Eurocentric rationality: A model deservingly crying for burial?

Francis Musa Boakari1

Introduction

As mankind advances through the present century, there are certain elements in the
world so far constructed, that urgently deserve more critical analyses and very fundamental
decisions. One such factor is knowledge; human forms and levels of knowing that constitute
cognitive relationships to the world and others. These modes and types of relating to reality
have all to do with methods of thinking and conceiving the world and other human beings,
both as individuals and as members of groups. All these factors need to be reanalyzed. Such
reanalysis should be a basic task for all. There are strong indications that the world’s
epistemological frameworks are in need of urgent attention because so far, only one such
perspective has been paid undue reverence. This privileged situation has to be reconsidered
because the world seems poorer as western rationality, Eurocentric epistemology, continues
as the prima Dona of any and all recognized and valued knowledge. Practical decisions seem
called for in order to deal with this situation. Any such decisions would most likely have to
come from some concerned individuals including opinion shapers, social agents, community
leaders, policy makers, and common people enlightened enough to realize that continuing
along the path we have trodden so far would only continue to increase humanity’s loss. The
enlightenment I mention here has much to do with the ability to observe, and then the
courage to decide whether to leave the situation as it is, or to take some definite steps to
help fight against the historical monopoly of western thinking and knowledge forms.
These considerations are important because we are dealing with a subject whose
influences permeate all that we do, and even how what we do is done and evaluated. To a
large extent, how humans relate to knowledge has always been determinant in the lives of
individual persons and their communities. However, this crucial role of knowledge does not
seem to be treated with the care and respect it deserves because many, especially the
powerful and most influential, refuse to think of knowing outside the western cognitive box.
Some are incapable of understanding and appreciating that knowledge can be real and valid

1
É professor da Universidade Federal do Piauí, Campus Teresina. Atualmente desenvolve atividades de docência no
Departamento de Fundamentos da Educação (DEFE) e Programa de Pós-Graduação em Educação (PPGED). Ele é
brasileiro naturalizado, e natural de Serra Leoa, África ocidental.

1
in more ways than one (BOAKARI, 2006; ONFRAY, 1990; SAID, 1993; REAGAN, 2000).
These and related issues make up the reflections I will develop in this text.
Calls like the one made by Timothy Reagan (2000) about non-western
epistemologies go unheeded by many, because the gravity of the situation does not seem to
have impacted today’s everyday realities according to many people, especially opinion
makers, political leaders, and other social movers.

These traditions … will require, and are certainly entitled to, the same
sort of concern that has long been accorded the Western tradition.
Furthermore, given their differences from the Western tradition, it is
essential that we all learn to invite and to listen to the “multiple
voices” and perspectives that can enlighten our understanding of these
traditions, just as we must learn to recognize that different groups
may, as a consequence of their sociocultural contexts and
backgrounds, possess “ways of knowing” that, although different from
our own, may be every bit as valuable and worthwhile as those to
which we are accustomed. (p. 2)

For many people in parts of the world, knowledge is only considered valid and
relevant when basically defined as scientific. In most cases, western-culture-based criteria
are employed in making such a judgment. Nonetheless, it is necessarily crucial to remember
that knowledge is the effect of learning that is socio-culturally determined and collectively
validated. Every human group produces, establishes, validates and maintains knowledge! All
knowledge is related to learning about phenomena in the universe, and since both the act of
learning and its resultant elements are not possible without a specific cultural milieu, it can
be said that what we take as valid form and way of knowing are much more cultural than
most people happen to be aware of (REAGAN, 2000). The way knowledge is thought about,
described, explained, and treated happens to make sense only within a specific context as
determined by time, space and human interest factors. These elements are influenced by
subjectivities that are equally determined by the collective forces of groups and society at
large (DURKHEIM, 1938; 1978; KUHN, 1970; 1977; MBITI, 1970). Thomas Kuhn’s (1970)
arguments about the varying meanings and significance of paradigms should have served as
an important call for more critical examinations of knowledge and its implications,
particularly as these are influenced by historical factors and socio-cultural contexts.
Knowledge can be thought of in different forms. There are various kinds of
knowledge that people in different parts and circumstances produce, learn and respect,
based upon diverse kinds of experiences and social objectives. A common classification of
knowing includes common sense, superstition, popular and scientific knowledge. There are
varying degrees of ethical, philosophical and theological underpinnings to these knowledge

2
categories. While one type or the other may be more universal, each and every kind is
present in some variation in all human communities. Questions related to degrees of
acceptability and respect for this or that kind, are all determined by the characteristics and
experiences of each group. All these forms represent the basic range within which human
knowledge can be appropriately discussed. Such a discussion is never easy, especially if and
when the interests involved are different. Not infrequently, these are directly related to
issues of power and economic privileges (APPLE, 2000). It is of absolute necessity to bear
this in mind if one wants to begin to understand the ramifications of what is considered
knowledge. This applies to knowledge as a process of construction, a human process that
leads to intellectual acquisition, or as an exercise for producing new ways of viewing,
understanding and relating to the universe of which human beings are an integral part. In
the relational dimensions that come into play, those that involve different groups and their
members are very important because these human agents manipulate the factors that
determine which kind of knowledge receives what level of respect. In turn, the levels of
recognition and valorization establish the scope of influence each kind of knowledge form
can exercise within a group or between groups. In the attempt to discuss knowledge within
this setup, culture is not only determinant, but also exercises incalculable influences on the
outcomes of this process. Michael Merry’s (2007) discussion of culture, identity and
schooling in Islamic societies within a philosophical frame that stimulates educating for
cultural coherence and moral grounding demonstrates this point.
Culture can be understood as a composite of those elements that structure the
conceptions, values, symbols, and behavior patterns that any group and its members
consider relevant and continually validate as acts of group valorization and affirmation. In
other terms, it serves as primary conceptual and attitudinal frameworks that undergird
understanding and approaching all social phenomena, among all human groups, at all times,
under reasonably normal circumstances (BOURDIEU, 1984). Taking into consideration that
culture makes us who and what we are, knowledge, when understood as a condition with
intellectual and properties of memory, is always culture-bound, spatially localized and
temporally framed because it is also always guided by interests (APPLE, 1982; 2000;
FREIRE, 1970; 1990; MCLAREN, 2003).
Through acculturation, essentially the learning, assimilation and faithful reproduction
of values, adoption of a defined world vision and fulfillment of relational expectations, a
person becomes an accepted member of a particular community. With the help of this
learning-living-modeling process, each individual becomes an expert, or is expected to
become functional in fulfilling the requirements of a specific culture so as to become an

