This article was downloaded by: [Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile]

On: 10 August 2015, At: 13:31

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place,
London, SW1P 1WG

Religious Education: The official journal of the

Religious Education Association
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/urea20

GENDER AND THE LIMITS OF INCLUSION: SHOULD

MULTTCULTURALISM “INCLUDE” FUNDAMENTALISMS?
a
Jeffrey Ayala Milligan
a
University of Nebraska
Published online: 10 Jul 2006.

To cite this article: Jeffrey Ayala Milligan (1999) GENDER AND THE LIMITS OF INCLUSION: SHOULD MULTTCULTURALISM
“INCLUDE” FUNDAMENTALISMS?, Religious Education: The official journal of the Religious Education Association, 94:1, 74-83,
DOI: 10.1080/0034408990940106

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0034408990940106

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 FORUM

Ronnie Prevost
Associate Editor
Downloaded by [Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile] at 13:31 10 August 2015

Gender and the Limits of Inclusion:

Should Multiculturalism "Include" Fundamentalisms?
Jeffrey Ayala Milligan

Response to Jeffrey Milligan,

"Gender and the Limits of Inclusion"
Greer Anne Wenh-In Ng

Whatever Happened to Catholic Philosophy of Education?

John L. Elias

Catholic Ambiguity or Sectarian Certainty?

Padraic O'Hare
 GENDER AND THE LIMITS OF INCLUSION:
SHOULD MULTTCULTURALISM
"INCLUDE" FUNDAMENTALISMS?

Jeffrey Ayala Milligan

University of Nebraska
Downloaded by [Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile] at 13:31 10 August 2015

Abstract
A conceptual analysis of multiculturalism and religious fundamen-
talism suggests that fundamentalism is a cultural expression which
should be "included" within the fabric of the cultural diversity the
multicultural movement celebrates. Doing so, however, reveals a con-
tradiction between multiculturalism's inclusion and empowerment
agendas, since fundamentalists' values regarding gender often di-
rectly contradict those of the multicultural movement. This dilemma
suggests the need for an alternative conceptual basis for multicul-
turalism which can respect differences without turning a blind eye to
oppression.

INTRODUCTION
Multiculturalism and religious fundamentalism are two of the
most powerful social movements in the United States today. Their
impact is felt in our schools, churches, and families as well as in gov-
ernment and business (Marty and Appleby 1992; Aufderheide 1992;
Caplan 1987). Though a great deal has been written on both subjects,
little attention has been paid to the relationship between these two
movements, the assumption being that they are separate, even con-
tradictory, social phenomena. I will suggest that such an assumption is
at least partly invalid, that multiculturalism and the rise of religious
fundamentalism are intimately bound in important ways, and that the
relationship poses dilemmas glossed over by much of the public and
scholarly rhetoric on diversity and inclusion. These are dilemmas that
we who care about the multicultural agenda ignore at our peril.

Religious Education Vol 94 No 1 Winter 1999

75
 76 GENDER AND THE LIMITS OF INCLUSION

WHAT IS MULTICULTURALISM?
A review of the literature advocating a multicultural approach
to education suggests at least two concepts at the core of multicul-
turalism: inclusion (Reed 1988; Dasenbrock 1992; Gitlin 1992; Martin
1992; McCarthy 1993) and empowerment (Sleeter 1991; Weis 1991;
Banks 1991; Bell 1991; Ellsworth 1989; McCarthy 1993). Much of this
literature has focused on the mechanisms by which education has per-
Downloaded by [Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile] at 13:31 10 August 2015

petuated cultural domination and the effects on women and minority

students. Other scholars have pointed to the need for dialogue on how
the multicultural agenda can expand to include all social groups, in-
cluding traditionally dominant groups (Sleeter 1991,1993; McCarthy
and Crichlow 1993).
According to Sleeter (1991) and McCarthy (1993), multicultural-
ism in the past two decades has evolved to include transformative
social agendas, which recognize that the empowerment of marginal-
ized groups is a necessary corequisite of meaningful inclusion. These
agendas have theoretical roots in a corpus of postmodernist and post-
colonial literature, which deconstructs the traditional conceptions of
knowledge and power employed by dominant social groups to mar-
ginalize and oppress women and minorities (Roman 1993). This post-
modernist and postcolonial deconstruction project has created non-
absolutist conceptions of power, knowledge, culture, and identity.
These conceptions lie at the heart of multiculturalism and constitute,
for some educators and theologians, the sine qua non of interreli-
gious and secular-religious dialogue (Dewey 1934; Swidler 1990).

