You are on page 1of 7

A Critique of the Relationship Between Universalism, Multiculturalism, and Science Education

Akinlabi Hubbard

Course: ED7701

Assignment u09a1- Learner Diversity and Education Philosophy


Overview

The article chosen for this critique is Multiculturalism, Universalism, and Science Education:

In Search of Common Ground by Harvey Siegel (2002). The purpose of this critique is to assess

the article in terms of how it depicts the connection and perceived misconceptions between

universalism and multiculturalism and how this information can be applied to a science

classroom setting of diverse learners. The critique will point out the philosophical viewpoints

presented by Siegel as he attempts to demonstrate that universalism and multiculturalism share

more aspects than previously thought. The critique will also examine how Siegel treats student

diversity as it applies to science education with the above philosophical concepts in mind.

Discussion of Diversity

The concept of diversity is referenced and explained several times in this article as it relates to

Western Modern Science (or WMS)’s view of science education and scientific thought in

general. Siegel seems to point out in his article that there are more shared aspects between WMS

and “local” or multicultural scientific views despite several attempts by opponents to state the

contrary. Siegel first draws attention and to this when describing the concept of universalism.

Following an elaborate description of the parallels and contrasts between universalism and

realism, Siegel (2002) points out that while science is mediated by “local” schemes, it can be

ultimately delivered to the world. He goes on to refute the denial of the link between culture and

science by opponents (namely Stanley and Brickhouse).(Siegel, 2002) According to Siegel,

“aspects of culture do influence science,” (as stated from Matthews 1994, p.182). He goes on to

describe that universalists do recognize cultural and other social factors that influence science;

they also acknowledge that such factors influence science on a deep level where the actual

research and scientific theory is concerned. While different cultural perspectives do affect how
an experiment might be conducted, there exists an agreement among these perspectives

regarding the overall scientific concept, says Siegel (2002). Continuing his explanation of what

universalism is, Siegel points out the knowledge of the natural world. Ultimately, the goal of

scientific inquiry is to provide knowledge that is theoretical, testable, predictive, revealing, and

explanatory. (Siegel 2002, p.808) He states that the pursuit of such knowledge has led to a

devaluing of other cultural perspectives, particularly those relying on natural observation and

insight. (Siegel 2002, p.808) While he acknowledges this misconception, Siegel goes on to state

that WMS does often provide a means of looking beyond natural observation. (Siegel 2002,

p.808-809) He defends this view by ultimately stating that WMS provides a way to explain

scientific phenomena that is not limited to sensory data such as cultural observations. Siegel

next describes cultural diversity when he defends his statement that WMS is scientifically

superior to “ethnic science.” He first applauds the successes of these ethnic sciences and their

advances. He also states that WMS is “far from perfect.” (Siegel 2008, p.809) He even

advocates the combination of WMS with local sciences to produce a more intricate

understanding of the natural world. It is this type of deep understanding that Siegel states is

necessary to reach a growing variety of students in science education.

Siegel further explains that the embracing of multiculturalism within science education stems

from a universal need to respect students as persons. (Siegel 2002, p.810) He states that while

others identify this as a strictly moral ideal which could hinder scientific advancement, such

morals are indeed as universal in principle as any accepted scientific theory or law. Siegel

reinforces that for a concept such as multiculturalism to be universal is not equivalent to total

acceptance or agreement. The parallel that Siegel identifies between multiculturalism and

universal scientific thought is that consensus is not required for either principle to be help
universally true. The difference lies in how advocates of either principle will defend their views.

Scientific advocates rely almost solely on scientific thought and principle. Advocates for

multiculturalism will be more inclined to take a moral stance on their beliefs. In either case,

Siegel maintains that it is important to keep a universally applied approach to reduce or prevent

instances of biased thought (Siegel 2002).