3
active participant in a cultural group. Each group, over time, develops its culture and
guarantees that its basic elements and underlying philosophy are transmitted from one
generation to the next (FAFUNWA, 1974; MUDIMBE, 1988). The group produces and
reproduces its cultural traits that provide the guiding principles for individual behavior that
helps maintain the equilibrium required for social cohesion. While culture provides the
orientation for the group’s maintenance, it also controls the behaviors of group members,
helping define in-group and non-group members.
In what ways have culture been defined by some scholars? Though essentially
emphasizing some core elements, different scholars tend to emphasize certain aspects of
this human phenomenon since it is so complex, with so many similarities and differences.
For example, while Geert Hofstede (2001) stresses the perspective that culture constructs
mental structures-guidelines like computer programs, Michael Gannon (2004) finds it more
instructive to discuss culture in terms of its metaphoric possibilities from one group to the
other. Max Weber´s insights and the clarifications of neo-Marxists, especially those of the
School of Frankfurt regarding the crucial role of cultural values and perspectives in
determining the course of human groups and history itself (means and forces of production)
should not be forgotten in this discussion.
The most classical of definitions of the concept of culture was offered by Kluckhohn
(1951). According to him, culture

consists in patterned ways of thinking, feeling and reacting, acquired

and transmitted mainly by symbols, constituting the distinctive
achievements of human groups, including their embodiments in
artifacts; the essential core of culture consists of traditional (i.e.
historically derived and selected) ideas and especially their attached
values (KLUCKHOHN, 1951, p. 86).

Along this line of thinking, it is crucial to remember that culture is material and
symbolic. Its material features include the physical objects produced by a group. The
symbolic elements refer to language and all other communicative tools through which
meanings are constructed, organized, thought about, shared with others, and subsequently
added to the cultural heritage and collective memory of the community. For many groups
and communities, the spiritual and supernatural dimensions of the symbolic aspect of this
phenomenon are of special importance (MBITI, 1970). Culture is the soul, spirit and body of
a community; it is the life-force of the group. The level of power that culture exerts over the
individual and the group is overwhelming and ubiquitous (FOUCAULT, 1980; MATTELART,
2005; WEBER, 1974). Paulo Freire (1970; 1972; 1990) has insisted that culture is
fundamentally all that makes us members of society. It also makes human communities

4
possible while guaranteeing the development of everyday activities in such ways that the
future of the group remains a viable objective that all normally fight in favor of. Ideas like
“conscientization”, “liberation”, “participation”, “dialogue”, and “freedom”, dear to Freire,
only make sense in a particular cultural milieu. Culture is way of life, and life’s ways for
each human group and its members who actively engage in intellectual, physical and
spiritual activities to help preserve lifestyles and values (GANNON, 2004).
Just as culture reinvigorates and holds together a group, it also helps exclude
persons defined as non-members; those considered to be different (BOAKARI, 2007).
Especially through the group´s elements of communication, people from other cultural
groups are prevented from participating in its activities and flux of life. If these non-
members attempt to be part of the group, they tend to stand out as sore thumbs, calling
undesired levels of attention to themselves. Such elements as language structure,
vocabularies, food choice and even clothing styles are some of the fundamental
differentiating factors that draw the lines between “us” and “them”, “my group” and “your
group as strangers”. The effectiveness of these demarcating factors can only be underrated
by unquestioning loved ones who never left the confines of their home or family.
Without a specific culture, nobody attains the condition of being member of a
community, a contextually defined group of persons with certain fundamental goals,
interests, norms and expectations on both the collective and individual levels. In other
words, culture makes the person a community member. It is this same culture that forms
and structures the group, making it viable for members to construct and assign meanings to
their realities and the elements therein. This explains the importance of tradition and the
need for the faithful transmission of the values that hold a cultural group together. Along
this same line of reasoning, it becomes easier to understand why it is so difficult for cultural
change to take place. Even if some level of change takes place, significant remnants of the
old culture tend to persist (FAFUNWA, 1974; MAZRUI, 1980). In socio-cultural matters, the
old are still significantly more powerful than the new!

Decolonizing the mind and related issues

Against this background, I posit that there is an ever-growing necessity to decolonize

the mind. By this, I refer to all those consistent and critically conscious efforts to free ones
thinking from being a complete slave to the western scientific paradigm; to stop
unquestionably accepting western frames of reference as the only perspective from which
people, the world they live in and all of the universe can be examined, explained, reviewed

