Multicultural Readers: Progressive or Regressive?

Jordan, J. (2005). Rereading the multicultural reader: toward more “infectious” practices in multicultural composition. College English, 68, 168-185.

In this article, Jay Jordan analyzes and problematizes the use of multicultural readers in composition studies.  He acknowledges the need for such materials because of the “historical role of composition as a gatekeeper” that excluded minority voices (169). However, while well intentioned, multicultural readers appear to succumb to the same issues that plagued composition readers prior to the move towards inclusivity. Jordan argues that the main problem with said texts is a failure to accept cultural texts as academic ones. This leads to the production of a composition handbook that still privileges the dominant voice while placating dissidents by allowing for a few cultural texts. Yet despite these issues, Jordan points out that “multicultural readers continue to be published, marketed, and sold” (169). He then proceeds to examine the evolution of these texts and give an overview of their criticism. Perhaps more importantly, Jordan uses this work as a space to provide his own criticisms of these texts.

When examining past criticisms of the multicultural reader, Jordan focuses on theorists Jamieson and James Gee. Both of these scholars argue that multicultural readers are problematic mainly because they provide a mere cursory analysis of the individual nature of prejudice rather than deconstructing the structural hegemony of discrimination. This realization spurs Gee and Jamieson to trouble the notion of literacy as “schooling” in “dominant ideologies” as demonstrated in these texts (172). In other words, multicultural readers do little to challenge and actually reinforce the ideology of majority privilege.

These critiques create a framework for Jordan’s subsequent “interrogation” of composition texts which claim to be multicultural. Each of the books that he scrutinizes divorces the multicultural articles from the rest of the texts, causing Jordan to present some of the same assessments of his predecessors. He however focuses less on the problems themselves than on finding possible solutions. Jordan wishes to understand “how diverse interactions should best be facilitated” (180).  In doing so, he brings in new and transformative dialogue to an old question.