The twenty first century has witnessed an emergence of multiple of identities egging upon different forces of the time. It has also come across the proliferation of the idea of cultural diversity as globalization, communications, market, migration and the increased diversification of identity patterns have emerged within traditionally homogeneous groups. While cultural diversity points towards the existence of several cultures that are dissimilar, heterogeneous and often incommensurable the multiculturalism promotes the acceptance of cultural diversity by encouraging the recognition of minorities by the society and its institutions. ‘Multiculturalism’ now takes into its fold not only the disadvantaged and marginalized groups like minorities and tribals but also the immigrants who may come under ethnic, religious minorities as well as minority nations and indigenous peoples and communities like LGBT, disabled, etc., After 9/11 and certain terrorist acts in Europe there has been a shift in thinking that considers the existence of immigrants incompatible with the European member cultures and history.
The recent upsurge of radicalism and nationalism in liberal multicultural democracies usher in the era of community confrontations as was witnessed by Europe in late nineteenth century and Asia in mid-twentieth century. The secular credentials are on the wane in many states known for their multicultural values and egalitarian orders and the politics of dominance and discrimination is on the rise. The statements of many European leaders from Germany, France Denmark about non-utility of multicultural model has alarmed the immigrant populations and minorities alike. The state behavior has transformed from community welfare to individual interests. Doesn't it needs a quick attention and reversal?
Yes, but not all of them. One has to differentiate between democratic and non-democratic states. The problem is when a democratic superpower like the US starts thinking like this because its populist president. Second rank powers or small states cannot afford such thinking. Brexit is an example of self-inflicted disaster based on individualism. EU still holds together due to France and Germany.
Hi Dragos
True, not all of them but the recent statement reversal of many states in Europe, the Brexit move and the america for americans first mainfest a neothinking that wedges with the traditional inclusive one.
The integrationist multicultural philosophy faces a repercussion in the early twenty first century Denmark initiates a new “end of tolerance” rhetoric signalling an understanding of immigrants, refugees, and descendants as being incompatible with Danish values and that raw uncompromising intolerance would be the only language they understand. Therefore, multicultural policies that recognize minority needs would not be acceptable.
In October 2010 German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, started the ball rolling by making references to slow the integration of Turkish guest workers and declaring that multiculturalism in Germany had “failed utterly”. A few months later, the British Prime Minister David Cameron, using a speech to a security conference in Munich, drew a connection between Islamic extremism and British multiculturalism. The former French President Nicholas Sarkozy, however, delivered the harshest criticism, in February 2011. During a televised debate, he declared multiculturalism to be a failure and asserted that it is socially divisive and undermines the secular nature of French society and called for a renewed focus on France's “identity”. (Australian Multiculturalism: the roots of its success, Equity and Diversity, Dr Sev Ozdowski, The failure of states in developing compatibility with the immigrants and minorities signals the reemergence of the old fascist voices that endangers the state as it starts thinking on individual terms.
Honestly, Harish, a lot of this is just sound-nice slogans, which then run up against practical realties.
In India, for example, you have run up against the practical realities of allowing truly indiscriminate immigration. So, where is all this talk about multiculturalism? Does one explicitly exclude one or more specific cultures, with the excuse "they can go somewhere else?" India is attempting to do this very thing.
In Canada and the US, both countries have run up against the practical realities of allowing atrocities to be committed, in the name of cultural/religious traditions. It's almost like the lawmakers are caught off-guard, after spouting their predictable slogans about minority rights, to discover that those minority rights are taking the basic human rights away from other people.
Two or three obvious, and actual examples being, should parents be allowed to murder their children, for reasons of some supposed fabricated "honor"? Or, should adult men be allowed to marry pre-pubescent girls, supposedly because this will keep them from sinning later on in life? Or, should husbands be allowed to force their wives to dress like lepers?
We could easily go on. So, in spite of the magnanimous-sounding rhetoric about multiculturalism, and the easy examples such as LBGT rights, people do finally come to grips with the practical realities. Of course, in cases like this, some people will have lower thresholds than others, in what they will tolerate in society. That's to be expected. When people see some of their "multicultural" lawmakers making light of certain traumatic historical occurrences, such as the September 11th attacks on New York City and Washington DC, then it's only natural to expect that some will overreact.
The secular credentials are on the wane in many states known for their multicultural values and egalitarian orders and the politics of dominance and discrimination is on the rise.
That's not at all the way I would put it. The secular credentials are under threat, and therefore, the term "multiculturalism" may be more carefully redefined. The terms pluralism, or multi-ethnic, which have applied to countries such as the US for centuries, may have to be dusted off and taken more seriously once again.
It's not at all bad to examine popular slogans, and find out if they ultimately become destructive of a society. I'd say, true multiculturalism could easily tear a country apart. It's what I would call "balkanization," and we have all seen where that leads.
Dear Albert
Your concern is remarkable about multiculturalism and its failures but I don't think it offers a poor alternative against the huge hullabaloo created by the question of immigrants in Europe and world over.
You said " in India, for example, you have run up against the practical realities of allowing truly indiscriminate immigration. So, where is all this talk about multiculturalism? Does one explicitly exclude one or more specific cultures, with the excuse "they can go somewhere else?" India is attempting to do this very thing".
It is not easy to understand Indian scenario:
It offers discrimination through constitution for the upliftment of the scheduled castes, OBCs and other poorer sections which goes against the principle of equality but since it tries to raise the level of poor and downtrodden to the level of others, it is called positive discrimination.
Now since India tries to discriminate on account of immigration from Pakistan , Bangladesh and Afghanistan with Muslims who opted for a separate states on the basis of religion and now shouting for equal adjustment in India, the double role of the community has to examined and those who have worked against the Indian interests and national integrity have to be limelighted and segregated.
World expects everything from India on account of Secularism but not from theocratic states, howsoever, communal they are usurping the rights of the minorities.
The Indian multicultural model is significant and guide many but then national Unity has its own dimensions where the positive discrimination to protect the minorities of neighboring states has to be taken seriously and without prejudice by the third parities. Multiculturalism has worked well in Canada, Australia and would keep the group identities alive and conflict resolved if followed genuinely by states having huge diversities.