes, 1981). Ethnicity is considered as content to be reproduced as faithfully as possible through education, in opposition to a majority group to which an equally coherent culture, as well as a clear intention to assimilate other groups, is attributed. The transformation of ethnic boundaries, or the creation of a new hybrid culture, is not on the agenda, while the selection function of schooling and the debate on equality play only a minor role. Indeed, if intergroup inequalities are sometimes the subject of analysis or the focus of mobilisations, (11) both individual and group mobility strategies (either through structural integration into majority institutions or through assimilation) are clearly taboo in such a perspective (Labelle and White, 1980; Homan, 1992). When and if this phenomenon is acknowledged, it is usually considered proof that the price paid for integration into the host society (for immigrant groups) or into the national community (for national or native minorities) has been too high.

In opposition to the somewhat dichotomist and simplistic perspective of cultural essentialism, which is interested almost exclusively in the cultural reproduction function of schooling and which envisions only two possible issues in this regard (either the maintenance of a group or its assimilation), the various constructivist schools of thought look at the contribution of schooling to the production/reproduction of ethnicity in a much more complex manner. Indeed, because all these currents recognise the plastic nature of both the boundaries between groups and the cultural markers they use to mark their differences, they clearly analyse, in a non-determinisitic manner, the various situations of ethnic relations which are being negotiated in the educational field. Moreover, because all these currents recognise, to various degrees, the important role of inequalities and power relationships in the maintenance and transformation of ethnic groups, they concentrate as much on the selection function of schooling as they do on its cultural reproduction function.

In the first case (ethnicity as the production of the external boundary), the selection dimension is the top priority. The school's primary mission with respect to minority group students is, first and foremost, defined in terms of equality of opportunity and struggle against inequalities (Bowles and Gintis, 1974; Giroux, 1981). Depending on the more or less radical interpretation of the origin of social inequalities within this current, one will give priority, on a continuum, to compensatory programs designed to foster a sufficient mastery of the host language by minority students, or to help them overcome eventual educational deficits that they often share with inner-city students, a rather "classical" anti-racist education focusing on individual rights and prejudices, or a radical Liberation Pedagogy, which attempts to raise consciousness about the different factors (gender, social class, ethnicity) contributing to oppression (Mc Andrew, 2001). From this perspective, because ethnicity is largely looked upon as an illusion (an ideology in the Marxist sense of the concept), it is not believed that schooling should contribute to its reproduction. The intensity of the struggle regarding the definition of curriculum, a frequent point of contention between majority and minority groups, is also usually underestimated.

When the socialisation function of schooling is addressed, it is more often to promote an objective of social transformation or of producing common identities, rather than to maintain or respect pluralism. Within this current, the Marxist perspective stresses the necessity of developing class-consciousness and solidarity between dominated groups in their common struggle against the dominant group (Chariot, 1989; Grinter, 1992). (12) The less radical, French Republican perspective, even as it also insists on the class dimension in its analysis of inequalities, stresses the importance of the entire political community as a locus of identification and of solidarity development. A traditional civic education dominates there, one in which ethnocultural diversity is seen as an obstacle to be overcome in the process of constructing an egalitarian and fraternal society (Mc Andrew et al., 1997).

The perspective of "ethnicity as the production and the prerogative of the individual" also places much importance on schooling in the genesis of the phenomenon. In opposition to the previous current, and in a very different manner than that prevailing in essentialist analysis, it is, nevertheless, first and foremost the cultural production and reproduction function of schooling that is central for the proponents of this approach. Indeed, School, a unique space of intensive socialisation between peers of different origin at an age where identities and attitudes are being formed, is considered a laboratory where ethnic boundaries are being redefined by every generation (Guttman, 1987; Abdallah-Pretceille, 1992). Because the liberty and the moral independence of the subjects must be preserved, the final expected outcome of this contact is not identified a priori. Partisans of such a current neither condone nor condemn either pluralism or assimilation. Their only ideological stance concerns the necessity of interactions, which minimally brings them to endorse common school institutions within which intercultural negotiation can happen.

