Race, Diversity, and Curriculum in the Era of Globalization

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size

Notes

Notes

1 This proposal becomes even more compelling when globalization is understood as an ongoing historical process. According to Held and McGrew (2002), globalization “denotes the expanding scale, growing magnitude, speeding up and deepening impact of transcontinental flows and patterns of social interaction” (p. 1), a process that has been integrating the world since the advent of modernity. Robertson (2003) further clarifies that the current wave of globalization diverges from previous waves in that there is now a general awareness about—and a greater ability to engage—actions that are global in scale as opposed to merely international. Finally, Beck (2000) underscores both the impetus and impact of neoliberalism behind today’s economic globalization.

2 Although Ainscow does not attempt to explain his preference for using the term “inclusion” per se (as opposed to, say, integration), his own insistence, and that of most researchers and educators of differently abled learners, in using this term is revealing to the extent that its obverse—exclusion—becomes most evident when contemplated through what is potentially the most extreme case of exclusion: that suffered by differently abled youth (especially those of ethnic minority backgrounds). The dual, even multiple, nature of this exclusion, which is at once symbolic and physical, leads us to contemplate inclusion as perhaps the most urgent call for, and precondition to, attaining a more equitable and just redistribution of power and participation among diverse groups; for it is only when all members of society are finally “included” in the active realm of public life that deeper levels of multilateral integration, or harmonious heterogeneity, may begin to be achieved. Ultimately, then, inclusion in diversity speaks most directly to power (as Ladson -Billings and Brown, and Nieto et al. maintain), even as Ainscow prefers to accent access, participation, and opportunity. It does mark a shift in focus away from active subjectivities, identities, and affiliation of youth (as in previous chapters), and towards the educational institution itself and its agents, who hold the power to exclude such subjectivities.