Multiculturalism in the way your quotes discuss (political effects) is not a good feature of a country for cohesiveness and to work together to solve common problems of their societies which have no ethnic characters at all. In fact countries should at least strive to create systems in which different ethnic cultures converge to a common structured functioning political culture.

Societies in distinct boxes of cultures in a country as such are different spectrums of societies similar to that of light  which naturally have different wavelengths and societies who are in ethnic political boxes are always tend to create frictions and create reasons to perpetual  crisis. It is a reenactment of the human society at beginning of time. The longer each ethnic political group exercises  living separately distinct from others, they likely will develop their own system of doing things which then is very hard to force them to live together as one society when things are bad. 

The best example that describes such systems is a colourful flower, a flower with different vibrating colours in one stem, where each fiber of each colour gets nutrients and functions  through one host and they all function to strengthen their common host. But flowers of distinct colours each on their own stem do not care about others for the mere reason they are not connected at all. At times they have to compute for attractiveness for bees and other natural dispersing agents to come and make them reproduce unlike multicolor flowers of a single stem.

Convergence to a common culture is a social evolution that societies of a country should make and that is a good thing. 

The human body is 'multicultural' society, different cell systems doing their different work to common end, each satisfied. The country and the world, likewise, should and has been a multicultural society since eons and I feel it should be so. In the body, this was done and is maintained by the neuroendocrine system, which is the State. They are expected to do this, especially in a large society. I think this is best, I believe it would be so.

Narayanan

Multiculturalism is the superior level of interactios between different cultures. When the guest and the local and the foreign know that all have knowledge and traditions to share and when tney knos each other le outcome is better for all

People should not have problems with the notion and reality of multiculturalism. The implementation may vary from society to society, and this may lead to its ideological reading in a way that suggests pigeon-holing people into ethnic boxes, but it is still a way of inclusiveness that takes care of diversity. Undoubtedly, some nations implement in such ways that suggest some type of tokenism, a situation in which the dominant still remain dominant, allocate resources and marginal offices to minorities in such a way that tells those minorities: "we know you are there, you are still outsiders, but manage what we generously allocate to you till .... The retort to such a policy has been: "suppose we don't give you anything, and you don't have the capacity to oust us"! My opinion is that Jonathan Sacks' The Dignity of Difference provides answers to much of multiculturalism's problematic.

Multiculturalism in a country is tapestry of that society which is hugely beneficial to that country,  it is a strength of that country. What troubles me is  pigeonholing people in boxes of ethnicity for political purposes where an ethnic box stands as its own political structure,  which is only good to control for politicians (divide and rule) and to those who are power hungry locally in small scale, but for the long run it has huge consequences for the country to exist.

Countries who suffer from infighting in most cases are the ones with different ethnic groups who live in a quasi distinct political substructure without creating a common melting society, although this is not an absolute precondition as there are countries of societies  of same culture that constantly fight because of lack of a culture of harmonious positive leaving. 

I will give a living example here. My country Ethiopia is a multi ethnic society but had never been in a political formulation that creates ethnic boxes to rule themselves and promote their own programs abandoning the long standing tradition of one society,  one country and spirit of one nationalism but with a vibrant multicultural.

Once these ethnic boxes as political entities are created and  implemented, people constantly harassed, robbed, get killed in mass, genocide takes place, people fight for control of areas thinking they are establishing their own country, people are told to leave the place they lived for centuries because they do not belong there and they are different from the local people - it is just a retreat to the beginning of time in human evolution.

It exemplifies the story of the people in the tower of Babylon -  tried to built a structure to reach to the heavens communicating in common but for some mysterious sinister sabotage, they lost the common language they had when they started the work and could not communicate further and abandoned and left the place in disarray. That is not a good example to imitate by a modern thinking and civilized society.

If America  allows such ethnic boxes to be created and run their own political programs and fight for resources distinctly within America, that is the beginning of the end of the country.

Countries of multiculturalism can be taken as a healthy human being in which all body parts perform different works in coordination and at the control of the brain with a common goal. But if somehow the hand wants to work what it wants and the eye only wants to see what is only needs to see, the mind wants to think different from what the hand and the eye or other body parts do, then the person is medically declared sick or no more a healthy and functioning person. 

Malaysia is a multi races and multi cultural country . We use to live in harmony before the out break of political riot on 13th May 1969.

The worst scenario was , those politicians makes use of religious as a tool to segregate races ,and creating tension among innocent people !

On top of this ,race based policies was applying just to help certain ethnic groups ,and suppressed others , and creating conflict among people !

We use to be one of the best country in Asia, but now, everything is falling a part .

From my opinion , as far as religious didn't mixed with politic , there will be less chances of problems occurring ! 

Regards

Dear All

Multiculturalism is absolutely necessary; whether it is state controlled or not, whether it is used for personal gains by the politicians or not, whether people have to suffer or not; all these are secondary.

Imagine a world where true democracy exists where everyone gets sufficient cola and Burgers and KFC chicken or same type of food and dress and behaviour, well such a world is nearing its end. It is like body having only one type of cell!

Narayanan

Mainz, Germany

Dear all,

Many thanks for your thoughtful and thought-provoking replies and answers on the present thread. I believe we are starting to see both a diversity of experience, as concerns multiculturalism and something of the differences among countries in their experience of multi-ethnic societies.

One point I would emphasize is that people are only rarely opposed to the existing multi-ethnic condition of their own society. This is what Malik calls "the lived experience of diversity." I think we see this reflected in the fact that multiculturalism is praised, above, as a meeting and exchange between and among diverse elements in a population. Yet we are also seeing that the various national conditions, experiences and traditions are quite distinct, those of Ethiopia, Malaysia, India, Great Britain, and the U.S. for example.

At the same time, it seems clear that the diversity of experiences of the multi-ethnic in various societies may be too easily over-generalized, resulting in a certain lack of clarity in the concept of "multiculturalism." Those emphasizing the positive aspect of growth through the encounter of diversity tend to judge of multiculturalism positively; but where there has been a growth of ethnic confrontation and conflict, then the concept is judged in negative terms. 