The way inequalities are considered in this current is influenced by the same paradigm. If they emerge through interactions between students, between students and teachers, or borne by individual speeches, they will need to be addressed by proper pedagogical approaches, but a critical, macro-sociological analysis of the selection function of schooling is largely absent. The liberal-democratic school, which prepares students for the personal search for equilibrium between equality, ethnocultural pluralism, and multiple identities, could well, in the middle term, reproduce socio-economic inequalities between groups as much or even more than the traditional assimilationist school. This result is hardly ever discussed. Moreover, the potentially different consequences of such an individualistic perspective on the cultural reproduction of dominant and dominated groups are generally not presented in this current, which largely inspired the new citizenship education in a pluralistic context paradigm implemented, to various degrees, in the United States, Great Britain, and many Canadian provinces.

What can be learned from this overview of the manner in which different currents, which explain the production of ethnicity from a single perspective, define the mission of schooling in this regard and prioritise different educational objectives? It appears to me that this endeavour clearly illustrates the necessity of adopting the complex and manifold perspective characterised above as "ethnicity as a combined production of the external and internal boundaries and of the mediation of the Subject." Such a wish, largely normative, nevertheless runs the very real risk of remaining a pious sentiment, given the extent of the tasks we need to accomplish in this regard. Indeed, at the theoretical and practical level, this stance appears as uncomfortable when one limits oneself to education as it does when one tries to apply it to society as a whole. Thus, what is at stake is our capacity to bear this discomfort and to accept the fact that we must yet proceed for some time with a certain amount of ambiguity, especially regarding attempts to ascertain the legitimacy of various claims of majority and minority groups regarding school policies and practices.

Various Debates Regarding School Policies and Practices

Recognising that ethnicity is influenced by external and internal factors and that cultural differences exist outside power relationships (even if the latter maintain or transform it), a manifold perspective can simultaneously justify a respect for pluralism and the development of a critical vision of the socio-historic inequalities that partially cause its emergence and continue to contribute to its definition. Depending on the specificity of contexts, it can thus legitimise the interventions designed to maintain minority languages and cultures as much as it does the opposite position; not to prioritise this objective at the expense of equality.

I offer here a somewhat troubling example: the debate surrounding the extent to which Africaners should enjoy specific schooling rights. The new South African government now requires English language classes to be offered to Black or Indian students wishing it in schools and universities currently using the Afrikaans language that this community traditionally controlled (Steyn, 1998). Let us assume, to avoid the confusion of two different debates, that the resistance of the Afrikaner school authorities does not reflect its opposition to desegregation--indeed most of its institutions now generally admit "coloured" students who speak Afrikaans--but reflects a genuine desire to maintain a language and a culture whose survival is far from being ensured. However, based on a common sense ethic, would we not spontaneously consider that the claim of the South African government in favour of equal access to education for the overwhelming majority of the population should, indeed, have priority over the moral right of a specific group to control its own institutions, even if such a choice would have, as a consequence, the loss of linguistic vitality for this community? Obviously, the debate is made easier here by the fact that the educational privileges enjoyed by the Afrikaner community are the result of a heritage of colonialism and oppression and that its status as a minority group, at least politically, is an extremely new phenomenon.

Nevertheless, even in cases much more ambiguous and clearly less polarised, this dilemma clearly illustrates the limits of any rhetoric that would consider the schooling rights of minorities as an absolute. One cannot avoid analysing the position of different groups in the economical, political, and cultural power relationship, nor the consequences for the whole society (notably its more deprived sectors) of specific educational rights that would be granted. In developed societies, this dilemma is usually not debated as a question of principle--in an ideal world everything can be arbitrated--but most often as a question of priority, i.e. how should the state spend its relatively limited resources to ensure a quality education for all? (13)

