Multiculturalism

Post Reply New Topic

Nouveau idee topique

I do not seem to satisfy either way. The term multiculturalism has come up in a number of topics, lately in News and Current Events. I myself thought I knew what multiculturalism was all about, but I thought it might be a good idea to put forth this topic in PPR knowing that many of the well educated members would have some opinions in the matter.

AG's posts on this thus far have been very enlightening, and make sense.

I have no strong feelings on this, I am looking for ideas, though I am not neutral. I have been searching for enlightenment on the British situation, and would like to see explanations about the cultural/religious crisis going on there which seems to have led to the creation of a xenophobic (and no doubt racist) political party which recently won two seats in some sort of complicated European election.

This sort of problem does not seem to exist in North America, and I am wondering if AG's analysis may be a factor, at least in Canada.

There are some cultures I would want in my country more than others.

Would someone who jumped on the AG bandwagon please explain how the Amish can co-exist with other very different cultures for extended periods of time??

As long as there is a secular society underneath laying out the rules so no one culture gets the upper hand, i am all for it.

And the bandwagon played on topic

I would rather AG answer this, but based on his statements I believe the Amish have been successful because they fit in economically, did not engage in politics and lived in remote areas and were not so visible to others. Thus they were tolerated because they were not seen as a threat to the default culture.

Um... they don't, that's how. They live in secluded communities, isolated from American culture. There is some minimal economic exchange (they sell furniture) but that fits into AG's description of trade between cultures.

The controversy is that "multiculturalism" is a term for a cultural change that some people dislike, and the term itself attempts to gain power through a supposed neutrality that it does not have. These kinds of issues are common with political terms, not only that, but "impossible as a definition" is sometimes controversial, as the field of philosophy is ALL ABOUT definitions, but philosophers tend to disagree on these issues. This does not mean that there is nobody who is right, but people are not perfectly analytical.


The existence of the Amish doesn't really qualify as multiculturalism for me. I mean, you are talking about small groups of people in certain areas that mostly survive by some level of separation from the mainstream and a level of historical tolerance from the mainstream culture. I mean, the Amish don't really participate in the mainstream economy as they do not work with modern technology. The Amish don't marry outside of their own people. The Amish often don't participate in many governmental actions. The Amish don't even use the same education system as everyone else. So, they really are a separate culture that is within the borders of another cultural group, but there is little intermixing of cultures, certainly not enough to make any claims to multiculturalism. Not only that, but despite their levels of separation, there are still intrusions into their society with child labor laws and antipathy due to their pacifism, both of which show that in as much as there are interactions between cultures, the mainstream culture dominates the relationship and sets the terms.

So, basically, so long as there is a dominant culture that you agree with that sets the rules, other ideas can exist as hobbies for people to toy around with, yes?

So, really, it seems as if you think that multiculturalism cannot realistically exist. As you want a dominant culture that you like because you think without your dominant culture, there is a threat of a culture that you dislike taking control over social functions. Correct? After all, I wouldn't call secularism, an attitude towards the proper workings of society, to have nothing to do with culture.

And most of the immigrant communities have adapted and assimilated reasonable well to the public culture. In the U.S. immigrants who catch on to what is done, do reasonably well for themselves and in the fullness of time their children and grand-children integrate with the mainstream very well.

I am fourth generation American. By the time of third generation (the generation of my parents) assimilation was almost total. Of course I and my family retain some of the cultural trappings of the original culture (eastern European Jewish) but in essential matters we differ very little from mainstream United States. I speak Hebrew and Yiddish, but my discourse in public is in English and I do business in English except when I am shopping for some goods in the Lower East Side of Manhattan.

I discern some subtle differences from the Gentile mainstream in some matters of taste, but the differences are not great enough to be a social or economic impediment.

ruveyn

When I read the papers or listen to the news, I hear of difficulties between cultures in various cities, but from a more personal perspective I live in London which has people from all over the world visiting, working, living here or are immigrants of various generations, I like it and I find it interesting to hear about their lives and backgrounds and what they like or don't like about being here.

Our family has often had people staying from different parts of the world and they speak of the challenges of being visitors or immigrants and sometimes the relief to be living in a country that is safer than their own or sometimes they tell us that its too cold here and they want to go home to the warmth of say, Brazil. From our point of view, the many cultures and differences are something we enjoy though I am aware of some parts in this country where there is little mixing and groups live side by side without wanting or needing to integrate. I don't see any problem either way as long as all sides are happy with it and no problems arise from it.