MULTICULTURALISM AND RELIGIOUS DIFFERENCE

In this context of relativistic postmodern conceptions of truth and
multiculturalism s inclusion agenda, some scholars have begun to re-
examine long-held assumptions about the relationship between edu-
cation and religion (Noddings 1993; Yob 1995; Laird 1995). While the
religious right has long asserted the need to "put God back in the
American classroom," we now see suggestions from the opposite end
of the political and intellectual spectrum that we make "spiritual edu-
cation" part of schooling (Yob 1995). What argument does religion, or
religious groups—fundamentalists, for example—have to claim space
in U.S. schools? Do multiculturalism's inclusion and empowerment
agendas logically extend to religious fundamentalisms that claim
 JEFFREY AYALA MILLIGAN 77

marginalization? What is the nature of the relationship between

multiculturalism and religious fundamentalism?
The popular perception of religious fundamentalism is that of
an unchanged, traditional expression of religious faith with deep his-
torical roots. To a limited extent this perception is true. Elements of
Christian fundamentalist doctrine in the United States, for instance,
can be traced as far back as the Reformation, and fundamentalists are
fond of portraying their expression of faith as a return to the "true re-
Downloaded by [Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile] at 13:31 10 August 2015

ligion" (Marty and Appleby 1992). This perception of fundamental-

ism, however, is also largely erroneous. The first use of the term^un-
damentalism in the context used here dates only to the early dec-
ades of this century, and the idealized past to which fundamentalists
claim they are attempting to return is primarily a myth (Caplan 1987,
20; Barr 1984). In fact, fundamentalism is a relatively recent phe-
nomenon, and its rise to social and political prominence coincides
to a significant extent with the multicultural movement (Marty and
Appleby 1992, 30; Caplan 1987, 5). Scholarly research on religious
fundamentalism clearly describes the movement as a reaction to mo-
dernity, that complex of philosophical, scientific, and social changes
which has challenged religious doctrine since the Enlightenment
(Marty and Appleby 1992,10). I believe that multiculturalism is also
in part a critique of modernity. The two movements are contradictory
reactions to modernity and, since they are both elements of the same
modernity, they react to some degree against one another. Thus multi-
culturalism and religious fundamentalism are intimately related.
Does this relationship extend beyond a shared status as products
of the same social evolutionary processes? What challenges does the
relationship between fundamentalism and multiculturalism present
to the multicultural agenda and its promotion of inclusion and re-
spect for cultural diversity? If culture is defined as a cumulative and
transgenerational set of "learned patterns of thought and behavior
characteristic of a population or society" (Kessler 1974), are religious
fundamentalisms cultures in their own right, with legitimate claims to
space within the multicultural agenda?
The characteristics of religious fundamentalisms (not just Chris-
tian) suggest that they do indeed constitute subcultures as distinct as
many cultural expressions "included" in the multicultural movement.
Barr (1977) maintains that fundamentalisms are characterized (1) by
their veneration of a central symbol, usually, but not always, a text
or texts; (2) by a resistance to change based on the sense of a "lost"
 78 GENDER AND THE LIMITS OF INCLUSION

tradition; (3) by a belief that the truth is known, leaving no room for
doubt or discussion; (4) by a militancy directed primarily against non-
believers and those adhering to rival variants of the same faith; (5) by
a cohesiveness and unity made possible by a simplicity of ideas; and
(6) by the importance of known leaders, who are perceived as hav-
ing worked out answers to the issues faced by the group and who
share primary importance with the central text. Models of social rela-
tionships are derived directly from conceptions of truth, knowledge,
Downloaded by [Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile] at 13:31 10 August 2015

and history as revealed in these sacred texts. Thus paternalistic rela-

tionships among men, women, and children within the ideal family
and society are modeled on those between man and his God (Hard-
acre 1992, 129). In addition, according to Caplan (1987), Christian
fundamentalism in the United States has relatively specific regional
roots in the South and is largely white and Protestant (Bruce 1987,6).
Clearly, fundamentalists define themselves by religious, historical,
and epistemological criteria that constitute distinct, cumulative, trans-
generational "learned patterns of thought and behavior" and that
can have distinct ethnic and geographical origins (Kessler 1974, 9;
Bruce 1987, 186). Though they are rarely, if ever, recognized as such
in the multicultural discourse in the United States, the evidence sug-
gests that fundamentalisms are as distinct from other social groups in
society as those groups generally acknowledged as separate cultures
by the multicultural movement.