By the same token (because, contrary to essentialism, it does not consider cultural markers as absolutes), a manifold perspective on ethnicity allows room for a critical questioning of the inequalities within each group, as well as for a consciousness-raising pedagogy that sometimes challenges various elements of the traditional identity. In this regard, we are all well aware of the controversy regarding the wearing of the hi jab which touched, to various extents, nearly all Western societies and, more generally, of claims for differential treatment, often gender-based, pursued in the name of religious particularism. In this area, although national political rhetoric has often been very different (Mc Andrew, 1996), when one analyses the decision effectively adopted by school authorities and sometimes by the courts (e.g., in Great Britain, France, Belgium, Quebec, or Ontario), the guidelines are unambiguous and largely consensual (Bernatchez, 1996; Ciceri, 1999). They clearly establish the obligation of schools to respect the individual rights of the parent or of the student (depending on their age) to express their religious beliefs, including in the public sphere. (14) Nevertheless, nowhere does either the state or the court recognise a collective right to any religious community to impose the respect of its beliefs in public schools, when the practice at stake does not correspond to the wish of the parents or the students themselves. Moreover, the fact that schools should respect the religious beliefs of different groups does not imply that they loses their responsibility to expose all students to critical knowledge, especially while teaching history, citizenship education, or cultural perspectives on religion. Thus, the minority student will be exposed to values differing from those of their community of origin.

Exceptions to this obligation of finding reasonable accommodations for religious practices are also largely consensual: first, any practice that would have a discriminatory impact on the equality of access to education for minority students (for example, girls withdrawn from school for an early marriage); secondly, the necessity of maintaining a school climate exempt from proselytism (which indeed guarantees the freedom of choice of students and parents toward religious practices); and finally, different security rules (for example, it could be acceptable to refuse to allow the wearing of a Sikh turban in a technology workshop requiring the wearing of a safety helmet). Here we can see the practical functioning of a theoretical perspective which recognises the necessity for students belonging to minorities that schooling contribute to the development of their culture, language, and religion, while defining--and sometimes limiting--this obligation through an individual human rights perspective reflecting the importance of the Subject as a mediator between the internal and external boundaries of ethnicity.

However, while valuing the role of the student in the negotiation of ethnic boundaries and attempting to respect as much as possible their choice regarding their cultural formula, a complex analysis of the relationship between education and ethnicity cannot ignore the reality of collective oppression. In the easiest case, a way of reconciling these two realities lies in the introduction of a group perspective in citizenship education programs, which often discusses inequalities only from an individual perspective, as well as innovative approaches of cooperative learning, where pre-existing social status inequalities are at the very heart of the proposed activities (Page, 1993). In other, much more complex cases, one has to take a stand on the priority which should be given to collective and individual rights. The central issue in this regard consists in identifying (based on socio-historical realities and a renewed normative citizenship framework) the situation where radical pluralism (Halstead, 1986)--which, in the education field, implies the control of specific institutions founded by the state--should outweigh the current dominant model of pluralist integration within the common public school. In most Western societies, this dilemma is usually settled by distinguishing national and immigrant minorities.

In the first instance, whether they enjoy legal status or not, the collective nature and the historical roots of their incorporation into the national state has, as a consequence, a wide recognition (whether based on legal grounds or on "common sense" ethics (15) of their collective right to use schooling to foster their cultural reproduction, as does the majority (Kymlicka, 1995). Indeed, when their incorporation into the state has been voluntary, many of these groups made the granting of constitutional protection in matters of education a pre-condition for joining the national state. (16) Even in the case of groups whose minoritisation within a new state was the product of organised violence (slavery, conquest, colonialism--a foundation which gave them very little room to manoeuvre to negotiate specific arrangements in matters of education), cultural claims now enjoy a high degree of normative legitimacy at the international level. This evolution, added to the generalised failure of most school systems toward this clientele, has led a great number of states to look favourably at the public funding of specific institutions controlled and defined by these communities (OSCE, 1999).

This recognition of the right of national minorities to use schooling to ensure the maintenance, reproduction, and development of their group is largely based on the origin of their contact with the majority, using here Schermerhorn's 1970 typology. Nevertheless, it is often strengthened, especially in the case of native minorities, by the argument of the unique character of their contribution to World Heritage. This contribution creates a state obligation to support the survival of some languages and cultures which exist only within a given territory and that would disappear completely without this support.

