Multiculturalism as a theoretical concept and multicultural education as practice have a decades-long history that began as ethnic revitalisation movements characterised by immense ethnic, racial, cultural, social-class and linguistic diversity. These beginning movements that developed in many Western nation-states around the world in the 1960s and 1970s, focused on an approach to school reform aimed at actualising educational equality, improving school achievement, and promoting democracy and a social justice agenda through various educational paradigmatic responses. These responses range from ‘ethnic additive’ to ‘linguistic’, ‘structural’ and ‘antiracist’ (see Banks 2011). Though these goals have at times in the past (and in the present) been overtly and tacitly fuelled by ideologies supporting assimilationist outcomes, multiculturalism and multicultural education have increasingly moved toward a more holistic view framed by a global component. Interculturalism shares similarities with multiculturalism that some argue do not warrant sufficient distinction from multiculturalism (Kymlicka 2012; Meer and Modood 2012) while others suggest that there are particular emphases that are not necessarily prominent in multiculturalism such as an ‘emphasis on the importance of dialogue and communication among groups’ (Levey 2012, 218). Other research focuses on fostering productive and positive interactions between majority and minority ethnic and cultural groups by developing intercultural competencies (Barett et al. 2014). Although there are numerous debates about the differences and similarities between interculturalism and multiculturalism, Kymlicka (2012, 215) contends that it is worth engaging with how interculturalism is currently being used by governments. This is particularly salient in Europe, as it is used as a ‘compelling political narrative that can potentially sustain a flagging commitment to diversity’ in the face of a ‘backlash’ against multiculturalism (Vertovec and Wessendorf 2010), even if it is not always made clear in what ways interculturalism can do this compared to multiculturalism. In the context of education, a similar lack of consensus exists around distinctions between multicultural and intercultural education. Coulby (2006, 247) argues that critiques levied at multicultural education such as not ‘directly address[ing] issues of racism... and offer[ing] only a tokenistic understanding of non-dominant knowledge,’ denigrating cultural difference to the study of samosas, saris and steel bands (Mullard 1980) are not sufficiently addressed with a shift toward

中文翻译：

---

人种学和多元文化/跨文化教育：发现无法预见的复杂性，做法和意想不到的结果

多元文化主义作为一种理论概念，而多元文化教育作为一种实践，则已有数十年的历史，始于以民族，种族，文化，社会阶级和语言多样性为特征的民族复兴运动。这些始于1960年代和1970年代的西方民族国家的初期运动集中于学校改革的方法，旨在实现教育平等，改善学校成绩，并通过各种教育范式对策促进民主和社会正义议程。这些回应的范围从“民族相加”到“语言”，“结构”和“反种族主义”（请参阅​​Banks 2011）。尽管这些目标在过去（和现在）有时会被支持同化结果的意识形态公开和默示支持，多元文化主义和多元文化教育已越来越趋向于由全球组成部分所构成的更加整体的观点。跨文化主义与多元文化主义具有相似之处，有人认为并不能保证与多元文化主义有足够的区别（Kymlicka，2012； Meer和Modood，2012），而另一些人则指出，在多元文化主义中，并不一定存在突出的特定重点，例如“强调对话和交流的重要性”。群体之间的沟通”（Levey 2012，第218页）。其他研究侧重于通过发展跨文化能力来促进多数与少数族裔和文化群体之间的生产性和积极互动（Barett等，2014）。尽管关于跨文化主义与多元文化主义之间的异同有很多争论，但Kymlicka（2012，215）认为，值得与政府目前如何使用跨文化主义进行互动。这在欧洲尤为突出，因为它在面对多元文化主义的“强烈反对”时被用作“令人信服的政治叙事，有可能维持对多样性的旗号”（Vertovec and Wessendorf 2010），即使并非总是如此。与多元文化主义相比，跨文化主义可以通过哪些方式做到这一点。在教育方面，围绕多元文化教育与跨文化教育之间的区别存在类似的缺乏共识。库尔比（Coulby（2006，247））认为，对多元文化教育的批判，例如不“直接解决种族主义问题……而仅对非主流知识提供象征性理解”，从而削弱了研究的文化差异。萨摩萨斯