5
and related to. Intellectual decolonization is a de-centering of the mind from a Eurocentric
mind-set to a vision of reality that is more holistic and integrating. For example, African
thinkers like Ali Mazrui (1980), Ngugi Thiong’o (1993), Okot p’Bitek (1967), just to name a
few, have emphasized the role language plays in this dominating process. The situation in
Africa, Latin America and Asia fundamentally demonstrate that even with political liberation,
epistemological colonialism and its overarching consequences do remain. Due to such a
situation, decolonizing knowledge forms and thinking processes have to be conscious
struggles. It is a political choice in the name of a group or groups that continue to be
dominated and excluded (FAFUNWA, 1974; MAZRUI, 1980; MBEBE, 2003; MCLAREN, 2003).
Paulo Freire (1970) in his discussion of a dialogical pedagogy, argues that this mental
transformation is a task for both the dominated and the privileged; it is social in nature.
This intellectual change as paradigm shift is crucial for dealing with our present
challenges while making the best use of the possibilities offered by the 21st century.
Discussions related to critical approaches concerning knowledge will call for more attention
when we realize that the intellectual content of the minds of large segments of people the
world over, is Eurocentric. Western cultural values and perspectives continue to
predominate as more and more people aspire towards them. Judgments of what is rational,
logical, relevant and valuable are based solely upon a western world view that happens to
be unilateral, vertical, dominating and exclusive. In this world view, there is no space for
that which is not like the others as it seeks universalities; uniform and unquestioned
perceptions of phenomena. The quest to universalize one group’s reality and measure all
phenomena against its views-values-practices, is what appeals most to those who aspire
towards Eurocentric rationality (REAGAN, 2000).
Also termed western science, the Eurocentric mode of rationality emphasizes only a
pre-determined and particularized vision of all reality because of the fundamental belief that
its method is always the best and only valid way of observing and making judgments about
the world and society. Based upon this position, arguments are presented to the effect that
all groups should adopt only this way of living, observing, producing and valuing the
universe and all it has to offer. The ultimate goal of this perspective regarding what should
be considered rational is to dominate all other forms of thinking about reality and of living in
the world. This is consistently carried out through various strategies based upon the
manipulation of human relationships with the help of discourse in many situations. There is
the story about how the late President Jomo Kenyatta used to explain how his people lost
their lands. According to him, when the English missionaries arrived in Kenya, they gave out
Bibles and asked the very spiritual Africans to pray with their eyes closed. When the latter

6
finally opened their eyes, they found out that they had the Bibles and the British had their
lands. One can easily imagine how many other African, Asian, and Latin American
communities had very similar experiences! When this strategy did not work, the use of force
in all its forms was the last resort. History tells of how this strategy of the desperate was
consistently applied in Africa, Asia, Latin America; and even in Europe when groups that
were being dealt with did not readily buy into the Eurocentric mode of thinking and being
human beings (BERNAL, 1987; FAFUNWA, 1974; MAZRUI, 1980).
The Eurocentric mode of rationality or

Western science, ontology and epistemology are underpinned by

concepts of universality. Important principles include objectivity,
true/false dichotomies, and notions of Cartesian-Newtonian science
that the nature of “reality” is mechanistic – a series of
compartmentalized systems which together combine to form a whole.
Central to this view is the belief that any of these systems can be
reduced to causally significant parts which can be isolated,
manipulated, altered or reconfigured, and that as long as the output is
consistent with what is expected then the whole remains unaffected.
Thus “reality” becomes in essence only those factors deemed causal to
an outcome; all else is irrelevant. This process appears to have been
particularly successful in medicine. (MORGAN, 2003, p. 38)

This happens to be one way of looking at the world and in defining the parameters
for relational meanings and expectations. It seems unfortunate that this single perspective
continues to exert so much influence in our contemporary world. Nonetheless, the fact that
other cultures adopt their own strategies in approaching the task of constructing and
producing knowledge, raises very serious questions about the continued dominance of the
western paradigm. In more recent times, the conflict between these two approaches to
human knowledge construction and composition has become much more evident because
the hegemony of all western values has been increasingly and more openly questioned. To
argue that western rationality does not have sole proprietary rights over what and how
people know has allowed for a broadening of world views in an ever-increasingly diverse
world where that which is considered different is even more common as that which is
perceived as being the same. Despite this breakthrough in accepting that human beings the
world over do have diverse ways of developing and selecting knowledge contents, the
hegemony of western rationality resists and continues to be influential (BANKS & BANKS,
2001; MATTELART, 2005; p’Bitek, 1971; SAID, 1993; SANTOS & MENESES, 2009). Though
their arguments and positions are framed in different terms and categorical descriptors, the
essence of the positions of those who argue for the need to consider the relevance of other
epistemologies can be reported in these terms

7
 Despite its dynamic and diverse nature, Indigenous thinking is mostly
holistic and contextual. Identity, place, time, knowledge, spirituality,
learning and assessment are all inseparable aspects of each other. By
contrast, Western culture remains largely committed to a
reductionistic, mechanistic worldview in which reality is divisible and
knowable in terms of discrete things. (MORGAN, 2003, p. 44)

These characteristics describe other peoples as well. Similarly, the philosophical

framework within which Indigenous thinkers develop their cognitive operations and
relational responsibilities, are very similar to those of the traditional African and Asian
(BERNAL, 1987). These cultural groups drink from the waters of tradition, cultural
conservation, solidarity, mutuality, and community vitalization as a collective mission. Their
cultural orientations and belief systems are easily noticeable in the conceptions they have
about social and natural phenomena, as well as about the individual and his/her community.
Upon these orientations and systems of belief, the rationalities and epistemological
principles of the members of these groups are founded. The collective meaningfulness of the
group is maintained, strengthened and reproduced with the assistance of these same
elements (MBITI, 1970; SANTOS & MENESES, 2009). On the contrary, Western culture and
its philosophical references do not share these characteristics.

In favor of multiple epistemological perspectives

The sexist treatment of knowledge about/from women and how this adversely affects
Western science, has a place here. The wisdom in the voices of “others” who happen to be
from the West, but are female, is one that deserves special attention. Though the
“speakers” may be western, they happen not to belong. They are not men, heterosexual
and English-speaking! Carol Gilligan (1982), in the name of such persons, wrote

At a time when efforts are being made to eradicate discrimination

between the sexes in the search for social equality and justice, the
differences between the sexes are being rediscovered in the social
sciences. This discovery occurs when theories formerly considered to
be sexually neutral in their scientific objectivity are found instead to
reflect a consistent observational and evaluative bias. Then the
presumed neutrality of science, like that of language itself, gives way
to the recognition that the categories of knowledge are human
constructions. The fascination with point of view that has informed the
fiction of the twentieth century and the corresponding recognition of
the relativity of judgment infuse our scientific understanding as well
when we begin to notice how accustomed we have become to seeing
life through men’s eyes. (p.6)

