What is multiculturalism?
Latino Pundit provides a spark of insight and disagrees with my argument against multiculturalism. (*) My argument was made a while back. (†)
Latino Pundit characterizes my point as “multiculturalism = sludge.” Of course, that overgeneralizes what I said. To be precise, I depicted multiculturalism as a process. The end result of this process I described as negative.
Furthermore, he equates multiculturalism with that which is Hispanic in the USA. To me, the word multiculturalism is not so specific. I view multiculturalism instead as an ideology that is not associated with any particular culture.
There is nothing wrong with maintaining one’s culture or promoting it. It is wrong, however, to promote one culture at the expense of another where the culture that declines is harmless.
America has a culture. Its emblems include baseball, fireworks on the Fourth of July, the nomadic experience, hamburgers, and hot dogs. It is a tradition of free associations and a reverence for justice over any reverence for authority. It is a culture founded upon an interesting combination of English, American Indian, and other cultures.
Those who criticize the United States as an imperialistic aggressor believe this American culture should be scoured off the Earth. One may begin to achieve this goal by portraying American culture as evil and every other culture as good. This is the perspective of multiculturalism as it applies to America.
What is multiculturalism, really? Is it a snide, underhanded reference to one culture in particular that is supposedly disliked? Is it an ideology? On the other hand, is it merely a distraction?
The real argument seems to be which culture is good and which is bad. This real argument can be avoided by hiding under the cloak of multiculturalism, One can claim superior moral authority on a subject by defining one’s enemies as evil because they defend “evil” and attack “good.” In this way, multiculturalism can help an advocate presume the conclusion in such a way that it is difficult for an audience to detect.
All of this comes from the notion that a culture is something so distinct that it must be considered to have a “purity,” as Latino Pundit references. As he forcefully notes, however, cultures tend to have so many interactions with other cultures that it is probably impossible to precisely distinguish between cultures. Insofar as cultures are not monoliths, they cannot be ranked in order of merit.
Yet, the first lesson of politics is that different groups of people are different enough to matter in the course of daily lives. To use an example, an American might sit on a chair, cross his legs, and show the sole of his foot to a person he is talking to, without failing to be polite. In Arab culture, however, that would be impolite.
Latino Pundit is correct that there is no “purity” of any culture that has any value worth protecting. That does not lead to the conclusion, however, that all cultures are the same. A roughly drawn difference is still a difference.
Multiculturalism appears only superficially to argue that all cultures are equal. In practical effect, if all cultures are equal, than any greatly successful culture would scandalize our presumption of relativistic equivalence. To defend the presumption requires a redefining of success or thriving as aggression and imperialism.
Most proponents of multiculturalism are merely confused. They do not deserve harsh criticism. They deserve a chance to see the light. I am not someone who has all the answers. I once was a forceful proponent of multiculturalism myself.
In conclusion, we should not reference multiculturalism because it is a crutch to shepherd along the weak case for destroying whatever is strong because it is strong without regard for whether it is just. If multiculturalism can then be defined as an ideology, we can see how it leads to the process of shredding existing cultures, regardless of whether they have merit. If multiculturalism really would turn American culture into mulch, then it would do the same for any other culture as well.
If we wish to say American culture is good or bad or some other culture is good or bad, we should be as specific with our examples as possible. It is far more useful to say, “American policy as it concerns the environment in Tanzania is bad,” or “American movies promote violence and immorality,” than it is to say, for example, “America is bad.”
August 13th, 2005 at 17:40
Thanks Andrew. Discourse such as this is always welcomed and encouraged.
August 14th, 2005 at 07:32
“Furthermore, he equates multiculturalism with that which is Hispanic in the USA. To me, the word multiculturalism is not so specific.”
Not that it is specific but inclusive as it is a hot topic today being that American culture is changing or should I say evolving. For instance salsa now sells as much or is out selling ketchup.
As long as culutre does not harm then hot dogs, ketchup or salsa can not be deemed good or bad.
August 16th, 2005 at 09:39
The discussion between hagen and Latino Pundir is becoming more and more interesting. I would like to share some points of view with you. While I agree with Latino in most of his/her observations I disagree with most of your reasoning my dear Andrew.