In the case of immigrant communities, which are usually the result of the migration of individuals who have freely chosen to join a pre-existing political community, most states define their school policy based on individual rights. The place of immigrant heritage languages and cultures within public institutions is thus usually influenced by a variety of factors reflecting these rights, the current state of knowledge regarding the programs most likely to embody them, as well as a well-placed national interest. One can mention, for example, different socio-linguistic and psychological theories regarding the positive impact of heritage language teaching on the mastery of the host language and the development of the child which brought most countries to develop heritage language programs, often going so far as to teach in the heritage language itself. The argument of increased economic competitiveness through multilingualism has also often influenced decision-makers in this regard (Mc Andrew and Ciceri, 2000). In the same perspective, even if the relevancy of separate institutions is sometimes considered favourably for specific immigrant groups, this claim is usually based on equity issues--for example, counteracting school failure or the absence of a genuine public, non-denominational network--and not on the recognition of their collective right to use public funds to ensure cultural reproduction (Mc Andrew, 2001).

Indeed, the debate in this regard is not closed, as exemplified by the La Haye Working Group Report on the Linguistic Rights of Persons Belonging to National Minorities (OSCE, 1999), that often suffers some confusion regarding the extension to immigrant groups of its plea in favour of an increased state obligation toward national minorities. It would certainly be possible, through a complex and situational analysis of specific cases, to reach a different conclusion regarding the respective relevance of radical pluralism and pluralistic integration in education for national and immigrant minorities, but unfortunately it was not the intellectual path followed by the representatives of the working group, whose perspective is strongly limited by its cultural essentialism.

CONCLUSION

It should be obvious by now that many more theoretical reflections, public discussions, and implementation and evaluation of various pedagogical formulas are required to fully actualise the mission of school regarding the construction of ethnic relations in a perspective that stresses that none of the traditional approaches to ethnicity--essentialist, equalitarian, or individualistic--fully covers the reality of the phenomenon. The present article does not claim to be exhaustive. Neither the format nor the state of development of my reflection permit that. Rather I hope that I have illustrated through the variety of examples discussed how the equilibrium that should be reached within the school system between equality, pluralism, and individual rights cannot be defined a priori. It must be analysed in a contextual manner based on the specificity of the dynamics of the ethnic relations which are at stake. Indeed, not only do we, academics or decision-makers, all speak from times and spaces that are both individually and collectively specific to us, but the institutions and the groups that we analyse, as well as the context wherein their relation thrives, are equally marked by the stamp of diversity.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This paper is a revised version of a keynote speech delivered at CESA's Seventeenth Biennial Conference, Ethnicity: Space and Place, held at Banff, Alberta, October 2-5, 2003.

Notes

1. At least, for most Western societies which will be the focus of my analysis. This tendency also probably prevails in developing countries, but, due to my lack of expertise in this regard, I would not dare generalise my comments to such contexts.

2. The concept of "race" is used here in its sociological sense, which recognises the resilience of this constructed reality as a basis for discrimination, and obviously not as recognition of its legitimacy at the scientific level.

3. More recently, contrary to the optimistic expectations of its proponents, one has witnessed that instead of counteracting the salience of regional or national identities, economic and cultural globalisation has tended in the most positive cases to nourish them and, in clearly more problematic situations, to encourage identity politics or integrist movements.

4. In this regard, the Canadian-Quebecois case is largely documented. Although the transformation of the traditional characteristics of the French Canadian society following the Quiet Revolution brought a de facto much higher similarity with the traditional markers of the English Canadian society, this evolution, far from bringing about a process of fusion of both identities, has in fact accentuated their antagonistic nature (Juteau, 1993). This problematic is also well known to analysts of the decolonisation process, who often witness that modernisation brings dominated groups to define their interests as all the more conflicting with coloniser or dominant groups.

5. For example, in Quebec, Neil Bissoondath and Marco Micone are among the most vocal opponents of a communitarian perspective on ethnicity.

6. Both concepts of external and internal boundaries of ethnicity and ethnic allegiance are borrowed from Juteau's (2000) pioneer analysis in this regard.