8
 From the standpoint of a woman, marginalized and neglected, though from the West,
the author here speaks in the name of non-Western cultures as well. This is a cogent call for
the death, maybe not immediately, but at least for the gradual demise of a Western
rationality that devalues, discriminates, and excludes all other epistemological perspectives
(RICOEUR, 1965; SAID, 1978; 1993). Even much older rational frameworks, like the
Oriental and African, do not still receive the recognition they deserve despite their
contributions to human society and peoples’ ways of doing, knowing, behaving and just
being human (BERNAL, 1987; BOAKARI, 2007). There are indications that this call in favor
of burying a cultural monopoly that enslaves the essence of humankind, human rationality,
has been heeded to some extent. Especially since W.W. II, concerns about some form of
global education, understood as an understanding and relevant valorization of peoples and
their varied cultures the world over, have not only continued, but has turned into a hot
topic. The necessity to conceptualize this situation in more practical terms in order to come
up with a more relevant comprehension and consequently, adopt more viable approaches,
seems as urgent as ever. Different movements have been organized for this purpose.
Policies have been implemented with the objective of making the world less divisive and
unequal in the access to material goods-resources and symbolic wealth.
Diversity, in its fullest of meanings as a composition of our differences, has to be
understood as the modern building block for social maintenance and survival of the human
race. There are economic, political, social, environmental, and other advantages that accrue
from utilizing those factors that account for the diversity between and within social groups
in informed and synergistic manners as resources for rethinking values, redefining priorities,
reevaluating responses to problems, rebuilding human communities, and restructuring the
world. For Javier Pérez de Cuéllar (1997) and others responsible for the UNESCO Report on
culture and development argue that diversity should be considered a creative force. Culture
and cultural identity, should be central in public policy. Joel Barker (2000) goes on to argue
that history indicates that humans benefit when they are able to use their differences as
raw material in their relationships with both one another and the natural environment.
According to him, differences that constitute human diversity can be constructively
appropriated as the new wealth of the 21st century. Expectations of interdependency and a
common human destiny continue to characterize the relations between peoples and groups.
Whether in terms of access to material goods, cultural influences, political hegemony or
social cohesion, concerns about how to deal more appropriately with differences have
assumed more central stage in several human activities. These concerns have been

9
addressed under the terms of educating for human understanding and cooperation for the
benefit of everybody in more equitable forms.
Cultural competency will be needed to bring these ideals to fruition. It consists of

a set of attitudes and behaviors that an individual or agency utilizes in

dealing with other individuals and groups from different cultural
backgrounds in order to communicate effectively and move on to
engage in collaborative activities. Cultural competency is built upon
values that accept that cultural differences are a positive, and in
today’s world, they should be used to strengthen interactions between
different peoples. (BOAKARI, 2008, p. 29-30)

Positions in favor of diversity as positive phenomenon for human development, and

cultural competency as strategy for reaching this goal, constitute arguments that
appropriately recognize the connectedness between all peoples. Though more recent in
some sectors, it is crucial to also remember that especially

Since the 1990s, people have been increasingly re-reading the world,
and discussions show discontinuity with earlier traditions. The new
vision is increasingly questioning the feasibility of the conventional
international system of states, and putting more importance on other
actors including transnational companies, international and regional
organizations, non-government agencies, and individual citizens. There
is a growing and complex notion of “the global”. (FUJIKANE, 2003, p.
142)

This same author goes on to point out that

Three points can be identified in this shift in worldviews, which relate

to the revised educational imperatives. There is a stress on (1) the
intensity of interdependence in all aspects of human life; (2) the
changing pattern of actors on the world stage; and (3) the growing
moral sense of “oneness” transcending national borders. (p. 143)

These notions have essentially served as rationale for intercultural communication

and multicultural pedagogies as primary elements that help in understanding global
education. As a movement, education for global understanding and cooperation has had
both curricular and non-scholastic socio-cultural dimensions. It is a call for more meaningful
collaboration between peoples from all societies and groups from all sectors of a particular
society. Terms related to notions of ethical necessity, economic survival, universal
interconnectivity, and human understanding have been added to that of the global. Global
education builds upon such ideals as human interdependency, economic democratization,
universal participation and relevant recognition of all groups in the affairs of the world. As

10
ideals, these go beyond nation states. Though, not easily achievable, they are worth striving
for because the price in failing to do so continues to be too high for all humankind.
As a sociopolitical construction for saving the best of what mankind should be
concerned with, survival of self and preservation of the universe in dignified manners, global
education has had as preceding strategies, “education for international understanding”,
“development education”, “multicultural education”, and “peace education” (FUJIKANE,
2003, p. 134). The first of these techniques was a drive by UNESCO, especially soon after
the last World War, to help prevent another such catastrophe. This organization encouraged
member states to include in their school curriculum pertinent information about other
countries and peoples, and to learn about universal human rights and the United Nations as
ways of knowing more about the international community. These efforts remained strong till
about the end of the 1970’s. Many nation states openly accepted existence of internal and
international barriers to the goals of national and international understanding that would
lead to working as equal partners to fight against discriminations that further fueled
inequalities of every kind. Such recognition was tantamount to surrendering to the ideals of
the former world order that adopted competitive relationships and antagonistic approaches
in the ways in which these political entities related to one another.
The strategy of “development education” took center stage in the 80’s. The
fundamental belief was that what the world needed the most was less socioeconomic
inequality and more progress towards the satisfaction of basic human needs as universally
and quickly as possible. With this spirit, schools and other social-cultural agencies were
encouraged to educate “for the reconstruction of developing countries, which were to be
modernized on western industrialized models” (FUJIKANE, 2003, p. 136). Development
projects and activities abounded especially in the formal education sector. Human
development theorists also helped strengthen the idea that there was only one valid model
for development, and the western industrialized countries already had the key to success in
this question. The main challenge was not education about development, but education that
would bring about development (ISHII, 2001; JOY & KNIEP, 1987). With time, awareness
about problems regarding the meanings, significance and implications of the development
model that was being emphasized put a strain on passive acceptance as most countries had
done. Because this westernized model of human progress had no place for alternative
perspectives that would help examine and relate to development as a complex phenomenon
that needed to be treated in all its complexities, the accommodation with which it had been
treated eroded. Unsatisfactory answers to questions like “whose development”, “how” and