A basic question has been posed, I believe, as to whether policies connected with ethnic diversity within a country serve the function of integration. In the long history of American discussions of its own distinctive configurations and problems, this has sometimes been put in terms of a discussion of "hyphenated Americans," as in, say, African-Americans," Irish-Americans," "Mexican-Americans," and so on, the claim being made that we do not mind our "hyphenated" status, so long as the hyphens "bind and do not separate," or do not separate us into a war of ethnic interest groups.  But the U.S. is in many ways a special case, being so largely a society based upon immigration and integration. Again, although the U.S. is full of political lines, like those between the states, none of these lines mark any official or legally binding, ethnic divisions, or ethnic "homelands." But it is the U.S. which I know best, and I am therefore reluctant to generalize the American tradition and experience of dealing with diversity. As the 14th amendment has it, no state may deny the rights and privileges of citizens of the U.S. Continuing integration, I would say, is a condition of national existence; but just because of that, insofar as "multiculturalism" foments ethnic divisiveness, it will be judged very harshly. Putting emphasis upon integration, and acceptance of diversity, I have called the result "pluralism."

A second basic question is, on the assumption that pluralism is a good thing, does it follow that more of it is always better? This question is particularly relevant to those countries built up by immigration--a common factor in the Western hemisphere, I would say. Are there limits to the situations where an increase of diversity adds to the richness of the country, and starts to become a burden? There are always economic forces favorable to increased immigration, which can be understood in terms of the desire for cheap and pliable labor. But those chiefly harmed by continual immigration within a given society are often exactly those closest to the bottom of the economic ladder who are placed in the position of competing with new people, sometimes willing to work under undesirable conditions.

I would like to suggest a third question, here, too. So, suppose that we have a society in which various minorities tend to live a relatively separate life, each among their own, so to speak. We want to encourage integration, in part because this facilitates the positive inter-relations of these various groups. It follows, I believe that members of the minority groups must go out, at some point, into the larger society and attempt to understand it well enough to live in it apart from their traditional affinity group. As a general point, it seems to me that such people may become so different from their original group in the process, that they are no longer recognized within their home group. "We don't think that way," will be the plausible response. In consequence, it seems that the process of integration will break up the original unity of the minority groups. In a sense, then, any society which places considerable emphasis upon integration will eventually oppose "state multiculturalism" --understood here as official sponsorship of multiple co-existing cultures in a single society. Cases and countries will certainly differ on this kind of development and prospect. So, I would not want to over-generalize the point. 

H.G. Callaway

Dear Callaway,

Good points. The uniqueness of America, a socio-political system of "immigration and integration" is a clever and visionary political design that intends to keep the unity of the country without squeezing out its multiculturalism and at the same time without fanning and promoting multi political culturalism, with the latter a recipe for eventual dissociation and disintegration. Those countries who run such "multi political culturalism" as opposed to "multiculturalism" risk the possibility of losing the cohesiveness and bond their society has and lead to disintegration.

I think that is a natural law of thermodynamics in which things lose order and increase disorder or entropy over time by losing the connecting forces of its parts. The more it creates openings and conditions of loss of connectivity, the more likely it increases its entropy faster. But the more it strengthen connecting forces of its parts, the closer its distinct parts get, which is a natural way to a lasting coexistence.  

I don't think the US is really a multicultural society, even though mulipl ethnic groups are present. Americans of all ethnic groups have the same culture. This multiethnicity is a product of the policy rather than something necessitating a policy

Narayanan

It is good that there is multiculturalism. So that every one can do any thing which is desired without affected on others, or trying to impose his will or desires. Unlike so everybody will lose.

But we should not forget that disorder is more probable than  order and we should not expedite or create conditions that facilitate disorder, if living together is the vision of a society. 

Disorders are like vaccinations, they prevent against large calamities, unless they are symptoms of a disease, in which case they help early diagnosis.

Narayanan

Mainz, Germany

Dear Bhattathiri,

You wrote:

I don't think the US is really a multicultural society, even though multiple ethnic groups are present. Americans of all ethnic groups have the same culture.

---end quotation

I think that many in the U.S. would be surprised at your claim that "Americans of all ethnic groups have the same culture."  I wonder how your would back this up. It seems clearly false.

Are you saying, for instance, that the Amish farmers have the same culture as typical city dwellers? Do the Hassidic Jews of Brooklyn have the same culture as the Amish farmers of Pennsylvania or the African Americans of Harlem? Do the Mormons of Utah have the same culture as the Muslims of the Midwest or the Unitarians of New England? Do the Southern Baptists have the same culture as the Episcopalians of the northeast? I could go on, of course, but I think that the general point is already clear.

Such differences may seem small to some, in international comparison, but what counts is that they are important domestically, and the differences, like those anywhere, are capable of being exaggerated or made to comport with each other. From this perspective, the U.S. has almost always been a multi-ethnic society, and we, like others, have sometimes failed to do justice to the facts and aspirations and also sometimes succeeded at integration.

What is perhaps important about the order/disorder discussion is to observe that building up an orderly system is harder than breaking one down. Destruction is easier than creation.  Even in an open system, disorder will tend to increase over time, if the conditions are not right. In a sense, that is what this discussion is about.

What conditions and policies are best for building up ordered diversity? Given humanity's long history of international war and conflict, it seems clear that we must have some respect for the orderly systems of various societies and countries. We do not want to import the more chaotic tendencies of the international environment into each country. As Lakew puts the point, "disorder is more probable than order." So, it seems evident that mere, uncritical mutual influence is more likely to produce disorder rather than order, unless policy intervenes selectively. Thus, we see again, the import of our question: What is multiculturalism (as contrasted with pluralism, e.g.), and is it the best policy to create and maintain ordered diversity?

 H.G. Callaway

Mainz, Germany

Dear all,

Here follows a short quotation from a 2011 article, written by the American political scientist, Stanley Renshon, and titled "Implications of Europe's Turn Away from Multiculturalism for the U.S."

The three major national powerhouses in Europe have already done so. Britain's Prime Minister David Cameron has come to the conclusion that "State multiculturalism has failed." German Chancellor Angela Merkel had publicly concluded that multiculturalism as a strategy for new immigrant integration had "failed and failed utterly" several months before that. They were joined Thursday by French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who, when asked about the policy under which host societies welcome and foster distinct cultural and religious immigrant groups, said simply, "My answer is clearly yes, it is a failure."