Analyzing multiculturalism as a process where balance is right but any trend leading to entropia is wrong is an extreme statement that is in conflict with history itself. This is not a process along a single curve (culture) that is appropiate and where the other curves (cultures) adding different backgrounds are O.K. as far as they don’t create a rupture of the main stream.
Let me explain the point. Hagen tries to define a “pure” American culture as the result of English, American-Indian and other cultures and with emblems such as baseball, hot-dogs and hamburgers. I completely disagree. First, because there is no such a thing as an American culture. There is American flocklore -a part of a culture’s signature- that differs either if we analyze, for example, the East Coast, West Coast or the MidWest. There is not a “pure” English culture as England is made of a series of culture and folcklore from Scottland, Ireland, Wales and England that also acquired elements from other European backgrounds (mainly French) and the Roman Empire.
History shows that there has been always a dominated culture among national or local folcklore living together. Every culture has had a raising cycle, a climax and a decay along time where it has been replaced by a new strongest current. Egyptian culture gave pass to Greek culture that was replaced by Roman Culture and so on. But the new culture has not been a completely new thinking with a radical different set of values but strongly rooted on the previously dominant one and enriched by the new. Now, the dominating culture is of Western European Origin with one main source: Judeo-Christianism.
Hispanics belong to the same original cultural mainstream as Americans. With differences in folcklore -even among them- and a different language, but basically, they share the same core values and beliefs. They even share quite similar Amerindian native backgrounds. Then, to categorize America as a main culture and hispanic as part of the Third World cultures is a mistake. Both Americans and Hispanics share more things than those dividing them, while there practically are no cultural similarities between hispanic and other Third World streams as Asians (mainly, Chinesse and Hindues) Both Hispanics and Americans also share an important African element in their cultures brought by the slaves (specially those hispanic countries above the Ecuatorial Line)
Andrew, hamburgers and hot-dogs are as American as they are of German origin or part of the folcklore of most countries in the world right now. Freedom was probably the American emblem most recognized but not its culture as the country has been the shelter for several different waves of immigrants, each one with a predominantly different culture background. Multiculturalism is a distinctive American process as many cultural waves has been living together without being wipped out by the main stream as a result of the American care for freedom and minorty representation.
As per the future, I have the vision of the Western Culture blending with the main Asian cultures and creating a new Global dominant culture that will be dominating in years to come. The more multiculturalism and the more global a culture is the better the possibilities for a longer period prevailing as the mainstream. That’s why America is so powerful right now, because its believes are the result of the most multicultural array in the world.
Ultimately, Andrew, I don’t share your fears but I feel that the more blended the different flocklores in America are, the better chances to create a new mega-culture that will survive and be the dominant current worldwide.
August 25th, 2005 at 13:59
Hmm..good point but I disagree with you assertion that there is no American Culture. Culture’s are created by the uniqueness of a particular society over time. Just because elements of culture are taken from previous societies, that in no way makes the future culture irrelevent. American culture is based on the melting pot ideal, and the facets of our culture reflect this.
August 28th, 2005 at 05:56
Chris: You’re right. America has a culture, one that is very diverse and one of the most multicultural examples in the world. I apologyze if that was not clear from my commentary. What I was wanting to establish is that there is not such a thing as a “pure” American culture -spontaneously and independently created- that we must protect from other influences. As you are perfectly pointing, America’s culture is based on the melting point ideal and that is its strenght. Also, cultures are not static but always evolving as a matter of survival, those cultures that want to keep as an orthodox set of elements are quickly replaced as the dominant wave and in most cases they die.
August 28th, 2005 at 06:09
I would recommend the following discussion I found while browsing the blog, Here it is a good exchange of ideas about the essence of what we are commenting here. Because I truly believe that history reveals that cultures or religions have never been a threat to other. The real threat is political extremism that may manipulate people using a cultural or religious alibi to pursue a political objective. We have plenty examples of this in the Middle Age with the Inquisition, in Europe with Hitler, in the Middle East with Osama Bin Ladin, In the late century with the Soviet Union. That’s why I refuse to accept extremist postures that only can create another fundamentalist wing that wants to wipe out everything is different and establish their values, religion or culture as the only one that worth.