11
“by/for whom”, helped shift the emphases from a dominating western perspective to more
critical considerations that stimulated debates about development at all levels.
Another ideal that occupied central stage in the 80’s decade was the quest for a
better world through peace education. Among advocates and policy makers interested in
educational programs and social change projects, the order of the day was that of change
that would more effectively transform the lives of people no matter the social background
nor cultural grouping they belonged to. Education for peaceful co-existence on a global scale
was believed to be the solution because it had goals that were closely related to those of
the other ideals that envisaged a better world for most human beings. For Fujikane (2003),
“peace education envisaged a society without indirect violence, such as politic or economic
oppression, discrimination, and the destruction of the environment” (p. 138). It is assumed
that learning to prevent more direct forms of violence was part of this framework. Paulo
Freire’s contributions in terms of the necessity to actively participate to prevent oppression
in all forms (FREIRE, 1970; 1972) based upon an individual’s critical awareness of his/her
social history and conditions (conscientização) were instrumental in helping to emphasize
further that education for peace was an attainable dream. Efforts were not economized in
driving home the point that what was needed was “education for peace” and not “education
about peace”. While the former underlined the importance of human agency in the change
process implied by the strategy in question, the latter stressed its content as theoretical and
practical elements involved in educating for peaceful co-existence among peoples.
Peace education was much more social-political education for international
cooperation and more equality among all individuals. Though this could not easily become
part of national school curricula, education for peace has remained a motivational force for
individual advocates and some organized groups that believe that without real positive
peace, mankind would be lost. From merely believing that earlier approaches that had
advocated education for international understanding, such as the emphases moved to the
goal of making it possible for both young and old to actively participate in the worlds in
which they lived. Knowledge and understanding of peace education was necessary; but
what was much more called for was practicing to acquire more critical knowledge of others
in order to use this for better appreciation of their world views, values and practices. For
Hiroko Fujikane (2003), though the “innovative ideas of peace education started to wane in
the late 1980s” (p. 139), it is important to remember that the discourse its advocates
disseminated “derived from the … idea: understanding other people leads to the
construction of a better world” (p. 139). Peter Stearns (2009) makes a similar call,
especially in terms of education for global citizenship as a necessity in higher education.

12
 Even before the 1990’s, the emphases and quest for global understanding, reduction
and subsequent elimination of all forms of discriminatory practices, both between and within
countries, and general collaboration at all levels in diverse areas of human endeavor, had
shifted to multicultural education. As a pedagogical methodology and/or tool for social-
cultural transformation, supporters of multicultural education (formal and non-formal)
essentially advocate practices that respect the inclusion of members of different groups,
especially those from marginalized sectors of society. Members of minority racial/ethnic
groups, women, indigenous, inner city (favelas) and rural communities, the socio-
economically disadvantaged, and others in similar situations need to be fully contemplated
and wholly integrated in all social programs and activities. The advocates of multicultural
education are contrary to ideas, values, attitudes and practices that help the dominant
perpetrate their domination. Their choice is to question all forms of domination and strive to
have them substituted by social and cultural elements that critically represent each society.
For the multiculturalists, this critical posture in dealing with differences between individuals
constitutes the multicultural spirit that ought to permeate everything in every society and
human grouping. Ideas of dialogue as critical exchange in relational contexts established
upon equality between participants are paramount in working with multicultural education.
Noteworthy is that it has gradually become more evident that practitioners do not
seem to have the same understanding about the issues central to education that is
multicultural. Practices believed to be multicultural have been everything but pedagogical
and social activities based upon the inclusive spirit espoused by critical advocates of
multiculturalism in education. Advocates and practitioners have helped disseminate
multicultural principles, ideals and activities that seemed to encourage institutionalized
racisms, masked dominating philosophies that further marginalized minority cultural values,
while stimulating a multicultural discourse that had little to do with using human differences
as building blocks for constructing more humane societies through participatory practices at
all levels. It is even suggested that basic definitions and categorizations in the field of
multicultural education are much more called for today than ever before (HALL & HALL,
1990; OLIVEIRA, 2009; SANTOS, 2003). When examined globally, the question of
multicultural education and the central issues its advocates deal with constitute the dynamic
relationships that involve identities, language, religion, generation, religion, and class which
form an overarching whole that is increasingly becoming an agency for social justice, civic
engagement (BANKS, 2009), and environmental responsibility. Considerations like these
seem to suggest the relevance of a new kind of multicultural education.

13
 The underlying philosophy for a better world through the strategies discussed above
is constructed upon two central pillars: appreciation of the interdependency between
peoples and utilization of this world view to construct “a new world” through universal
participatory practices. Contemporary advocates for a global society that is more human
seem to build their arguments on these same principles. The essential element in all these
consists of understanding one another, not only in terms of overcoming linguistic frontiers,
but much more especially, with regard to understanding and equitably incorporating the
epistemologies and cultural frameworks of others as basic prerequisites for interactively
living in the world with others who could be considered different, but never less human.