---end quotation

See:

http://cis.org/renshon/implications-for-the-us

The full article is short and available via the above link. While it may not interest everyone engaged with the present thread, it is significant for some of the prior discussion. Part of the point is that "state multiculturalism" is substantially dead in Europe.

Have a look.

H.G. Callaway

Dear Callaway,

Indeed almost all wealthy countries declared that multiculturalism failed miserably not only in its inability to stand but in its dangerous potential to disrupt  the cohesive social order they need for their society to live and prosper together ( here it is not that multiculturalism is the problem but a de facto muli political culturalism that pops up for influence and deform directions of right social developments).

The most saddening thing however is that these same countries of wealth support governments in other remote potentially developing countries which run a political system not of multiculturalism but multi political culturalism (a de facto potent of disintegration in the making), the very thing they understand to be dangerous and condemn not to be correct for their own countries.  

Case in point Ethiopia, Ethiopia has established two decades ago by an ethnically organized guerrilla group, a political system in which its people are divided in regions based on ethnic political structures where each of them always fight for resources, boundaries, expel, kill or confiscate  people who are thought from other ethnic groups, they insult and dehumanize each other on every social media out there that it is better to live in hell than to live with such, such groups aside from the fights on the ground. These are true faces of multi political culturalism.  

Mainz, Germany

Dear Lakew,

I think your pose some very good questions here, just above. I would say, that in my own awareness, back into the 1990s, multiculturalism was once a very popular doctrine. If we have to pin blame for it somewhere, though, that is a quite difficult question. It may be that it still has its defenders attending to this very thread of discussion.

But where does (did) it come from, who were (are) the advocates? In some sense, I don't think it is anything new, or maybe it is just the name that was recently new. In my own home town, Philadelphia, there are signs of something quite similar going all the way back to the late 1600s--encoded in the names of some of the older sections of the city. Off the top of my head, I'd say that their were areas, apart from the center of town, designated for various ethnic groups, a Germantown (in which there are now no Germans to speak of)--as in many other east coast cities--but also areas with names derived from Welsh and from place names in Scotland. Some similar pattern of separation was common and ubiquitous. It seems as though many thought that different peoples should live in different places--among their own. Legal racial segregation was perhaps the last sign of this. But in the U.S., we don't accept this as a legally binding or obligatory condition. People don't want to be told where to live or with whom to (dis-)associate.

You mention, a while back, the theme of "divide and conquer" (a phrase deriving ultimately from Caesar's description of his Gallic wars). But in your leading case of Ethiopia, who was it that wanted the separations, and who enforced them? What was the thinking that entered into the policies adopted, where did these ideas come from, and who made the decisions? Why were the ideas found acceptable?

By comparison, if large international corporations or other businesses come into a country and work their way in by bribery, say, then this is something which can be prosecuted in many of the home countries of these corporations and businesses, but are they solely responsible for the resulting corruption? How can such practices be stopped? A traditional argument against home-country prosecutions, was to the effect that if the companies involved didn't offer incentives, then some other companies would, and would walk away with the business deals or contracts. I believe this kind of excuse is now generally rejected.

Your opposition to what the British are now calling "state multiculturalism" is clear indeed. That you continue to call your alternative by the term "multiculturalism" seems to me to invite confusion. (That is why I persist in using a different term.) If you want to assign blame for multiculturalism, then I think you will need to take up a good deal of detailed history. In very general terms, I am aware of some of the recent history of Ethiopia, but I do not know enough of the details. What was the central ideology of the revolution which took place some decades back? How did it happen? Who supported it? To what degree were foreign influences or ideas involved? I don't have the impression of rich countries coming in and fomenting a revolution, and my memory seems to be that the revolution came before the recent (1990s) high tide of multiculturalism in the West.

H.G. Callaway

There is a saying: 'peoples' taste differ' (bhinna ruchi lOka) and another one 'Birds of a feather flock together'. Combining the two, you get the situation of people of same taste, or rather culture (culturing is feeding, people feed on what they find tasteful), and this gives rise to a society. If in a country, all people are pressurised into having the same taste, then it is State induced mono-culturism; if people of one culture are powerful, this may happen. This is worse than State induced multiculturis. State induced multiculturism is very good if the Government is good.

As an example of goodness of 'de novo' multiculturalism, let me present the State of Kerala, one of the states in the Union of India, populated by about 35 million people. The British exercised their 'divide and rule' policy maximum in Inida (though I suspect the full veracity of this) and after Independence, India was divided on Language basis (India has about 20+languages officially) and is a country where more people speak English than the National Language!

Kerala has around 25% Muslims (both Sunni and Shia), 25% Christians (catholics, Protestsnts, and so many other subdivisions) and nearly 50% Hindus (of Brahmins, Nairs, Ezhavas and so many other castes). There are also Buddhists, Atheists, Jains, etc., etc., since eons. No major Religion or caste based riots. Kerala has politicians of all creeds, from most extreme Rights to extreme Lefts. It had the first elected Communist Government in the world. Kerala has near 1005 literacy and is the state with highest per capita consumption of alcohol, which is sold by the Government (only the Government can sell Liquour in Kerala). All Keralites are equally corrupt, regardless of politics or religion; it is the truest example of scratching each others back. None knows how the Economy of Kerala survives, but people are well off. Kerala has the highest per capita two&three wheelers, and the worst and narrowest roads in the country. Kerala has migrant workers from other parts of India: for them Kerala is a 'Gulf'.

What I want to say is that the success (if you can call the above a success) is due to the multicultural nature of the society, and this came int being de novo.

Any way true multicuturalism is needed and whether it is state or non-state is secondary

Narayanan

Rcently

Dear Callaway,

To make clear what the terminology I use,  multi political culturalism, instead of multiculturalism in which the British or other European countries call it state multiculturalism. 

From your example on the past of America, if those partitioned localities that were established on ethnic types and languages stayed and changed into political structures of their own with their own distinct languages, their own economic philosophies and programs and an army of their own, then the America we know, the powerful, the country of hope for people across the globe who  suffered prosecutions and abuse could not have existed.