GENDER, EMPOWERMENT,
AND RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISM
What would happen were we to legitimize religious fundamental-
ism s place within the multicultural agenda? One clear point of con-
tention between the two movements centers on the issue of gender.
Within fundamentalist ideology the role of women is more thoroughly
elaborated than the role of men. This ideology maintains that home
and family constitutes the natural place for women, and that they
are required by God to submit to the authority of husbands and fa-
thers. The woman's purpose is to provide a haven for her family by
serving husband and children, thus meeting her needs through them.
Consequently, she need not leave home to fulfill her role (Hardacre
1992, 132). Women are the embodiment and carriers of tradition;
therefore, the strict definition of their proper role is essential to the
maintenance of the divinely ordained patriarchal family and social
 JEFFEEYAYALAMILLIGAN 79

structure (Hardacre 1992,139). This definition of the role of women

is buttressed by appeals to scripture and idealized examples of femi-
ninity taken from the corpus of myth surrounding the fundamental-
ists' conception of their history (Marty and Appleby 1992, 78; Haeri
1992,181). Among Christian fundamentalists, the trend in relations
between men and women in contemporary society is seen as evi-
dence of a declining moral order which threatens the authority of the
father, the integrity of the family, and, since this conception of family
Downloaded by [Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile] at 13:31 10 August 2015

is built upon a divinely sanctioned model, the foundations of reli-

gious authority. Feminism is seen as one of the primary causes of the
breakdown of the family, leading many fundamentalists not only to
attack social changes designed to promote equality between men and
women, but aggressively to reassert their own views of the proper
role of women (Marty and Appleby 1992, 78).
The consequences of such an ideology for modern women are
obvious. However, the complications presented by fundamentalism s
inclusion as a culture within the fabric of diversity celebrated within
the multicultural movement are not so obvious. These complications
cannot be ignored, as they highlight a dilemma that undermines
multiculturalism's promotion of inclusion and empowerment. In what
follows, I will explore two cases which illustrate the dilemma fun-
damentalist ideology regarding gender presents for multiculturalism.

THE PRINCESS AND THE PEASANT:

THE CASES OF KARTTNI AND NANAYAON
Creative and popular literature is replete with examples of patri-
archal tradition thwarting the aspirations of women. Raden Adjeng
Kartini's Letters of a Javanese Princess (1965) provides but one ex-
ample. Written between 1900 and 1904, these letters chronicle Kar-
tini's growing relationship with the Dutch feminists of her day, her
courageous resistance to the restrictions placed on her by Islamic and
Javanese tradition, and her ultimately futile attempts to secure access
to education for herself and other Javanese women. She was pas-
sionately devoted to the transformation of Javanese society through
an education for girls which would secure their independence from
men and undermine the practice of polygamy. However, faced with
the active resistance of a culture which demanded that she marry
and have children, the limited opportunities for Javanese under
the colonial regime, and the passive resistance of her father, Kartinis
 80 GENDER AND THE LIMITS OF INCLUSION

ambitions remained unrealized. She died, in childbirth, at the age of

twenty-five (Kartini 1965).
More than eighty years later, a personal experience provided a
mirror image of Kartini's predicament. While serving as a Peace
Corps volunteer in the southern Philippines, I met a young Muslim
woman who served as a Maranao language instructor for our pre-
service training. After training, Nanayaon planned to return to Lanao
to make plans to join a young man in Manila whom she hoped to
Downloaded by [Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile] at 13:31 10 August 2015

