Multiculturalism, again
It seems my previous attempt to present a succinct argument against multiculturalism did not fare too well. I had thought that a few pointers would have been enough to get my points across, but apparently not. My sincerest apologies! Perhaps a larger-scale clarification is in order, so without much further ado, here it is in full.
Definitions
Culture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture - Most relevant definition in our case is probably: “The set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes an institution, organization or group”
Multiculturalism: “The doctrine that several different cultures (rather than one national culture) can coexist peacefully and equitably in a single country” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiculturalism - ”appreciation, acceptance or promotion of multiple cultures, applied to the demographic make-up of a specific place…”
The commonest misapprehension about multiculturalism, it seems, would be that multiculturalism is somehow a protection and/or promotion of human rights, and that anyone who doesn’t embrace it is probably a racist or a bigot.
But multiculturalism has nothing to do with protecting human rights. It is by definition a protection of cultures, not of humans.
To draw a usable analogy, multiculturism is what enforced-pro-religionism is to secularism.
It demands of the people to respect, embrace and/or tolerate different cultural ideas, even if these ideas themselves may be completely stupid, intolerant or even deadly.
This analogy, I think, is a fair one to be made. Like religion, we are born into cultures. We don’t really know why, we didn’t really choose it. Sometimes it’s something we’re proud of, sometimes the opposite. It also represents a whole chunk of who we are, how we behave, and how we perceive this world.
But should we really expect others to respect, or tolerate, or embrace our cultures? Imagine if in your culture it is a perfectly healthy thing to do to starve your child to death if he doesn’t do his homework. So, is starving a child to death justifiable, just because it is part of your culture?
Cultures, like ideas, like religions, like everything else, should NEVER be immune to criticism.
Multiculturalism promotes the idea that all cultures are of equal value, and that they should be treated equally. This is nonsense. It puts cultures which preach hate, intolerance and violence on par with those preaching love and kindness. It allows intolerance to be practised under the guise of ‘valid culture’, and in this respect, multiculturalism is not a friend, but an enemy of humanity.
What multiculturalism philosophically entails is a society in which all cultural behaviours are accepted and tolerated. It is no surprise that these multiculturalistic values are already being exploited, with many Muslims demanding special privileges, and laws being contrived to protect them from honest criticism.
It is not wrong to wish for a country in which so many cultures co-exist in perfect harmony, but foolish. Many cultures comprise ideologies which run at odds with those of other roots and traditions. Some lay their intentions of invoking terror and destruction bare. It seems that in the presence of such dangerous ideologies, there can be no hope for any peaceful coalescence of cultural values.
You don’t put a lion and a gazelle in the same cage, and call it multiculturalism.
Pat Condell on multiculturalism.
* * *
It brings me back to the very essence of my former argument: we should strive to safeguard people of all cultural backgrounds, not the cultures themselves.
We should not expect people to tolerate and embrace cultural ideas or ideologies, but instead to tolerate and respect the individual rights of others, as long as they do not impose on others in society.
I shall call this “cultural-secularism”.
Cultural-secularism is not pro-culture, it is pro-human-rights.
Pro-individualism. Pro-reason. And Pro-freedom.
This in mind, I have very little doubt that cultural-secularism is a more satisfying outlook than multiculturalism.
No one here is campaigning for the abolition of culture, certainly not me. If we make it our objective to grant people their individual freedom, no doubt that their cultural identities will also be preserved.
I stress again upon the importance of designing a policy which directly protects individual freedom, not cultures. A policy which is definitively non-divisive; one that does not discriminate people according to their race or culture or religion, but treat them (all humans) equally.
“To view humans as culture-bearing is to view them as social beings, and hence as transformative beings … To view humans as having to bear specific cultures is, on the contrary, to deny such a capacity for transformation.” - Kenan Malik
Note: Although I’m not a very political-minded person, I do on some days identify myself with the Left. So perhaps you can regard this article as a leftist’s critique of multiculturalism, if you would so wish.
We all know this picture well. It is the world as we see it in our most hopeful dreams. But do notice that it is the people who are holding hands. Not the cultures to which they perforce belong.
Tim,
I find myself intermittently agreeing and disagreeing with this post as I read it.
You build up a few dichotomies that I think are unnecessary, and in this spirit I think we are saying the same thing in different language.
I do not believe that we cannot critique or enforce our laws (if those laws prevent harm) on any culture, while simultaneously promoting multiculturalism. I don’t think that we need to abandon individual freedoms or rights in an effort to appease a culture to maintain multicultural values.