7. For example, let us recall that Esther Delisle stated, as a conclusion to her doctoral thesis on anti-Semitism in the 1930s in Quebec (which raised controversy for other reasons) that she hoped, "having contributed not only that there would be no more anti-Semitism", a wish easily shared by many, "but also that there would be no more Jews", a much more disturbing statement, although certainly intended by her in a symbolic manner (Delisle, 1992).

8. Ethnicity as the production of the external boundary.

9. Juteau gives an enlightening example in this regard. Native identity in Canada is unthinkable outside the relationship with Whites, but clearly non-reducible to this sole dimension (indeed, Native cultures existed thousands of years before the defining historical event that the arrival of Whites represents).

10. Some could argue, namely the partisans of an "ethic of ambiguity", that this non-determination constitutes, on the contrary, the main appeal for the theory of "ethnicity as the combined production of internal and external boundaries and of the mediation by the Subject", but obviously, the debate in this regard remains open.

11. The importance of this issue is exemplified by the analysis of Franco-Anglo relationships done in Quebec during the "Quiet Revolution".

12. A good example of this perspective is the militant, antiracist pedagogy popular in Great Britain during the 1970s and 1980s, which "Thatcherism" could not completely erase, at least on the ground.

13. This is why, in certain countries, e.g., in France or Great Britain, the increasing tendency is to combine the measures targeting immigrant students and majority students of lower social class. Supplementary resources are granted to schools based on objective indicators of school deprivation and not a priori based on Immigrant presence among their clientele (Van Zanten, 1997).

14. The moment when the rights of the student should outweigh those of his parents varies depending on each context, but generally occurs sometime before the age of legal majority.

15. These often influence as much or even more the definition of public policies.

16. This is the case, among others, for minority Francophones within Canada, but similar realities exist in other countries of the world, such as Belgium and Switzerland (Millian y Massana, 1994).

REFERENCES

Abdallah-Pretceille, M. (1992). Quelle ecole pour quelle integration? Paris: Hachette.

Anderson, D. (1983). Imagined Communities. Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso.

Anderson, A., & Frideres, J. (1981). Ethnicity in Canada: Theoretical Perspectives. Toronto: R. Butterworth and Co.

Barth, F. (1969). Ethnic Groups and Boundaries. Boston: Little, Brown and Co.

Bernatchez, S. (1996). La prise en compte de la diversite religieuse et culturelle au Canada, aux Etats-Unis, en France et en Grande-Bretagne: aspects juridiques. Montreal: CEETUM, Groupe de recherche sur l'ethnicite et l'adaptation au pluralisme en Education (GREAPE).

Bernier, B., & Elbaz, M. (1978). "Presentation". Anthropologie et societes, 2, 1-14.

Berger, P., & Luckman, T. (1967). The Social Construction of Reality. Hardmondsworth, England: Allen Lane, Pergamon Press.

Bourgeault, G., Mc Andrew, M., Gagnon, F., & Page, M. (1995). "L'espace de la diversite culturelle et religieuse a l'ecole dans une democratie de tradition liberale". Revue europeenne des migrations internationales, 11 (3), 79-103.

Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (1974). Schooling in Capitalist America: Educational Reform and the Contradictions of Economic Life. New York: Basic.

Bourhis, R. A., Gagnon, A., & Moise, L. C. (1994) "Discrimination et relations intergroupes". In R. Bourhis & J. J. Leyens, eds., Stereotypes, discrimination et relations intergroupes (pp. 161-200). Liege: Mardaga.

Camilleri, C., Kasterszteyn, J., Lipiansky, E. M., Malewska-Peyre, H., Taboada-Leonetti, I., & Vasquez, A., eds. (1990). Strategies identitaires. Paris: PUF.

Charlot, B. (1989). "L'integration scolaire des jeunes d'origine immigree. Elements de synthese". In B. Lorreyte, ed., Les politiques d'integration des jeunes issus de l'immigration. Paris: CIEMI/L'Harmattan.

Ciceri, C. (1999). Le foulard islamique a l'ecole publique: analyse comparee du debat dans la presse francaise et quebecoise francophone, 1994-1995. Montreal: Immigration et metropoles.