No person of reason from contemporary America will condemn the formation of the United States of America based solely not on anything but on philosophy of ideas that roots from a vision of establishing one strong, prosperous and democratic country of all people,  not United Ethnic States of America, where the later is potently impossible to be governed by a central government and the ethnic  states are not designed to be multicultural and multiethnic but monoethnic and monocultural.

Think if America had states like German state, Italian state, Irish state, French state, British state etc,  states created only for ethnic people to live and rule themselves and in the nominal union called America, each person is forced to identify his/her ethnicity on id cards. The German state kicks out every other ethnic member who they think lives and makes a living in their state (possible to identify such "aliens " because you force them to declare their ethnicity on their cards)  and they vilified each other on a regular basis, they chose not to use or have a common language (each teach with its  choice of language ) so that future communication and closeness is impossible.

Can any person of reason call such an arrangement a functioning one country with a common purposes and destiny with an umbrella name America? I do not think so,  but that is exactly what is happening in Ethiopia and that is what Britain and the United states and other wealthy countries  vehemently support and offer huge sums of money every year to these ruling groups, to prepare Ethiopia for future disintegration.

The very idea of such multi political culturalism came from Lenin and other socialist writers on nations and nationalities and their freedoms up to secession. The current rulers of Ethiopia were guerilla fighters, few of them were college dropouts, but  high schoolers or peasants  whose uncivilized ideology  was to mimic socialism of Lenin and Albania verbatim and create a separate small country-like  out of Ethiopia  and on the way to let other ethnic groups do the same. Unfortunately they succeeded in toppling the government as it was a marxist government itself where the west had a grudge and dislike on it.

Once they occupy the political specter of power, they designed a political structure that bases on ethnicity and create regions on ethnic lines by force with an education policy of each ethnic region  of its own with its own choice of language. They declared Ethiopia has no thousands of years of history but 100 and do every tricks available to foam ethnic conflicts so that the Ethiopian society loses its traditional cohesiveness  and mindset of one multicultural society that existed for thousands of years. 

Ii is my firm belief and intellectual reasoning that people do enter into  conflicts because of misunderstanding and lack of reasoning either to convince or be convinced not because there is a real issue that makes them go apart and it is always to the interest of an individual person and hence to the collection and to the society that to live together is better and to create conditions of understanding is wiser than creating conditions of misunderstanding and disarray on society. The wise always has fibers to hold for greatness while the fool has only scissors to cut for smallness.    

First, the political establishments should stop counting multiculturalism in context of ethnicity (or for that matter in any other singular context). It is difficult to understand in countries like the Uk where ethnicities and culture are almost invariably related singularly. However, multiculturalism may be difference in the geographical origins in the same religion or religious differences in the same ethnicity etc, etc. The political establishments have to make their own visions broader in order to effectively adopt the concept of multiculturalism.

Second, there should be no concept of 'cultural majority' or 'cultural minority' in the government. The inter-cultural conflicts should be resolved as any other conflict regardless of majority or minority views.

Third, multiculturalism begets itself.. I cannot think of India as not being multicultural, as it has been multicultural since a long time. Multiculturalism has been comparatively recent in west. It should be given ample time, before deciding its feasibility. Non-multiculturalism is artificial.

Mainz, Germany

Dear Sharma,

Though I have not spoken to the specifics of India, as regarding the "artificial," I agree with the American thinker, R.W. Emerson, "Nature likes to cross her stocks." People, apart from strenuous divisions and prohibitions will mingle with each other and create new social configurations.

America is, no doubt, constitutionally a creation of the moderate enlightenment, and "American" is a non-ethnic nationality. The state borders often originated as simple lines on a map. My general impression is that many, lacking direct experience, have difficulty imagining how such a thing is supposed to work. But notice the national motto: "E pluribus Unum," "Out of many, one."

I have come to think of this as a continuous process. We do not want to be divided into a contentious, bickering "many" and neither do we want to be homogeneously "one." This requires adjustments from time to time, and then readjustments. Historically, this has worked pretty well, in the sense that the country is a considerable success among countries built up by immigration and integration. The aim is not to abolish our differences, but to tame the excesses.

I am sure that the concept of "multiculturalism" is more appealing in some countries containing age-old and more settled cultural, religious and linguistic diversity--but, as we have seen, where this devolves into politically motivate communal or ethnic conflict, then the appeal of the multicultural ideal is seriously diminished.

In any case, I am sure that any self-respecting country will see to its own constitutional arrangements and policies. The question is, in part, "Is multiculturalism the best policy for each multi-ethnic country?"

One point seems clear in the criticism of "state multiculturalism," if the state sponsors diversity, as contrasted with integration, then the likely result will be to produce ever more politically motivated diversity.

H.G. Callaway

I view state multiculturalism as a potent force of development as long as it chooses to acknowledge and regard all the cultures. It becomes a negative force only if it is used to create cultures as watertight compartments and imposes culture as primary identity in individuals. In contrast non-multicultural societies tend to decay over a period of time. They tend to become self-promoting and tend to be rigid in their mindset and unwelcoming to new ideas and thoughts. They are a danger to other societies as well. Thus, in my view, the state should definitely play a part in promoting multiculturalism, however, not by watertight compartmentalisation and giving freebies to some cultural groups, but through equality of laws, acknowledgement of all the cultures and a logical method of conflict resolution.

Conflicting views are definitely a part of multicultural society and involves considerable amount of energy in resolution, however, the benefits of multiculturalism definitely outweigh the costs.

Mainz, Germany

Dear Sharma,

It seems that "multiculturalism" is increasing in popularity in India. But I suspect the word, open to many interpretations, apparently, may be misleading.

You wrote:

In contrast non-multicultural societies tend to decay over a period of time. They tend to become self-promoting and tend to be rigid in their mindset and unwelcoming to new ideas and thoughts. They are a danger to other societies as well. Thus, in my view, the state should definitely play a part in promoting multiculturalism, however, not by watertight compartmentalization and giving freebies to some cultural groups, but through equality of laws, acknowledgement of all the cultures and a logical method of conflict resolution.

---end quotation

I wonder if you would include here, among the "non-multicultural societies," all those based on a traditional ethnic (or religious) monculture, of which there are many; and I also wonder if you mean to include those which I have described as "pluralistic." A pluralistic society accepts the existence of distinct ethnic, religious and cultural groups, within itself, but emphasizes integration over the longer run. So, typically, and in the longer run, you don't get ahead in life merely by emphasis your distinctive particularities. You have to go out and interact productively with all the rest. If you could answer these 2 questions, that would help a lot in locating what you mean by "multiculturalism."