In response to the question of whether such defenses of multiculturalism or WMS are selfish

in nature, Siegel poses a question of his own: is such self-serving advocacy necessarily a bad

thing? The answer could be yes, but only if the safeguards against bias are not in place when

defending or advocating one’s views. In the case of advocating WMS, such bias on the part of

the advocates could very well lead to a cultural or “local” group feeling mistreated or maligned

against for their scientific beliefs. Siegel also poses one last, unanswered question: of the

imposition of WMS onto other cultures does indeed constitute cultural maltreatment, why is this

a bad thing? The reason this question is unanswered, according to Siegel, is because doing so

would invite bias and reject the universal approach needed to fairly defend either

multiculturalism or WMS.

Analysis of Philosophies

The article speaks mainly from an idealistic point of view, with some significant touches on

realism and indicates a clear distinction between the two. When Siegel first starts out in his

discussion, he provides a lengthy but clear explanation of what universalism is not and is,

respectively. As he is speaking about what makes a law, theory, or belief to be universally

known to man, he is giving an idealistic treatment to this concept. He includes some principles

of realism as well, particularly when he distinguishes that realism need only be moderate rather

than strong. (Siegel 2002, p. 804 and p. 808) This distinction of realism is implied again as
Siegel explains that cultural scientific views and practices may differ from WMS but ultimately

concern the same phenomena and are therefore universally tied to WMS. (Siegel 2002, p.813-

814) Similarly in explaining that the natural world is knowable, Siegel uses characteristics

associated with realism (theories that are testable predictive, revealing, and explanatory). He

continues to express support for the sensory data that can be supplied by cultural or local

observational knowledge. When he begins to describe WMS, the tone makes a smooth transition

into an idealist state of mind. Siegel expresses that WMS provides evidence of scientific

phenomena that could otherwise be unexplainable based on sensory or observational data alone.

He alludes to the idealist view of a beyond physical or metaphysical state of knowing. He also

explains why a combination or blend of idealist and realist views is necessary to reach students

of a variety of backgrounds, including cultural and ethnic.

Implications for Science Education

The article is mainly directed at teachers of the science curriculum and possibly at

practitioners of scientific theory, thought, and research. As such, the targeted educational setting

would be any science classroom. Siegel is defending against the view that WMS does not take

student cultures and values besides Western views into account. (Siegel 2002, p. 814) In the

course of this defense, Siegel implies that by applying WMS to issues, problems, and phenomena

that affect other non-western cultures, there is a universal degree of respct given to those

particular cultures. He points out also that while WMS is criticized for an alleged lack of interest

in views of other cultures, “local” cultures tend not to be totally interested in scientific

occurrences that do not directly affect them. At this point, Siegel states what he has implied

throughout his article; that there is a strong need for science education to find ways of eliciting
cross-cultural interest into different aspects of science. According to Siegel, the best way to

initiate this is to integrate principles of WMS as part of a given culture. In this respect, an

instructor of diverse students in a departmentalized science class would not be “threatening”

their way of life but rather enhancing it. It is here that Siegel and his opponents arrive at a

consensus that the WMS should be used to show students the different cultural views that

continue to influence scientific thought and study.

Conclusion and Recommendations

The overall purpose of this article was to show that, despite a series of misconceptions,

oppositions, and perceived biases, universalism and multiculturalism have more aspects in

common than are acknowledged by advocates of either side. While Siegel admits over-criticism

of opposing views and over-zealous defense of his own views, he does succeed in recognizing

several of the parallels and connections between universalism, WMS, and multiculturalism. The

article also calls attention to a perceived schism between WMS and the various cultural sciences.

This article would best serve any instructor of science curriculum especially those with a diverse

student body. The recommendation here would be to adhere to the universal scientific principles

but to teach them in ways that allow exposure to different cultural view of science.

References:

Siegel, H. (2002). Multiculturalism, Universalism, and Science Education: In Search of


Common Ground. Culture and Comparative Studies, 86, 803-820.

You might also like