Conclusions as introductory observations

The introductory discussion about knowledge and culture tried to demonstrate the
complexity of human society. As phenomena that determine what humans are all about, it
makes sense to continuously strive to understand knowledge and its cultural milieu both
individually and in their interrelationships with other socio-cultural factors in their political,
economic, and historical dimensions. This task has to be considered a responsibility for
everybody, not only for those in academia, but for all groups, even those people considered
simple. This is crucial because as Paul Carr (2009) reminds readers about Whiteness,
synonymous to the Eurocentric vision of the world-universe,

I have written about Whiteness and educational policymaking…which

examines the myriad ways that the power and privilege of White
people is continually reinforced, all the while giving the impression that
the educational system, decision making processes and other
significant institutional concerns are neutral, apolitical and
meritocratic. The subtlety, the nuanced, textured environment, and
the multitude of factors that coalesce to ensure that Whiteness cannot
be questioned are all integral parts of the educational framework
buttressing the debate on what can be discussed, how, where, with
whom, and in what context …(p. 04)

Other authors have presented the same position with arguments that emphasize
various perspectives regarding the same basic questions: What harm does a Eurocentric
epistemology continue to cause? What could be done to bury this world view while
envisaging a more inclusive epistemology? Invariably, such a unifying epistemology that
positively considers the contributions of other frameworks for understanding the world and
integrates those elements that are essential and have room to be enriched by other frames

14
of reference, needs to be encouraged and developed. An integrated epistemology
(synthesizing exercise) that remains potentially integrative (analytical and dialogical) in
order to capture the essence of a complex world seems called for. This position is shared by
others like Apple, Au & Gandin (2009). They tried to clarify the diversity within the critical
traditions in the social sciences in order to drive home the point that no theoretical-
methodological orientation is ever complete by itself. Even the perspectives in the critical
traditions remain in permanent flux because their object of analysis, human society, is also
permanently changing, pushed by different agents and forces.
I argue for a Pedagogy of the different (BOAKARI, 2007). Such a pedagogy is
characterized by the following: open acceptance that cultural differences do exist; and
recognition that though their elimination is not an easy task, those influences that interfere
with more meaningful co-existence and collaboration between different groups should be
controlled. In another text, I drive home this point by discussing “health-culture-
contemporary human (humanizing) society (as constituting) a tripartite system of
complexities in a complex world that can only be explained, reflected upon, understood, and
discussed from perspectives that are also complex” (BOAKARI, 2008, p. 32). Varying
cultural, economic, and political movements, just as diverse tendencies, can compromise to
work together for nobler and collective objectives. It is important to acknowledge that this
kind of conquest will only be possible when there are willing minds and spirits.
Boaventura Santos & Maria Paula Meneses (2009) in an organized book aptly called
Epistemologies do Sul (Epistemologies of the South) in reference and apology to the visions
and interpretations of the world that continue to be marginalized and forgotten. The basic
thesis is that “the South” is not only economically exploited, but also epistemologically
ostracized. Consequently, the peoples in these parts suffer dominating relationships that
politically, culturally, and socially favor “the North” (rich and industrialized Europe and North
America). For Manuel Tavares (2009), the title of the book in question “is a metaphor for
the suffering, exclusion and the silencing of certain peoples and cultures that have been
dominated by capitalism and colonialism throughout History” (p.183). The book’s
contributors basically defend two positions. One relates to the idea that the assassination of
non-western epistemologies facilitates not considering the political and cultural dimensions
of what is defined as knowledge. The other is a defense for the critical adaptation and
incorporation of alternative epistemological perspectives as a crucial step for recuperating
the vital force of an episteme with a more universal representation.
James Banks (2009) and his co-authors support a new kind of multicultural
education, one that is much more inclusive, not only for incorporating local differences in

15
educational programs, but even more so, for critically integrating differentiating factors that
easily go unnoticed. The argument is that even today, more evident differences such as
race/ethnicity, gender, background, language and social conditions, do demand
multicultural perspectives. At the same time, the fact that our diversities continue to expand
and become, as it were more omnipresent indicates that new multicultural and global
pedagogies are called for. What is also important about this realization is that these
pedagogical philosophies-practices call for agents that think differently because their
engagement should vitalize those change processes and programs that are so frequently
mentioned in discourses of society-wide progress and transformations.
Perhaps much more telling because of existing global inequalities and the efforts of
non-governmental and state-supported organizations to help reduce these socio-economic
disparities through collaboration between partner nation states and groups, Linda Chisholm
& Gita Steiner-Khamsi (2009) in the edited volume South-South cooperation in
education & development, try to clarify the central concepts related to the notion of
developing countries helping one another. Apart from critical examinations of the notions of
“center” and “periphery” as constructed phenomena in flux, there is a renewed focus on the
importance of marginalized countries assisting companion societies to improve upon their
citizens’ lives. Even though there are political and economic issues that could derail these
efforts, the fact that such attempts persist evidences alternative ways of looking at
meaningful change. Development does not only have to do with economic change;
transformations that make people more human are also part of this process, and alternative
epistemologies come in the same package as this conception.
It seems reasonable to include here a discussion of the importance of Cultural
Studies. While stressing the importance of all cultures, the other concern of contributors to
this area of academic orientation is a focus on the plurality, flexibility and changing nature
of their object of study, human culture in its richness and complexities. Cultural Studies,
they argue, can only be meaningful as an interdisciplinary approach, and not an ode to
culture for the sake of culture (MATTELART, 2005). Cultural relativism may be important
(BOAKARI, 2008; DILLER & MOULE, 2005), but as Geert Hofstede (2001) has pointed out,

cultural relativism does not imply normlessness for oneself or for one’s
own society. It does call for one to suspend judgment when dealing
with groups or societies different from one’s own. One should think
twice before applying the norms of a given person, group, or society to
another. (p. 15)