Your idea that the "non-multicultural societies are "a danger to others societies," is certainly provocative, but it seems to me to remain a rather unclear claim, as long as you do not specify what is meant by "multicultural."

I notice that you object to a state role if this implies  " watertight compartmentalization and giving freebies to some cultural groups." But this seems to be just what is being rejected under the heading of "state multiculturalism," in the British discussions we have seen above. Yet you endorse "state multiculturalism" as a "potent force of development." You seem to use the word in some different sense. What you accept is not what we have seen rejected. But exactly what is it that you accept?

I regard multiculturalism as contrasted with "pluralism" as outside the mainstream of American tradition, though this involves no objection to particular groups in American society continuing in a more or less separate life, if they feel that this is needed. There have always been such groups. I believe that some immigrant groups simply take longer to integrate, and it does no good to rush things.

My overall impression is that the term "multiculturalism" has different meanings for almost every user of the term. It seems to be a kind of political football, roving back and forth in meaning, depending on particular aims or circumstances. This seems to invoke a kind of intellectual-moral blinking as to the need for clarity.

It may be that this is because its primary meaning for many is simply "loyalty to my group, come hell or high water!"  Part of the problem is that as so understood, it would not be very different from ethnic chauvinism. This suggests the idea, in turn, that we should "blink" at ethnic chauvinism, though under that description it is usually rejected outright.

H.G. Callaway

Dear Mr. Callaway,

I would start by explaining you what multiculturalism means in the sense I am talking. Let us take a society where there is a matured culture. As all healthy societies it would have an interaction with the other societies and cultures. Some people from other societies will immigrate, some would emigrate and some others would re-immigrate. All will cause a cultural change. A true integration in a multicultural society will not only involve adoption of the culture by immigrants, but also an adoption of parts of immigrant culture by the society. An integrated culture that finally surfaces is thus a blend of both immigrant and the original culture to form a new blend. Such a blend will invigorate and enrich the new culture, or at least bring a flexibility of acceptance of change. Such a culture will lead to a more broad outlook of people and hence greater development.

Let us take the British culture during colonial period. A usually neglected fact is that the British culture itself witnessed a lot of change during that era in every walk of life - from language to food. It was a vital culture based on acceptance of ideas from various cultures. Though it had a shortcoming of racism or it would have been a near perfect multicultural society; it was still forced to incorporate people from the colonies into its mainstream - even though the change occurred slowly as it wasn't a multicultural society from the beginning.   Without having done that it could not have progressed as it did. 

I will give you the example of Nazi and Fascist forces in Europe and Asia supporting my argument that how non-multicultural societies could become danger to the other societies. They were based on endorsement of propagation of a single culture. Whatever was its consequence and affect on the world is well known.

What I mean by watertight compartmentalization is not allowing mixing of an immigrant culture or the original culture with each other based on inculcation of fear in the society's mind about 'culture in danger'. Another example can be endorsing a separate cultural education for different cultures as mainstream education. This would increasingly lead to isolation of various parts of the society.

By giving freebies I mean over vigilance for example in jobs to adjust various sections of the society (caste, race, linguistic groups and what not). I mean - " your office doesn't have even a single person from religious minorities" stuff. It may also mean reserving jobs for some groups. This will result in multiple cultural groups with differences and even grudges etched in stone - not a good thing for a society.

I know, in the world, there are some countries more multicultural than others, I prefer talk about a pluralistic society accepts the existence of distinct ethnic, religious and cultural groups, within itself, acoordint with Ph. H.G Callaway. In this case people are more tolerant. 

In my opinion, in the world, there are some intolerant groups. In Mexico, some people don´t tolerate etnic 

Mainz, Germany

Dear all,

Let us hope we have not lost the threads of discussion here. I see that several contributions have recently been made. 

First off, I am inclined to remark that multiculturalism is plausibly regarded as a variety of pluralism, and the question I have concerns whether, or to what degree, this particular variety of pluralism may be of value in particular multi-ethnic societies.

Although multiculturalism does not match my own best conception of pluralism, which I think of as involving much more crossing of particular dividing lines and varieties of new configurations arising, still "multiculturalism" as this has recently been understood, appeals more than a simple national monoculture. However, that may be, though, I do not think I know enough about each and every corner of the world to attempt to judge of the various arrangements people may have made in their own countries. Quite the contrary, I think we have to have some respect for how other countries have arranged and ordered their own affairs.

Moreover, I am inclined to think that it is good if we have protections for especially disadvantaged groups within society. We have, of late, generally seen very considerable growth of inequality, worldwide, and this is something to be resisted. "Multiculturalism" might also be thought of as a generalization of the attempt to protect especially disadvantaged groups in society. But if we are critical, then it is not a good idea to throw out the baby with the bathwater. 

Part of the problem is that "multiculturalism" seems both too broad and, at the same time, too narrow. Its too broad, because not every identifiable group or sub-group in society stands in need of any special protection. It is too narrow, because individuals within protected groups still fall through and do not benefit from the protection of the group. It may be that it is typically elite members of protected groups who chiefly benefit.

Lastly, for now, it seems important to comment upon the desirability of mutual understanding across cultural, religious, ethnic and racial differences. I think this no doubt desirable. At the same, time, this tends to be a matter for specialists, when we are concerned with any considerable detail; and it seems hardly practical to require of everyone that they understand or sympathize with every identifiable group on the planet. Of course, we do well to understand our neighbors and the people we have to deal with, whether everyday, or occasionally. Given that none of us understands all the variety in reasonable detail, it may be that for most people, they can best act to improve the world by acting and understanding among their own family friends and neighborhood.  Traditionally, that is regarded as a reasonable ethical position --where I come from.

Of course, its true, I have been going back and forth between Europe and the U.S. for about 30 years.

H.G. Callaway

I highly recommend William Kymlicka's book, Multicultural Odysseys. He is a Canadian constitutional scholar, and this book is the best, most thorough examination of the historical development of multicultural theories and policies (and the thinking behind them) in Europe and Canada, and at the global level (ie: UN, World Bank, etc). It's the best place to start an inquiry into the topic.