Delisle, E. (1992). Antisemitisme et nationalisme d'extreme droite dans la province de Quebec, 1929-1939. These de doctorat. Quebec: Universite Laval.

Fontaine, L. (1993). Un labyrinthe carre comme un cercle. Survey on the ministere des Communautes culturelles et de l'Immigration and on his real and imagined actors. Montreal: Editions l'Etincelle.

Foundation on Interethnic Relations (1996). The Hague Recommendations Regarding the Educational Rights of National Minorities and Explanatory Note. The Hague.

Freitag, M. (1981). "Theorie marxiste et realite nationale". Pluriel, 26, 3-38.

Giroux, H. (1981). "Hegemony, resistance and the paradox of educational reform". In H. Giroux, A. Penna & W. Pinar, eds., Curriculum and Instruction: Alternatives in Education (pp. 400-425). California: McCutchan.

Grinter, R. (1992). "Multiculturalism or antiracist education? The need to choose". In J. Lynch, C. Modgil & S. Modgil, eds., Cultural Diversity and the Schools, Volume One: Education for Cultural Diversity: Convergence et Divergence (pp. 95-111). London and Washington, DC: Falmer.

Guillaumin, C. (1977). "Race et nature: systemes de marques, idees de groupe naturel et rapports sociaux". Pluriel, 11, 39-55.

Guttman, A. (1987). Democratic Education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Halstead, J. M. (1986). The Case for Muslim Voluntary Aided Schools: Some Philosophical Reflections. London: Islamic Academy.

Hoerder, D. (2000). "Transcultural states, nations and people". In D. Juteau & I. S. Schmitt, eds., The Social Construction of Diversity: Recasting the Master Narrative of Industrial Nations. New York: Berghahn.

Holmes, J. (1981). Comparative Education: Some Considerations of Method. London: George, Allen & Unwin.

Homan, R. (1992). "Separate schools". In J. Lynch, C. Modgil & S. Modgil, eds., Cultural Diversity and the Schools, Volume One: Education for Cultural Diversity: Convergence et Divergence (pp. 59-72). London and Washington, DC: Falmer.

Juteau-Lee, D. (1979). Frontieres ethniques en devenir. Ottawa: Editions de l'Universite d'Ottawa.

Juteau, D. (1993). "The production of the Quebecois nation". Humboldt Journal of Social Relations, 19 (2), 79-108.

Juteau, D. (2000). L'ethnicite et ses frontieres. Montreal: Presses de l'Universite de Montreal.

Krukowski, T. et al. (1969). The Other Ethnic Groups and Education. Study of the Royal Commission on Bilinguism and Biculturalism. Ottawa: Imprimerie de la Reine.

Kymlicka, W. (1995). Multicultural Citizenship. A Liberal History of Minority Rights. Oxford: Clarendon.

Labelle, T. J., & White, P. S. (1980). "Education and multiethnic integration: An intergroup-relations typology". Comparative Education Review, 24 (June), 155-173.

Laperriere, A. (coll. M. D' Khissy, R. Dolce, N. Fleurant & L. Compere) (1991). "De l'indifferenciation a l'Evitement". In F. Ouellet & M. Page, eds., Pluriethnicite, education et societe. Montreal: IQRC

Mc Andrew, M. (2001). Integration des immigrants et diversite ethnoculturelle a l'ecole de demain. Le debat quebecois dans une perspective comparative. Montreal: Presses de l'Universite de Montreal.

Mc Andrew, M. (1996). "Diversite culturelle et religieuse: divergences des rhetoriques, convergences des pratiques?". In F. Gagnon, M. Mc Andrew & M. Page, eds., Pluralisme, citoyennete et education (pp. 287-317). Montreal: L'Harmattan.

Mc Andrew, M., & Ciceri, C. (2000). "L'enseignement des langues d'origine au Canada: realites et debats". Revue europeenne des migrations internationales, 19 (1), 173-194.