16
 The argument continues that any ideas about the other should be based upon very
careful analyses of all available indicators. And in this process, the use of questions about
“the other” is very important as this can supply much needed background information for
enriching relationships built upon an appreciation for cultural relativism.
Ana Luiza Oliveira (2009) reminds us in her discussion of Cultural Studies and formal
education that the former goes beyond mere academic concerns. The groups researchers in
this area study, as well as the emphases they give to the political interests that sustain the
relevance of one culture or the other, make evident their choice to support the marginalized
and give voice to the excluded. Researchers make their socio-cultural orientations and
preferences very evident. They believe that knowing more about those segments of the
human population that few are interested in understanding, would serve the political and
social interests of more people the world over. As such, the methodological approaches
utilized in Cultural Studies stress social involvement and historical experiences. There is an
emphasis on the “pragmatic, strategic, and self-reflexive” (p. 39) characteristics of what is
studied. Cultural Studies that deserve the nomenclature are context-specific activities that
are academic, social, political and cultural. These factors become more relevant when they
help emphasize the urgency for agencies that provoke transformations.
These ideas seem to tie in very well with the ideals set out in the UNESCO
International Education Commission’s Report about Education for the XXI century (DELORS,
2002). According to the members of this highly qualified Commission put together by the
United Nations, perhaps the most influential global body today, the challenges of the
present century seem to be different from what the world has already known. As a result,
the response of this globalized and continuously globalizing world that should measure up to
the challenges we face needs to focus on learning practices that are utilized as stepping
stone for humanizing the lives of people everywhere. This reality should be built upon the
motivation to learn in order to know; learn so as to perform; learn for the purpose of being;
and finally, learn so as to live together with others in harmony. This is a call to make
learning a necessary activity for all, both outside and inside formal educational institutions.
This explains why non-governmental organizations have been engaged in getting the ideas
of the UNESCO Commission as widely disseminated as possible. At the same, this call points
to the dire need for more intercultural communicative engagements.
Communication as meaningful human relationship is vital for the success of these
involvements. Exchanges between persons from varying cultural backgrounds could result in
intercultural relationships that are

17
 only possible when there is communication (exchange of meaningful
symbols between parties who consider each other as equals with
comparable interests and goals), would develop between someone
whose background experiences are very different from another person,
though both could live in the same locality or neighborhood. The
important criteria are that the participants are of different
backgrounds, although they may live in geographical proximity to one
another. (BOAKARI, 2008, p.23)

Natália Ramos (2009) advocates the need for attitudes that help develop
intercultural communication skills. According to her, these “competencies will facilitate”
dialogue between people from different cultural backgrounds, as well as stimulate more
“reciprocal understanding between individuals, groups, and their cultures” (p. 23). Of the
thirteen factors this author lists that help drive home the position advocated in this paper, I
consider the following those that deserve particular attention

- Remember both the arbitrary and relative aspects of every culture,

and develop instruments and attitudes to help understand and accept
other cultural forms, ethnic and cultural groups;
- learn to know one-self. It is important to know and identify one’s
own feelings and attitudes. It is necessary to be aware of one’s
prejudices and attitudes that are both ethnocentric and egocentric.
Consciousness of one’s style of communication is also necessary…;
- avoid offering judgments that can be considered passing, superficial,
and stereotypical. Also prevent ethnocentric attitudes so that one can
place oneself into the other’s situation…;
- promote intercultural strategies and interventions that are
educational-pedagogical…;
- make appropriate use of the means of social communication,
especially the audiovisual; and
- stimulate the learning of foreign languages; respect linguistic
diversity and first languages. (RAMOS, 2009, p. 23-25)

Suggestions like these underline the message that the dire need for more effective
communication (dialogue and understanding) between persons from different cultural
backgrounds and possibly with interests that may be divergent, is part of our contemporary
reality. As such, the issues that are raised and the solutions that are offered go beyond the
domains of schooling. They are the concerns of all persons. Paul Carr (2009) states that
“students are not simply workers; they are also citizens, people who live in communities,
members of society who must reconcile important issues such as the environment, health
care, racism, poverty, war and peace, standards of living, and complicity in the lives of
others in an interdependent way”. (p. 15) Strategies like those suggested here, advocated
as possible solutions, seem to be within the reach of most people all over the world.
Bridging the gap between individuals through cultural appreciation of others’ because
what binds us together is our humanity (Human Culture), seems the most reasonable action

18
to be implemented. Recognizing the multiplicity and values of knowledge types-forms that
exist as natural could serve as the initial step in the struggle to bring about better
understanding in the world. This recognition could preface developing an integrated
epistemological frame that contemplates the richness of the diversity of humankind. The
need to build a world culture that does attend to the human vocation to be HUMAN because
that is the “right thing to do” remains the task at hand during this 21 st century. An
epistemology that provides evidence of its efforts and flexible structure to unite cultures and
is not dependent upon the exclusion of some because of ethnocentric values, should serve
as building block for helping bring human beings closer as collaborators in their efforts to
improve upon their political, social, cultural, economic, and environmental realities. Recent
catastrophes indicate that the die has been cast, and humankind needs to respond urgently.

References

Aldridge, M.Gene. What is the basis of American culture? In Jandt, Fred E. (ed.).
Intercultural communication: a global reader. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2004.
p. 84-99.

Apple, Michael W. Education and power. New York: Routledge, 1982.

---------------. Official knowledge: democratic education in a conservative age. New York:

Routledge, 2000.

--------------, Au, W. & Gandin, L.A. (eds.). Routledge international handbook of

critical education. New York: Routledge, 2009.

Banks, James A. & Banks, Cherry A. Multicultural education: issues and perspectives. 4th
ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 2001.

Banks, James A. The Routledge international companion to multicultural education.

New York: Routledge, 2009.

Barker, A. Joel. Wealth, innovation and diversity: putting our differences to work in the
21st century. St. Paul: Star Thrower Distribution, 2000. (Audiovisual).

Bernal, M. Black Athena: the Afroasiatic roots of classical civilization. Vol. 1: The
fabrication of ancient Greece, 1785-1985. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987.

Boakari, Francis M. Social justice: The dialectics of daily living. Verbum Incarnatum:
Journal of multidisciplinary studies. UIW, San Antonio, Texas, v. 01, n. 01, p. 1-20, 2006.

19
-------------. Pedagogy of the different: The transformative power of social education and
schooling. In: Education review: a journal of book reviews, Feb. 2007. Accessed on
September 20, 2009 at http://edrev.asu.edu/reviews/rev551.htm

-------------. Health-culture and social justice: What challenges do they present in today’s
diverse and globalized world? Verbum Incarnatum: Journal of multidisciplinary studies.
UIW, San Antonio, Texas, v. 3 no. 01, p. 1-36, 2008.

Bourdieu, Pierre. Distinction: a social critique of the judgment of taste. Cambridge:

Harvard University Press, 1984.