marry. like Kartini, however, Nanayaon's plans were thwarted. Only a

few weeks later, I met her in the lobby of a local hotel, the unwilling
new bride of a middle-aged Dutch man who had converted to Islam
and was then residing in Saudi Arabia. Coming to the Philippines on a
two-week vacation to search for a wife, he had somehow found Nana-
yaon, paid a rather large dowry to her family, married, and was then
on his way back to Saudi Arabia.
Exposed by her education, popular culture, and Western acquain-
tances to alternative conceptions of the proper roles and behavior
of women, Nanayaon's predicament was clearly painful for her. For
her American friends this occurrence was a clearly defined moment
of culture shock. Though arranged marriages are common through-
out the world and are by no means necessarily more oppressive than
Western marriages, Nanayaon's case looked uncomfortably like a
simple commercial transaction.
Of what relevance are these stories to the multicultural movement
in U.S. education? Kartini and Nanayaon personify the dilemma
which fundamentalist culture poses for multiculturalism. If we hold
to the belief that we cannot apply our own culture-bound moral stan-
dards to another culture's actions, then we have no right to ques-
tion the morality of Kartini's and Nanayaon's subordination. To do
so would be to engage in a form of cultural imperialism. But if we hold
to the belief that the empowerment of women is an integral part
of multiculturalism, then we are bound to question the morality of
their subordination. To do otherwise would be to acquiesce in a kind
of gender imperialism, leaving women to such culturally sanctioned
practices as clitoridectomies and suttee in the name of "respect"
for diversity. If we are willing to excuse this apparent oppression of
women on these grounds, are we not potentially in the position of ex-
cusing other forms of oppression? And if we refuse to criticize certain
cultural practices of foreign and "exotic" peoples like the Javanese or
Maranao, then should we not show the same consideration for funda-
mentalist religious culture in our own country?
 JEFFREY AYALAMILLIGAN 81

Leslie Roman (1993) addresses a dilemma closely related to the

dilemma discussed here when she explores the implications of post-
modern relativism for the ethical claims of feminist political action.
How do we respond to claims of systemic oppression by groups oc-
cupying "relatively privileged positions"—white Christian funda-
mentalists, for example? Her provisional answer is what she calls
"critical realism," which avoids essentialism and relativism while "dis-
tinguishing among adequate and inadequate claims to be a member
Downloaded by [Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile] at 13:31 10 August 2015

of a systemically oppressed group" by "speaking with rather than for"

oppressed groups "whether or not members of such groups are physi-
cally present in the classroom" (82). Yet Roman's concept of "speak-
ing with" is clearly meant to preserve the possibility of advocacy by a
teacher on behalf of the oppressed. It is less clear how "speaking with"
would entertain the possible legitimacy of fundamentalists' claims of
oppression when they need not be present to engage in such dialogue.
Would not such dialogue require their presence, their inclusion, in the
curriculum of public education?

CONCLUSION
In this discussion I have not attempted to offer definitive answers
to the dilemma of inclusion-versus-empowerment that a recognition
of fundamentalist culture as culture poses for multiculturalism. Nor
have I attempted to identify all dilemmas, contradictions, and co-
nundrums inherent in that vast, ill-defined movement we call multi-
culturalism; there are clearly others. What I have attempted to do is
raise points for further consideration. The first is the idea that cultures
are not sacrosanct, that there are basic human concerns that chal-
lenge our respect for cultural diversity and our postmodern reluc-
tance to judge from what we now recognize are fragmented, indi-
vidualistic subject positions. The second is the possibility—indeed the
likelihood—that equity and empowerment for oppressed groups will
look very different in other cultures, and that we must be willing to
entertain the possibility that what looks oppressive may not be, while
at the same time not abdicating our responsibility to criticize and
resist oppression wherever we find it. A third point that deserves fur-
ther consideration is the dubious utility of the word diversity as a
conceptual tool for dealing with the social fact of cultural diversity.
It is, after all, simply a descriptive term which does not suggest what
ought to be done in response to current social realities. The funda-
mentalist challenge to the multicultural agenda also brings into ques-
 82 GENDER AND THE LIMITS OF INCLUSION

tion the usefulness of concepts such as inclusion and empowerment as

bases for the multicultural movement's response to diversity in the
United States. After all, how can multiculturalism include fundamen-
talism on the basis of respect for its cultural integrity while promoting
an empowerment which undermines an integral part of that same
culture? Yet how can it ignore fundamentalist culture without under-
mining its own commitment to respect for diversity and inclusion?
Perhaps it is time to seek a new conceptual basis for multiculturalism,
Downloaded by [Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile] at 13:31 10 August 2015

one that moves beyond diversity, inclusion, and empowerment, that

can simultaneously bridge and respect our differences without for-
getting the subordinated individuals and groups that make up every
culture.