Mc Andrew, M., Tessier, C., & Bourgeault, G. (1997). "L'Education a la citoyennete en milieu scolaire au Canada, aux Etats-Unis et en France: des orientations aux realisations". Revue francaise de pedagogie, 121, 57-77.

Millian y Massana (1994). Directios linguisticos yo direction fundamental a la educacion. Un estudio comparado Italia, Belgica, Suiza, Canada y Espana. Generalidad de Catalonya Escoal, d'administracio Publica de Catalionia.

OCDE (1987). L'education multiculturelle, Paris: Centre pour l'innovation et la recherche en Education, Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. The Hague, pp. 66-99.

OSCE (1999). Report on the Linguistic Rights of Persons Belonging to National Minorities in the OSCE Area. Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. High Commissioner on National Minorities. The Hague.

Page, M., Provencher, J., & Ramirez, D. (1993). Courants d'idees actuels en education des clienteles scolaires multiethniques. Working paper prepared for the Conseil superieur de l'education, Quebec: Government of Quebec.

Page, M. (1996). "Citoyennete et pluralisme des valeurs". In F. Gagnon, M. Mc Andrew & M. Page, eds., Pluralisme, citoyennete et education (pp. 165188). Montreal: Editions l'Harmattan.

Probyn, E. (1987). "Bodies and anti-bodies: Feminism and the postmodern". Cultural Studies, 1 (3), 340-360.

Roosens, E. E. (1989). Creating Ethnicity. The Process of Ethnogenesis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Rothschild, J. (1981). Ethnopolitics. New York: Columbia University Press.

Sarup, M. (1988). Post-Structuralism and Post-Modernism. Toronto: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Schnapper, D. (1991). La France de l'integration. Paris: Gallimard.

Schermerhorn, R. A. (1970). Comparative Ethnic Relations. A Framework for Theory Research. New York: Random House.

Smith, A. (1981). The Ethnic Revival. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Steyn, H. J. (1998). The Need of Minority Groups for Unique Educational Provision. Working paper. Potchefstroom, SA: University Potchefstroom.

Taboada-Leonetti, I. (1990). "Strategies identitaires et minorites: le point de vue du sociologue". In C. Camilleri, J. Kasterszteyn, E. M. Lipiansky, H. Malewska-Peyre, I. Taboada-Leonetti & A. Vasquez, eds., Strategies identitaires (pp. 4383). Paris: PUF.

Tajfel, H. (1982). Human Groups and Social Categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Taylor, C. (1992). Multiculturalism and "The Politics of Recognition". Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Touraine, A. (1994). Qu'est-ce que la democratie? Paris: Fayard.

Touraine, A. (1997). Pour vivre ensemble, egaux et differents. Paris: Fayard.

Van den Berghe, P. (1967). Race and Racism: A Comparative Study. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Van Zanten, A. (1997). La scolarisation dans les milieux "difficiles". Politiques, processus et pratiques. Paris: INRP.

Vermeulen, H., & Govers, C. (1996). "Introduction." In H. Vermeulen & C. Govers, eds., The Anthropology of Ethnicity, Beyond Ethnic Groups and Boundaries (pp. 1-11). Amsterdam: Het Spinhuis.

Zylberberg, J. (1994). "Le nationalisme quebecois. De l'ethnoreligion a la religion etatique". La pensee et les hommes, 27, 93-98.

Zylberberg, J. (1995). "Les transactions du sacre". Societes, 1, 9-12.

Marie Mc Andrew is a full Professor in the Department of Education and Administration of Education Studies at the Universite de Montreal. She specializes in the education of minorities and intercultural education. Dr. Mc Andrew also co-ordinates the Research Group on Ethnicity and Adaptation to Pluralism in Education (GREAPE). Her most recent book, "Immigration et diversite l'ecole : le cas quebecois dans une perspective comparative" (Immigration and Diversity in School: The Quebecois Case in a Comparative Perspective), won the 2001 Donner prize, attributed to the year's best book on Canadian public policy. She has been a member of the Intercultural Council of the City of MontrEal since March 24, 2003 and has held the Chair for Ethnic Relations since June l, 2003.