Multiculturalism – a phenomenon which has been praised and damned, declared dead and reborn, never existing or omnipresent in living memory. But how to define this abstruse process, ideology, or thing?
This is a fundamental question considering the fact that how we understand the world influences our actions. Although a vast body of literature across disciplines (e.g., philosophy, politics, sociology, psychology and psychoanalysis) provides numerous interpretations, the public discourse has a very narrow perspective on this matter. In fact, when skimming through the media, political and sociological literature, it seems to me that multiculturalism in the public discourse is mostly understood in a decriptive/empirical and/or normative sense.
The latter is heavily discussed by scholars like Kymlicka, Cantle, Vertovec, and Modood.
Would you agree with me that these two forms - descriptive and normative- are the most popular or common understandings (or maybe different across countries - I am from Germany, living in the UK)? Do you know other sholars then the above mentioned within sociology or political science who would be worthwhile to have a look at?
http://katharinalefringhaus.wix.com/multiculturalism#!multiculturalism/vstc4=descriptive-&-normative
The irony of multiculturalism is that it takes an understanding of monoculturalism; therefore it cannot be truly normative or fully operationalised. In this sense, multiculturalism is about understanding and appreciation of 'other' cultures but as soon as these become part of ones own cultural existence, these 'other' cultures cannot be truly 'multi'. An (limited) example of this come from food. On my plate I see some carrots, beetroot and celery. I can appreciate each of these vegetables in a 'multi' way, as each is fine and delicious in itself. But when I blend them together into a powershake, the definitions become blurred and individual propertied are lost to the whole. So a truly multicultural approach does not seek to blend all cultures until individuality is lost but to allow people to celebrate their own uniqueness and appreciate the uniqueness of others. But humans are social animals and adapt practices from each other, making it impossible for cultures to live side-by-side without influencing each other (blending). So we need monocultures to have multiculturalism but monocultures can't stay mono for long. This is where appreciation, integration and assimilation collide. I would read Foucault and even Neitzsche on this and look beyond multiculturalism towards perspectivism.
I think, the perception of multiculturalism depends heavily on the society that has to do with this concept. Concerning the Ecuadorian context -marked by a big indigenous and a considerable Afro population- Catherine Walsh (http://catherine-walsh.blogspot.com/search/label/Articles%20in%20English, the text, I am speaking about, is in spanish (this one: Walsh, Catherine (2000), “Políticas y significados conflictivos”, Estudios Interculturales 2:9-24)) makes a distinction between multiculturalism in the neoliberal sense as a ways of taking culture out of society and putting weight on the individual, pluriculturality as a merely descriptive term -that there are different cultures in a given society- and interculturality as a normative concept that wants the different cultures to maintain themselves while interrelating with each other (a bit like Kymlicka does).
Multiculturalism, as opposed to nationalism, refers to a society “at ease with the rich tapestry of human life and the desire among people to express their own identity in the manner they see fit” (Bloor, The Definitive Guide To Political Ideologies, 2010: 272).
I would also define it as an ideology. In fact, along with this 'inclusive' perspective, in public discourse we may also find multiculturalism as an 'exclusive' tool. In Bourdieu and other scholars, including groups of people also means that other groups are excluded, and as cosmopolitanism we may see it as 'the latest effort to revitalise liberalism' (Calhoun, The class consciousness of frequent travelers, 2002: 876).
Apart from that of Erik, another example coming from food is in Fischler's concept of commensality, you find it in http://www.fischler.fr/ClaudeFischlerPerso/Articles_-_pdf_%26_links.html.
Commensality means sharing food with other people, but this also implies exclusion, as Fischler points out.
Many cooking shows on TV are based on both sides of this concept...
@ eric: thanks so much for your very interesting reply. As a cross-cultural psychologist we approach this topic within the framework of acculturation theory. thus, what you describe as blending would be the assimilation towards a world culture - with pieces and bits from every culture in the blender. But what about integration? can there not be such a thing as endorsing once heritage culture and a multicultural 'culture'? or endorsing multiple cultural identities? then monocultures could stay mono- at least in a relative sense. (thanks for the hint to read Foucault and Neitzsche. I just started with the latter)
@Philipp: I just researched the concept of interculturalism (Ted Cantle vs. C. Taylor). In this line, I definitely agree that there are different interpretations of mutliculturalism depending on the nation state and its population constillation (best example is Canada vs. Germany). What is your opinion on rejecting 'culture' and concentrate on the individual?
@monica: very interesting insight on mexico. thanks for that! what you describe I would consider as descriptive multiculturalism - the recognition of cultural and ethnic plurality which includes indigenous and subnational groups. As you describe the situation it seems like that Mexico follows an assimilationist ideology - expecting everyone to endorse a 'mexican' identity (language, loyalty to the country, shared values and norms). What do you think multiculturalism shold aim for? one global culture? the co-existence of multiple cultures with some shared global features?
@Francesco: hmm what is the difference between multiculturalism and cosmopolitanism? does the latter describe more the individal experience while the former refers to a societal/group level change?
Dear Katharina,
concerning your question: I think, to reject the notion of culture and to put the focus on the individual is already a cultural, western and eurocentric decision - if we do so, we will invisibilize perspectives that part form a communitarian, national, local, whatever conception of society and/or culture. That would be my problem with Kymlicka. If you are really going to build up a intercultural society, you cannot do so parting from a European way of thinking and understanding (or epistemology, if you want). That would result in a mere multiculturalist integration - give them some rights, but the way those rights work, will be ours.
Dear Katharina
Multiculturalism sees that different cultures must be respected in order to allow various peoples to live together. Cosmopolitanism argues that origins are not so important, and that people may live in peace when they are not attached to their own traditions. Both approches have been considered ways of reinforcing dominant ideologies.
Hello Katharina,
This a very interesting debate. This might help:
Rodríguez-García, Dan (2010) “Beyond Assimilation and Multiculturalism: A Critical Review of the Debate on Managing Diversity”. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 11(3): 251-271.
Online Access: http://www.academia.edu/515358/Beyond_Assimilation_and_Multiculturalism_A_Critical_Review_of_the_Debate_on_Managing_Diversity
Read this article by Fowers and Richardson. It's old and they have a newer one on the same topic, but I think this one is better and more useful: http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/amp/51/6/609/
For a criticism of Kymlicka as someone who advocates ethnic groups rights for non-Europeans in European nations, while condemning ethnic groups rights for Europeans, see:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280924210_Will_Kymlicka_and_the_disappearing_Dominion
It should be noted that multiculturalism is a policy intended to complement mass immigration into European countries. Both the left and the right support mass immigration; the left has this illusion that diversity enriches European nations and will bring an end to racial conflict, even though all the evidence contradicts this illusion; and the right wants cheap labour, mass consumers, and the destruction of European nations with strong ethnic identities.
Unfortunately, all academics support mass immigration and diversification; they all approach this issue from a conformist standpoint, and they are all intolerant of European ethnic identity and pride.
Article Will Kymlicka and the disappearing Dominion
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Mathematics