‘And’ thus splits up the ambiguous starting unity, introduces into it the difference between ideology and science ... since the gesture of distinguishing ‘mere ideology’ from ‘reality’ implies the epistemologically untenable ‘God's view’, that is, access to objective reality as it ‘truly is’... [And] what emerges via distortions of the accurate representation of reality is the real -- that is, the trauma around which social reality is structured. (Zizek, 2000, pp. 24-5, original emphasis)

This paper starts by acknowledging that pragmatists agree with multiculturalists when they assert that individuals are grounded in local communities that give rise to different ways of seeing the world. Where pragmatists part company with many multiculturalists, however, is in our willingness to carry through with the logic entailed in this claim. When pragmatists assert that all ways of knowing are situated, we mean fully situated. In our view, multiculturalists can ask their auditors to celebrate or tolerate differences, but they cannot claim to be multicultural (in the strongest sense of that word) because they necessarily read, write and think from a set of provincial assumptions not global ones. The conclusion a pragmatist draws from this is simple: Multicultural discourse (whether it be conservative, liberal or radical) will always be biased and limited because its knowledge claims are necessarily grounded in a historical and local context that guarantees a limited understanding of ofher cultures.

VVe argue in this essay that the real violence in schools is a result of the structural violence of oppresive social conditions that force students, especially low-income African American and Latino males, tofeel vulnerable, angry, and resistant to the normative expectations of “police-like” school environments. Instead of making attempts to transform these oppressive conditions and explore alternatives outsideof these frameworks, schools utilize the ideological state apparatuses (ISA’s) to justify the construction of certain students (e.g., African American and Latino males) as “violent/deviant/disabled” therebymaking it an individual rather than a social problem. On the other hand, we contend, a political economic analysis of educational contexts makes critical linkages between race, class, and disabilityand in doing so offers an alternative way of re-theorizing identity. Additionally this argument will aIso demonstrate how a political economic analysis exposes and re-orients one towards a collective (global) struggle for social transfornlation in critical multicultural contexts.

This qualitative study explored how 10 first-year peer educators understood and utilized their own socilal identities (e.g., their race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.) in their diversity education efforts. All participants saw their identities as having a profound impact on their teaching, although they identified many different, and sometimes contradictory influences. Their identities influenced their credibility as educators, use of emotion, and relationships with dominant and target group member students. Educators sometimes chose to discuss their own experiences with oppression and privilege, and sometimes kept their identities hidden. Participants noted, in conclusion, the importance of considering the influence of their own identity, as awareness influenced how they approached their qork as diversity educators.