I don’t think multiculturalism is necessarily the capitulation to the idea that all cultural practices are of equal value.
If that is what you mean by “multiculturalism”, then I agree with you.
What I am talking about is government promoting the idea that you can be Hispanic and still be Canadian, that you can be Asian and still be Australian, that you can be Eastern European and still be American.
Things like cultural festivals, infrastructure for ethnic communities, protections of linguistic rights, funding of schools that meet national curriculum but teach specific cultural histories and perspectives.
I live in a Country where there is a well protected and supported minority French culture. Where schools are funded, language is protected, culture is celebrated, where people have strong ties to their roots. I don’t begrudge this at all.
French culture would be all but gone in Canada without proactive steps to insulate that culture from the North American melting pot.
What you are talking about is letting Middle Eastern people practice archaic Sharia law. Letting North Africans mutilate female genitalia. You are assuming that multiculturalism is relativism, which it is not. I’m sure there are those who take the idea to its most absurd extremes, but one can hardly call that “cultural promotion” any more than a fundamentalist can call anti-gay policies “moral”.
Hi George. I can see where you are coming from now, and I can see that we aren’t exactly coming from the same angles, but I think we’re at least working towards the same goal — so that’s something.
I think we can both agree that we are striving towards a world in which people have the personal freedom to practise freely their cultures and religions and so forth. We also agree that cultures are very important things, and that neither of us is arguing for the abolition of cultures. (Am I right? let me know if I’m wrong.)
I just don’t think that, in political terms, multiculturalism is the way to go about it.
It would appear that in political practice, multiculturalism does very often assume or lead inevitably to the doctrine of cultural relativism; it is quite understandable why these terms have come to be used so interchangeably. I think the reason for this is that once you start making it law to protect some cultures, it seems only fair that you do the same for *all* the other cultures as well.
Philosophically though, I think multiculturalism misses a very fundamental point. I’ve said this a couple times before, so forgive me for repeating myself (this being the essence of my argument, I should like to think that I’ve made myself as clear as possible). I believe that we should focus on protecting the human rights to bear cultures, not on protecting the specific cultures themselves.
I believe that in effect this would ensure both personal freedom and equality, whereas the latter approach wouldn’t even address these issues. People would by no means be stripped off their cultural identities.. Cultural pursuits would be a personal freedom rather than a public state-enforced thing.
Thus, to me, “salad bowls” or “melting pots” are somewhat irrelevant analogies. They apply to cultures — and cultures of conflicting ideologies are very hard to melt together, and also very unlikely to coexist as peacefully as tomatoes and lettuces in your regular salad bowl. But I’m not thinking in terms of cultures. I’m thinking in terms of human equality and individual freedom. And the difference between the two is that, I think, one addresses the real problems, and the other appears to me to be, regrettably, an exercise in futility.
When you gave examples of “government promoting the idea that you can be Hispanic and still be Canadian.. etc” — I’d really like to think that these are more a celebration of human rights and freedom than they are a celebration of the cultures that too often divide us.
Upon doing a bit of research on this whole matter, I did stumble across one particularly interesting article, which is rather similar in content to my critique above (except far better written). The author of it does in many parts hit the nail in the head, so if you have a few moments to spare, do have a quick skim through this.. and then, if possible, let me know what you make of it!
>> http://www.kenanmalik.com/lectures/multiculturalism_if.html
I read the article Tim. It is quite well written and makes some good points.
I think, as the article itself alludes in the first paragraph, that this becomes an issue of definitions. I don’t, for example, support making concessions to religious laws, or forcing restaurants to serve Halal or Kosher dishes. This, I suppose, is a sort of forced multiculturalism that can result from society feeling as though culture needs to be strictly legislated at the cost of freedoms.
Yet I live in a country where to some degree, culture is legislated; as mentioned in my previous comment. I suppose it comes down to using proper judgement and having a clear goal.
The concept of multiculturalism, to me, is to protect those roots worth valuing in minority cultures. Language, traditions, these things can be protected during the natural evolution of a minority culture into the dominant one.
Naturally too, some cultures require less work on our part to insulate from the tidal wave of dominant culture. Jews, for example, have maintained a distinct cultural identity without much work on our part. In Canada at least, Italians and Asians have fared relatively well.
Yet just because there are successes in spite of multiculturalism does not mean that we should stand idle while vulnerable cultures disappear.
Just because there are facets of cultures that we ought not support does not negate the fact that there are valuable aspects to the culture as a whole.
Don’t leave out that academia is one of the big places where the myths about multiculturalism you shed light on are sanctioned.