Mainz, Germany

Dear Rooney,

Many thanks for your suggestion. I would certainly agree that Kymlicka has been influential on this topic--as is also true of  the Canadian Charles Taylor. Canada, as I understand it, is officially multicultural, and I certainly believe that Canada has every right to make its own constitutional arrangements. Consistent with the question as stated above, it may be that multiculturalism is good for Canada though less appealing in other multi-ethnic countries.

It appears that the Canadian example may not generalize well, in part because of its particular history and centuries of bilingualism and partly because of its history of separate languages and cultures in distinct territories. My impression is that multiculturalism actually originated in Canada under Trudeau.

I hope you took notice of the European criticism quoted above. Yet in spite of them, if there is one European country which has embraced multiculturalism more firmly, then the one that comes to mind is Belgium--which also has a long history of separate languages in separate territories. Major European countries have generally backed away from multiculturalism, though--in spite of varieties of traditional ethnic differences over internal territory.  British, French and German leaders see multiculturalism as a failed policy and have moved toward greater emphasis on integration.

Though, as you suggest, one might well start from the Canadian advocates of multiculturalism, I think it makes just as much sense to start with its contemporary critics. As regards the global level, it has certainly been argued that lack of common national sentiment is often found in weak or failed states. Canada could assume its nationhood more easily, though in world-perspective, encouraging ethnic, religious and linguistic distinctiveness in weak states of the developing world may appear in a quite different light.

H.G. Callaway

Mainz, Germany

Dear all,

The following short video is well worth a look. I return to Kenan Malik, here on the theme of "Enemies of Free Speech." This lasts just over 10 Min. and is a talk given at the "Oslo Freedom Forum."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAqsOFdF2_g

Malik here defends freedom of speech against various objections which are closely connected with recent multiculturalism, and campaigns against hate speech, in particular. It seems clear to me that Malik sees free speech as essential to combating racial and ethnic discrimination; and he presents the positive image of how a free and open, pluralistic society might best function.

Speech may give offense, he argues, but this is inevitable in a society made up of people with deeply conflicting values. To say that speech should never give offense, essentially means that there are certain beliefs and certain forms of power that should never be challenged, since challenging power always implies giving offense to it. 

If we suppose that some speech should be forbidden because it offends, then that depends on allowing someone in particular to decide what speech is sufficiently offensive, and their power is then effectively put beyond question by those whom they judge.

This is a ringing and convincing defense of freedom of speech.

H.G. Callaway

Population of the country united by a common history, common interests, and belong to a specific area. The country population are from different nationalities and religions. Everyone is aware of that works for the benefit of his country, the outcome of which the benefit is to the population themselves.

  Any one wants to differentiate between the people of the country to achieve its objective interests of the parties do not want the benefit of the country.

I think matured multiculturalism will bring up national value through collaborative performance from various ethnic groups whereas immature multiculturalism only bring forth argument, contentions, conflict, disharmony etc.  The journey is from immature to mature multiculturalism.  Just like the concept of Tuckman's group development model transforming from forming, storming, norming to performing.  Since multi-ethnic groups in a country is not temporary group / project team as in Tuckman's model, think the last stage adjourning is not applicable. 

Also thinking even though at norming or performing stages, multicultural groups with their unique cultural values should be considerate, persevere and respect other cultural values in order to avoid unnecessary contentions among different groups. If a country is self-aware that it is at immature multiculturalism, it should find ways how to leap frog from storming to norming or performing stage so that the time spent in storming stage is at minimal.  All ideas / suggestions are welcome in order to help a country with immature multiculturalism (storming stage) to matured multiculturalism (norming / performing stage).

Mainz, Germany

Dear Fung,

Readers of your posting may want to take a look at the following short video, which explains something of Tuckman's group development model:

http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newLDR_86.htm

As I understand the model, this basically has to do with a team working together as common employees and how management can bring them into greater harmony. This means that we are basically asking about the development of cooperation and group effectiveness regarding people, however different in background, interacting on a one-to-one basis.

I doubt the applicability of the model to societies formed of conflicting ethnic and racial groups, where, as in multiculturalism, great emphasis is placed upon group identity and distinctiveness. Instead of solving problems on a one-to-one basis, there will be the additional option of refusing to cooperate and appealing to one's own identity group for support.People join up in an identity group and fight the others.

I take it that this is the root of sectarian conflict, as we see this around the world, which persists on the assumption that if another group holds the upper hand, then one's own group--and your children-- will only get the leavings and dregs. Take the same groups members, however, and distribute them into a larger population, and the groups identities will tend to break down and cooperation on a one-to-one basis may begin to emerge. There will then be some degree of mutual assimilation. But as long as hardened groups identities persist, this discourages one-to-one relations across the lines dividing the groups.

In consequence, I find your analogy between the development of cooperation in a group of employees and resolutions among conflicting multicultural groups somewhat strained. Indeed, this may be the basic reason that multiculturalism has been so broadly rejected of late: it is, say the critics, destructive of social  integration.

H.G. Callaway

This discussion is very limited:  it fails to realize that multiculturalism is an ideology original to the West imposed from above with the purpose of creating a race mixed culture in all European-created countries through mass immigration.

Acknowledging the existence of historical minorities in your country is not multiculturalism, but simply an acknowledgment that minorities have existed in your country, that your country is multicultural, and some non-European nations have learned to acknowledge this from the Wet. But multicultural-ism is something different that only European-created peoples are being obligated to accept; it is not a democratic policy, since no democratic vote was ever taken as to whether European natives wanted hordes of immigrants coming to their lands getting multicultural rights at the cost of destroying the European character of nations.

Malik is against multiculturalism but in a very deceptive way; he is for mass immigration but is under the illusion that millions of immigrants will assimilate better if there are no multicultural policies encouraging them to retain their cultures. He ignores altogether what transpired in the US, which is a country that strongly encouraged assimilation but with millions coming in who are not ethnically European they have not assimilated. Once you have open borders and allow millions from the Third World, you will inevitably have multiculturalism. The issue ultimately is not multiculturalism per se but mass immigration from non-European lands, which is destroying the beautiful legacy of the West.