Carr, Paul. (2009). The epistemology of Whiteness in a sea of color: Confronting power and
privilege in education. Entrelugares: revista de Sóciopoética e abordagens afins. Vol. 01,
no. 02, p. 1-18, março/agosto, 2009.

Chisholm, Linda & Steiner-Khamsi, Gita (eds.). South-south cooperation in education

and development, New York: Teachers College Press, 2009.

Cuéllar, Javier P. de. Nossa diversidade criadora – relatório da Comissão Mundial de

Cultura e Desenvolvimento - UNESCO. Campinas: Papirus; Brasília, DF: UNESCO, 1997.

Delors, Jacques. Educação: um tesouro a descobrir. São Paulo: Cortez, 2002.

Diller, Jerry V. & Moule, Jean. Cultural competence: a primer for educators. Belmont:
Thomas Wadsworth, 2005.

Durkheim, Emile, (1938). The rules of Sociological Method, New York: The Free Press, 1938.

------------. As regras do método sociológico. In Os pensadores. São Paulo: Editora Abril,

1978.

Fafunwa, A. B. A history of education in Nigeria. London: George Allen & Unwin, 1974.

Foucault, Michel. Power/knowledge. In Gordon, C. (ed.). Selected interviews and other

writings 1972-77. New York: Pantheon, 1980.

Freire, Paulo. Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum, 1970.

------------. Cultural action for freedom. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1972.

-------------. Education for critical consciousness. New York: Continuum, 1990.

Fujikane, Hiroko. Approaches to global education in the United States, the United Kingdom
and Japan. In Bray, Mark (ed.). Comparative education: continuing traditions, new
challenges, and new paradigms. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2003, p. 133-152.

20
Gannon, Martin J. Understanding global cultures: metaphorical journeys through 28
nations, clusters of nations, and continents. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2004.

Gilligan, Carol. In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development.

Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1982.

Hall, Edward & Hall, M. Understanding cultural differences. Yarmouth: Intercultural

Press, 1990.

Hofstede, Geert. Culture’s consequences: comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and

organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2001.

Ishii, Y. Teaching about International Responsibilities: a comparative analysis of the political

construction of Development Education in schools. Comparative Education. v. 37, no. 3,
p. 329-344, 2001.

Jandt, Fred E. (ed.). Intercultural communication: a global reader. Thousand Oaks:

Sage Publications, 2004.

Joy, C. & Kniep, W. M. (eds.). The international development crisis and American
education: challenges, opportunities and instructional strategies. New York: Global
Perspectives in Education, 1987.

Kluckhohn, C. The study of culture. In D. Lerner & H.D. Lassell (eds.). The policy
sciences. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1951, p. 86-101.

Kuhn, Thomas. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press, 1970.

------------. The essential tension: selected studies in scientific tradition and change.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977.

Lincoln, Yvonna S. & Guba, Egon G. Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park: Sage, 1985.

Mattelart, Armand. Diversidade cultural e mundialização. São Paulo: Parábola, 2005.

Mazrui, Ali. The African condition: the Reith Lectures. London: Heinemann, 1980.

Mbebe, A. On the postcolony. Berkeley: Berkeley University of California Press, 2003.

Mbiti, John S. Concepts of God in Africa. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1970.

McLaren, Peter. Life in schools: an introduction to critical pedagogy in the Foundations of

Education. 4th ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 2003.

Merry, Michael S. Culture, identity, and Islamic schooling: a philosophical approach.

New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.

Morgan, Douglas L. Appropriation, appreciation, accommodation: indigenous wisdoms and

knowledges in Higher Education. In Bray, Mark. (Ed.). Comparative education:
Continuing traditions, new challenges, and new paradigms. Boston: Kluwer Academic
Publishers, 2003, p. 35-49.

21
Mudimbe, A. The invention of Africa: gnosis, philosophy, and the order of knowledge.
London: Currey, 1988.

Mullavey-O’Byrne, C. Empathy in cross-cultural communication. In Brislin, Richard W. &

Cushner, K. (eds.) Improving intercultural interactions: modules for cross-cultural
training programs. (Vol. 2). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 1997.

Onfray, M. O ventre dos filósofos. Rio de Janeiro: Rocco, 1990.

Oliveira, Ana Luiza A.R.M. de. Os estudos culturais e a questão da diferença na educação.
Revista Educação em Questão, Natal, v. 34, no. 20, jan/abr, 2009, p. 33-62.

P’Bitek, Okot. Song of Lawino and Song of Ocol. Ibadan: Heinemann, 1967.

--------------. African religions in Western scholarship. Nairobi: East African Literature

Bureau, 1971.

Ramos, Natália. Diversidade cultural, educação e comunicação intercultural – políticas e

estratégias de promoção do diálogo intercultural. Revista Educação em Questão, Natal,
RN, v. 34, no. 20, jan/abr, 2009, p. 09-32.

Reagan, Timothy. Non-Western educational traditions: alternative approaches to

educational thought and practice. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2000.

Ricoeur, Paul. History and truth. Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1965.

Said, Edward. Orientalism. New York: Vintage, 1978.

-------------. Culture and imperialism. New York: Vintage, 1993.

Santos, Boaventura de Sousa. Reconhecer para libertar: os caminhos do cosmopolitismo

multicultural. Rio de Janeiro: Civilização Brasileira, 2003.

Santos, Boaventura de S. & Meneses, Maria Paula. Epistemologias do Sul. Coimbra:

Almedina, 2009.

Stearns, Peter N. Educating global citizens in colleges and universities: challenges

and opportunities. New York: Routledge, 2009.

Tavares, Manuel. Review - Santos, B. de S. & Meneses, M.P., Epistemologias do Sul,

Revista Lusófona de Educação, Lisboa, no. 13, 2009, p. 183-89.

Thiong’o, Ngugi W. Moving the centre: the struggle for cultural freedoms. Portsmouth:
Heinemann, 1993.
Weber, Max. A objetividade do conhecimento nas Ciências e na Política Social.
Lisbon, Portugal: Editora Presença, 1974.

22