Jeffrey Ayala Milligan is assistant professor at the University of Nebraska's

Center for Curriculum and Instruction, Teachers College, in Lincoln.

REFERENCES
Aufderheide, P., ed. 1992. Beyond P.C.: Toward a politics of understanding. St. Paul,
Minn.: Graywolf Press.
Banks, J. 1991. A curriculum for empowerment, action, and change. Pp. 125-42 in Sleeter
1991.
Barr, J. 1977. Fundamentalism. Philadelphia: Westminster Press.
. 1984. Beyond Fundamentalism. Philadelphia: Westminster Press.
Bell, L. 1991. Changing our ideas about ourselves: Group consciousness raising with ele-
mentary girls as a means to empowerment. Pp. 229-50 in Sleeter 1991.
Bruce, S. 1987. The moral majority: The politics of fundamentlism in secular society.
Pp. 177-94 in Caplan 1987.
Caplan, L., ed. 1987. Studies in religious fundamentalism. Albany. State University of New
York Press.
Dasenbrock, R. 1992. The multicultural west. Pp. 201-11 in Aufderheide 1992.
Dewey, J. 1934. A common faith. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Ellsworth, E. 1989. Why doesn't this feel empowering? Working through the repressive
myths of critical pedagogy. Harvard Education Review 3 (2): 297-324.
Gitlin, T. 1992. On the virtues of a loose canon. Pp. 185-90 in Aufderheide 1992.
Haeri, S. 1992. Obedience versus autonomy: Women and fundamentalism in Iran and
Pakistan. In Marty and Appleby 1992.
Hardacre, H. 1992. The impact of fundamentalisms on women, the family, and interper-
sonal relations. In Marty and Appleby 1992.
Kartini, R. 1965. Letters of a Javanese princess. New York W. W. Norton.
Kessler, E. 1974. Anthropology: The humanizing process. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Laird, S. 1995. Religious freedom for schoolchildren? In Philosophy of education, 1994,
edited by Michael J. Katz. Urbana, Ill.: Philosophy of Education Society.
Martin, J. 1992. The schoolhome: Rethinking schools for changing families. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
Marty, M., and R. Scott Appleby. 1992. The glory and the power: The fundamentalist chal-
lenge to the modem world. Boston: Beacon Press.
 JEFFREY AYALA MILLIGAN 83

McCarthy, C. 1993. After the canon: Knowledge and ideological representation in the
multicultural discourse on curriculum reform. Pp. 289-305 in McCarthy and Crich-
Iow 1993.
McCarthy, C., and Warren Crichlow, eds. 1993. Race, identity, and representation in edu-
cation. New York: Routledge.
Noddings, N. 1993. Educating for intelligent belief or unbelief. New York: Teachers Col-
lege Press.
Reed, I. 1988. America: The multinational society. Pp. 155-60 in The Graywolf annual 5:
Multi-cultural literacy, edited by Rick Simonson and Scott Walker. St. Paul, Minn.:
Graywolf Press.
Roman, L. 1993. White is a color! White defensiveness, postmodernism, and anti-racist
Downloaded by [Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile] at 13:31 10 August 2015

pedagogy. Pp. 71-88 in McCarthy and Crichlow 1993.

Sleeter, C . 1993. How white teachers construct race. Pp. 157-71 in McCarthy and
Crichlow 1993.
, ed. 1991. Empowerment through multicultural education. Albany: State Univer-
sity of New York Press.
Swidler, L. 1990. After the absolute: The dialogical future of religious reflection. Min-
neapolis: Fortress Press.
Weis, L. 1991. Disempowering white working-class females: The role of the high school.
Pp. 95-124 in Sleeter 1991.
Yob, I. 1995. Spiritual education: A public school dialogue with religious interpretation. In
Philosophy of education, 1994, edited by Michael J. Kate. Urbana, Ill.: Philosophy of
Education Society.