Someone here mentioned Kymlicka, see my essay on his ideas here at Research Gate, "Will Kymlicka and the disappearing Dominion"

Kymlicka is for group rights for non-European immigrants inside European nations, at the same time that he identifies as neo-Nazi any group rights for the very European natives who built Canada! 

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Duchesne,

Whatever we may think of doctrinal multiculturalism, here in the U.S., we are certainly committed to a multi-ethnic and multi-racial society, with equality under the law.  The facts of diversity and pluralism on the ground, have, in important senses, always been there --virtually from the start of the European colonization in the 17th century. Whether ethnic or racial uniformity facilitates or is needed for (politically sufficient) cultural uniformity is a different question.  Though I think pluralism and diversity are positive things, I do not believe that they are an absolute good, so that more is always better.

Again, whether mass immigration recommends itself is a quite different question. It does seem to be a political corollary of globalization. Its a diffuse link between policies of the right, favoring ever greater globalization, and policies of the left which appear, at times, to hold all Western tradition in contempt. One might also think of it as an (attempted) adaptation of traditional ethnic conceptions of nationality to globalization.

In any case, I think these question clearly take on a different character depending on one's location and on existing political and social traditions. In spite of strong borrowings from Europe, and a very large, historical European influx, "American," is not an ethnic designation, and it is also not a European nationality. What has been emphasized, here at home, traditionally, is something more like support of the constitution and democratic ideals --or, for the constitutional skeptics, at least a willingness to engage in debate about them while keeping the law. In that way, relevant decisions are subject to democratic and constitutional processes. 

This is part of the reason that I find it disturbing that multiculturalism has been, so prevalently, a kind of insider deal among various national elites. The idea, here, again, is that when someone invests great sums of money in a foreign country, they want to have the good will of the foreign, national elites, so that they can be sure of being able to get their money out again--and also ensure the smooth operation of foreign investments. How or whether the various foreign cultures may fit in or complement domestic developments, or the prospects of assimilation, are of little interest from such perspectives. Control of existing or per-existing citizens over domestic government and its policies are of little import. Such concerns have been regularly discounted as "populist" --at best.

Your take, or developed arguments on Kymlicka are of interest for this thread, I believe. I would suggest making your chief points explicitly and seeing whether they evoke some response. I would also suggest making the distinctively Canadian factors or considerations explicit. After all, we are prevalently told that Canada is officially multicultural, while the doctrine has been prevalently rejected elsewhere or is, at least nowhere near "official" 

I am sure that many people, both historically European and historically non- European have helped to build Canada. Its a great country, and much admired here in the U.S. and around the world.

H.G. Callaway

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Salustri,

You wrote:

Depending too much on historical "information" is not a very good idea, IMHO, because historical accounts are always biased and never complete.

--end quotation

Surely, it would be more judicious to say that "historical accounts" may be biased, rather than claiming categorically that they are "always biased." Your statement looks like a rash over-generalization, to me. Though there are many conflicts among historians, there is still better and worse in our accounts of history.

The point is of some importance, in the present context, because, I take it, values of any particular society are historically grounded, and so embedded in given societies. In consequence, knowledge of history is an important way of understanding and elucidating our various value commitments. If we propose to change the values of a given society, one's own or that of another, then there is a kind of optimization or extrapolation involved: Given the existing values of a particular society, will a change or augmentation serve to complement and enlarge or will it instead stultify and negate the on-going life of the particular society?

Certainly, rational argumentation and evidence of the present state of affairs will be relevant. But, my chief point is that this is going to be an evaluation of any proposed changes, which starts out from the pre-existing configuration of values in the given society. Because of that, it is not so formalistic and abstract as you seem to suppose. It has to be something that the people in the given society can accept, or be brought to accept, and ignoring the particularities will likely amount to going over their heads and evoking resistance to even the best possible proposal.

H.G. Callaway

Callaway, I understand that you are simply voicing the official line on multiculturalism, which is what all academics do, since Western universities barely allow any dissent on the issue of mass immigration, but constantly imposed on students the idea that diversity is enriching, even though there is no evidence supporting this. 

A few corrections: globalization cannot be equated with mass immigration for otherwise how do we explain that fact that Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan, in fact all non-European nations, are engaged in globalization without mass immigration.

Second, it is misleading to say that "the facts of diversity and pluralism on the ground, have, in important senses, always been there --virtually from the start of the European colonization in the 17th century". The United States did not have an open borders policy until the 1965 Immigration Act. The 1924 immigration law restricted immigrants to individuals deemed to be akin to the majority European culture of the States.

You say that Canada was built by many races; no, it was built by Europeans; as of 1971, when official multiculturalism was introduced, and when the entire nation had been created, the ethnic composition of Canada was over 96 percent European. Let that fact sink into your brain, readers, as now the entire academic world is misleading citizens with the view that Canada was diverse from the beginning.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Duchesne,

---you wrote---

Callaway, I understand that you are simply voicing the official line on multiculturalism, which is what all academics do, since Western universities barely allow any dissent on the issue of mass immigration, but constantly imposed on students the idea that diversity is enriching, even though there is no evidence supporting this.

--end quotation

Nope. No "official line" here. This is an open discussion so far as I'm concerned, and anyone can defend or criticize to their heart's content. That goes for mass immigration as well. I think your comments might benefit from going back and reading some of the earlier contributions.

Much of what you say seems rather contentious, IMHO. But let's see who may take up your line of thought. On the distinction I maintain between pluralism and multiculturalism, you might also like to take a look at my following paper:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264238447_The_Meaning_of_Pluralism

I take it that contemporary "multiculturalism" is basically European/British in inspiration. It certainly didn't get to Canada from down here. There is good reason to think that the ancestral model is the 4 ethnically defined countries of the U.K.

H.G. Callaway

Conference Paper The Meaning of Pluralism

Mainz, Germany

Dear all,

I see that Paul Boghossian has a new paper on moral relativism, which I would like to call to your attention:

https://philpapers.org/rec/BOGRAM?ref=mail

I quote the abstract:

Abstract Many philosophers and non-philosophers are attracted to the view that moral truths are relative to moral framework or culture. I distinguish between two versions of such a view. I argue that one version is coherent but not plausible, and I argue that the second one can’t be made sense of. The upshot is that we have to make sense of at least some objective moral truths.

