| dc.description.abstract | ABSTRACT
Recognition of minority groups, their general and educational ideals: Is there another way
out?
The history of most countries, including those regarded as relatively culturally homogeneous, has
demonstrated that practically all of them are composed of minority groups and that many of these
groups struggle for survival. “Cultural” groups, such as age, interest, socio-economic and gender
groups, provide their own quota of problems for educational planners, but are not as politically
encumbered as others, such as ethnic and religious groups.
In a social democracy as in South Africa where the rule of law reigns supreme, the interest
and future existence of minority groups are often overlooked by the majority. In some cases, their
cultural and linguistic needs and interests are symbolically entrenched in the Constitution, but
these measures are often nullified, for instance through Constitutional Court decisions. Such
actions on the part of the powers that be explain why minority groups in South Africa and elsewhere
are displeased with the ways in which they are being hampered in their efforts to develop their
unique identities.
Tensions of this nature are clearly observable in South Africa and elsewhere. The recent
referendum in Scotland, the tensions in Catalonia and the treatment of the Dalai Lama, the spiritual
leader of Tibet, at the hands of South African authorities attest to the topicality of the problem.
On the one hand, we have the various minority groups with a number of legitimate claims, among
others for a measure of independence and self-assertion, grounded in a unique interpretation of
social justice and in an appeal to the Constitution of the country. On the other hand, they form
part of a larger community structure in which equality and non-discrimination reign as supreme
national values. The national government, as representative of the larger community, also appeals
to social justice, as embodied in the Constitution. The end result is a conflict of opinions and
ideals, each based on an interpretation of social justice.
The onus to find a solution for the resolution of the tension lies with the various minority
groups, and not with the government as representative of the majority. In fact, many governments
find the constant complaints of minority groups rather irritating. The irritation is intensified where
a minority group is able to provide in its own needs, and hence can refuse to align itself with the
general value system of the majority community. The question therefore arises: What can minority
communities do in these circumstances? How can they take charge of their own interests, needs
and future existence?
The fact that minority rights have been entrenched in international treatises such as the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) of the United Nations, and the European
Union’s Charter of Paris for a New Europe (1990) does not really help because their stipulations
are regularly flouted by majorities. A minority group is described in these documents as a numerical
minority which aims at preserving and developing its unique characteristics in its country. The
rights of minorities can be summarised as “respect for human dignity as individuals and
communities” which leads to “treating equals equally and unequals unequally”. The educational
rights of minorities are likewise entrenched in two documents, namely the Convention against
Discrimination in Education (1960) of Unesco, and the United Nations Convention on the Rights
of the Child (1990). These documents stipulate that minorities are entitled to education equivalent
to that of majority groups, that the erection of separate educational institutions may not be regarded
as discriminatory, and that parents / guardians have the right to determine what is best for their
children. The same rights are entrenched in the South African Constitution.
As stated above, minorities have to assume responsibility for protecting their own rights. The
central claim of this article is that a recent epistemological development, namely post-post foundationalism, can assist them in this regard. After a brief discussion of foundationalism in the
form of Rationalism and of the post-foundationalism that has risen in response to foundationalism,
it is concluded that neither of these orientations provides a suitable vantage point for the protection
of minority rights. A foundationalist orientation seems to be too imperialistic and deterministic
to be of any value to a minority group and also to the entire community of which a minority group
forms part. Such a group tends to control and dominate because it supposes itself to be the voice
of reason. The post-foundationalistic orientation, on the other hand, is shot through with
indeterministic views and is relativistic as far as its view of values is concerned. It is also
inconsistent in that it avoids any universalistic statements, except its own claim that all values
are relative. Because neither of these orientations can successfully serve as a basis for a minority
group to work towards the recognition and actualisation of its values and aspirations, a third way
had to be found. Such a third way has surfaced since the 1990s in the form of post-postfoundationalism,
i.e. an orientation that follows after post-foundationalism.
The key feature of post-post-foundationalism is that it attempts to steer through between the
extremes of foundationalism and post-foundationalism. The latter tends to overlook the need for
a minority group to occasionally make justifiable and firm universally legitimate claims (which
may be refuted, of course). Post-post-foundationalism does not regard a foundation as absolutely,
reasonably, finally and universally true. While it rejects the notion of working with grand narratives,
it is prepared to recognise the need to resort to firm values, which it assumes can also change
with time, as life-concepts tend to do. Put differently, foundations are not so much in the foreground
as playing a role in the back of the minds of individuals and groups. Since post-post-foundationalism
is a common sense approach, it enables minority group strategic planners to find a way for a
minority group to remain true to its value foundation while remaining flexible and adaptable in
order to find a niche for itself in the broader community of which the group is a part. In doing so,
a minority group can remain true to its own ideals and aspirations and also become and remain
a valuable part of the larger community. OPSOMMING
’n Oorsig oor die stand van sake met betrekking tot die onderwysideale en -voorsiening van
minderheidsgroepe lei tot die gevolgtrekking dat daar ’n onvermydelike spanning bestaan tussen
die ideale en sieninge van minderheidsgroepe en dié van die meerderheidsgroep in die samelewing,
en dus dat die verantwoordelikheid op ’n minderheidsgroep lê om ’n weg uit die impasse te vind.Drie sulke weë word ondersoek, naamlik fundamentisme, postfundamentisme en postpostfundamentisme.
Omdat die eersgenoemde te imperialisties, rasionalisties en deterministies,
en die tweede te relativisties bevind is, word aandag aan die derde bestee. Hierdie oriëntering
word gekenmerk deur sy strewe om tussen die uiterstes van die eerste twee benaderings deur te
stuur, en verder ook deur sy gesonde verstand-benadering. Weens die epistemologiese
ewewigtigheid daarvan kan die post-postfundamentistiese benadering vir minderheidsgroepstrategiese
beplanners ’n waardevolle oriënteringspunt wees. | en_US |