Ok, I think I understand your concepts better now.

I would say there is a spectrum of multiculturalism - I would say that the Amish example does represent one type of multiculturalism ... it shows two cultures can co-exist within a nation or state or county by agreeing to live side by side while remaining different. We also see examples of cultures starting out separate and side by side, but they essentially fuse (the Irish, Italians, and Germans all starting in their own neighborhoods, but blending when they move to the suburbs). In between, there is an intermediate degree of multiculturalism (and there could be a core of people who don't move to the suburbs, but stay in an ethnic neighborhood.) Every year, my fair city has a 'World of Nations' festival, and there are booths from different cultures ... many people there are not living strictly within their traditional culture or the mainstream American culture, but live in both.

I would define multiculturalism in contra-distinction to an imposed uni-culturalism. For example, Turkey and other countries try to impose one language and way of dress on the Kurds; the US, Canada and Australia tried to disrupt native languages and cultures by sending kids off to boarding schools where they were beaten for speaking their original tongues (or for any other reason the sadist school officials felt like). Or white America trying to suppress African American hairstyles in the school and workplace.... it's not like white intolerance can make nappy hair grow straight.

Which isn't to say uniculturalism is all bad - I like the fact that Americans drive on the same side of the road everywhere in the country... that was a cultural standard that somebody decided on, and we went with. I am not opposed to making/keeping English as the official language, but I don't moan about my rights or the decline of civilization just because some businesses decided to offer Spanish options for their customers and start the calls "For English, Press 1."

side note: actually, the Amish can be quite flexible about technology - they have no problem working in factories that make microwave ovens, or in using very sophisticated pneumatic tools from Kubota for their furniture making. They don't reject all technology, only certain types, and for a fairly complex set of religious/cultural/economic reasons.

Multiculturalism doesn't work, especially when there are 2 or more dominant cultures. Canada (English/French) has deep-rooted social problems between its two largest cultures. Same with Belgium (Dutch/French). Then the Serbs and Croats were attacking each other in the 90s, even though the only real difference between them was religion! I think a lot of countries in Africa are the same way.

The only real exception to this I can think of is Switzerland, but that's because they're united in keeping everyone else out.

well... I see it as every person has a right to be who they are aslong they cause any harm but multicultrurism is nigh impossibe thank to globalisation... the will prob. become one culture... which is sad

In Yugoslavia, it was a matter of karma. Under Tito, the Serbs maintained a 'Greater Yugoslavia' by repression of minorities. When Tito died, it came unwound ... when different provinces tried to secede, the Serbs went in to murder and rape. Yugoslavia only proves that brutal Serbs are brutal.

"Multiculturalism" as a political term topic

I know Canada used to have a Minister of State for Multiculturalism, a sort of political preaching to the converted. I suppose its aim was to encourage people to celebrate their own ethnicity, and to spread the bonhommie associated with it. I agreed with this. Culture as a hobby, so it offends no one and is a business/tourist idea, making money. This term could be used to scare people or give them ideas for something positive. I see that Canada used it in a more positive sense. The American melting pot approach was very different, discouraging (at least in an official sense) open cultural expression, lest it be something costly or paid for by those uninterested in supporting it.

No longer does Canada force First Nations children to leave reserves to go to religious boarding schools to drill their culture out of them and force them to only speak English. (There is actually a subtler way to do this now. ) I have read that, like Canada, the Australian government has apologized to that country's Indigenous peoples.

I thank all contributors to this topic. It is good to have a discussion in which clear thought triumphs over dysfunctional hotheadedness.

Hmm... the issue is that I just tend to reject multiculturalism as a meaningful term, the reason being that it is invoked to espouse a sort of neutral position, but this sort of position cannot exist, ergo the term seems misleading and thus I don't like it. I mean, I don't really see a "spectrum" as much as I just see different hobbies within a single cultural framework. Part of this is that I don't see the idea of a "cultural essence" as existing, and so I see anything that happens under the dominant culture to effectively be an expression of the tolerance of that dominant culture or a subculture in the dominant culture rather than a separate culture than the dominant culture, as I don't see the idea of separate cultures existing within the same framework to be meaningful, as the framework itself is a result of a culture. I mean, one can then perhaps argue against the existence of culture as each person interprets reality differently, and so *true* commonality might be impossible, but that is more of a deconstruction than I would attempt.

I don't see a contradiction, as I see uniculturalism as more of a foundation of society, the issue is just what this single culture tries to do.

Well, I know, Amish just reject a *lot* of technology.