---End quotation

See: Paul Boghossian "Relativism about Morality" In Katharina Neges, Josef Mitterer, Sebastian Kletzl & Christian Kanzian (eds.), Realism - Relativism - Constructivism: Proceedings of the 38th International Wittgenstein Symposium in Kirchberg. De Gruyter. pp. 301-312 (2017) 

Comments invited.

H.G. Callaway

The historical outcomes of global multiculturalism have to be awaited. Under the current economic conditons (wealth accumulation, overcompetition, monopolies,..), multi-ethnic compostions of a society will add fuel to fire ! We are not only intellectual spirits, the minimal economic income for a healthy life has to be met. Austro-Hungary and Yugoslavia were multicultural entities, and they broke up because of ethnic conflict. Do not underestimate this  ethnical fact, concerning the Soviet Union. Human behavior is territorial, only 1% of the world population is trained in the scientific method and even a fewer are philosophers ! I have been walking around your campus at Temple U; you are surrounded by an ocean of underprivileged black people. It is extremely diificult to develop the human potential; Father Conwell gave many lectures on that. I am myself a multi-lingual and multi-cultural person by destiny, but I would never favor that life style to become a societal model, it is simply to exhausting. It is all about the economic jackpot of human living chances, and social mobility in all top capitalist nations has declined. Legal constitutions and human reality must correspond; maybe, this will trends will become better, once we have left the depressive stage of the world economy. Let us hope and pray for the best possible events to come.

Mainz, Germany

Dear Ternyik & readers,

As you will see if you look back to various notes on this thread, multiculturalism has been rejected in just about every European country. That is where the criticism began and has been strongest. Varieties of pluralism have generally taken its place --with greater emphasis on the need for social integration.

Multiculturalism is also showing considerable wear in the U.S. The current term in most use is "diversity," and it is rarely mentioned who is supposed to fall under the term--though it is associated with much hostility to political diversity.

Primarily, the question of pluralism is how it is that multi-ethnic and multi-racial societies can accommodate diversity --avoiding a rigid monoculture on the one hand and balkanization of society on the other. The illiberal left seems to chiefly err on the side of social balkanization.

H.G. Callaway

I do not know if multiculturalism is a good or bad thing, and not I know how to handle it. I believe that multiculturalism will increase ever more independently of the will of politicians. Between a thousand, two thousand or three thousand years (if man will not be able to destroy itself before) there is a risk that there will be only one culture on Earth, that will be the result of the blending all current cultures. Just as all men will have the same color of skin and the same shape as the eyes. Perhaps, in order to preserve the cultural and physical biodiversity of humans, we must begin to think of some form of reserve or protected area as we already do today to safeguard the biodiversity of fauna and flora.

Mainz, Germany

Dear Cannizzaro,

Thanks for your comments.

I think it important to distinguish between the factually multi-ethnic and multi-racial society, on the one hand, and multiculturalism as a political policy designed to deal with the factual diversity. To be sure, people are on the move just about everywhere and this increases the complexity of domestic political considerations.

So far as I'm concerned, the human race has every right to turn itself into any color or eye shape it may prefer. No one knows how the mutual influences and mixing of human beings will turn out in several thousand years, and I am not betting on long term outcomes--though I am aware that some people do.  I think they have some right to that, too.

The question of multiculturalism vs. pluralism is a matter of how to deal with factual diversity here and now in various political societies. Would we do better, in each polity, to protect and attempt to sustain each distinctive cultural group and discount the need of social and political integration? This, I take it, would tend to increase cultural differences within each polity. But such policies have generally been rejected in Europe in some degree or other. Or, on the other hand, might we only seek to protect those who are actually threatened in some way, --and in the interest of social and political integration?

My view is that internal cultural diversity is not always destructive, and can represent a strength of a given society, though its excesses can be quite destructive--or, if you prefer, considerably more difficult to govern. Diversity is a good thing, but it is not an absolute good such that more is always better.

So, consider the U.S. for example --it was never a traditional cultural mono-culture. Other western societies have also decided against a strict domestic mono-culture. But if at present a society is afflicted by divisiveness and political dysfunction, does it make good sense to add to the internal diversity by encouraging mass immigration? Sometimes, I think, greater diversity can be a good thing, and sometimes not. This is a question of political policy and not a question of the morality of our likes or dislikes of particular peoples.

H.G. Callaway

IMHO the characteristic than nature (GOD) rewards is competition and the better one survives and grows. Humanity has not yet solved the issue of what are the better moral values as we see with many religions. Indeed, it is likely that the better set of values changes with the development of technology (humanity's way of dealing with a changing environment/universe). Therefore, the existence of many cultures, each has a set of propose moral values and laws, and their competition is good for humanity because such condition obeys natures dictates.

The problem is such competition currently invoke war/violence and destruction. That is, the problem for humanity's growth to globalism is war - not multiculturalism. Indeed, multiculturalism should be encouraged.

Multiculturalism touches at the heart of the "how to promote globalism?". The laws of a country which are supported by guns and violence (police) are the result of the application of one particular culture. In the US, it's the general Christian identity. How would it be if a community (say a county) started to enforce Islamic law (say by the ISIS) ? Or, if the tribal societies rules and procedures were required to be followed (those were replaced / conquered)?

The British Empire survived for a couple centuries - it must have done something right relative to multiculturalism. That their rule included allowing (encouraging ?) one culture to compete against another helped their dominance. If one got too carried away, troops were sent. The way the France, USSR dealt with multiculturalism failed. The integration attempt practiced in the US has had some success. But the emigres are expected to meld into the general Christian ethic. The fact that they are emigres suggests their culture has failed. But this belies the idea some may have some value to humanities growth - which is lost.

When the British Empire started to collapse (when it started to become humanitarian) (c. 1910), it first started the concept of "dominions" such as Canada. I think the "dominion" concept was a evolutionary start toward a new attempt at globalism. It did evolve from a global (as the British Empire was for a long time) organization to solve many organizational problem - multiculturalism being one. But it occurred too late in cycle of growth and decline of nations. Perhaps, the current issues of war between cultures and nations may be to build on the dominion concept with a health dose of Westphalia Sovereignty.

I consider and believe in the collapse or remixing between the parallel universes!!