Some of my findings on multiculturalism

Some of my prep work towards the presentation:

• Brief outline of what our aims of this presentation are.

The aim of our presentation is to objectively look at the theory and doctrine (past, present and future) of multiculturalism ,and as a group example of multiculturalism in ourselves - to draw a conclusion on its legitimacy.


• What is multiculturalism?

Is a term associated in principle with the values of equality, tolerance, and inclusiveness toward migrants of ethnically different backgrounds. Outside of its principle meaning, multiculturalism is interpreted today as “the doctrine of the state to actively encourage its citizens to retain the values of the culture from which they came; as a positive, in, and of, itself” (Johann Hari, columnist for The Independent).

While the precise meaning of the word is never clear, multiculturalism refers generally to the dilemmas and difficulties of the politics of difference.

• Where did multiculturalism come from?

Multiculturalism is a product of liberalism and democracy.

A direct adjective of the term multicultural (‘of, or, pertaining to a society consisting of varied cultural groups’), multiculturalism first came into wide circulation in the 1970s in Canada and Australia as the name for a strategic dogma of government policy to help in the management of ethnic pluralism within the national polity. A reaction to a world (and localized) issue to the mounting comprehension of the unintended social and cultural consequences of large-scale immigration. The first doctrine of multiculturalism was by the Canadian Royal Commission in 1965 as an endorsement as an article of faith and important political advancement.

Multiculturalism is commonplace in Western liberal democracies today, promote it’s guiding principle as a positive alternative for policies of assimilation - instead implying a politics of recognition of the rights of a citizen, thus identifying with ethnic minorities and promoting cultural diversity.

In reality multiculturalism has been put into practice evoked as a response to the need to address real or potential ethnic tension and racial conflict and often not embraced by the majority of the society of which it is placed. Multiculturalism is widely debated as to it relevance and success in the world in which we live today.

Peace
Chris

What is multiculturalism?

The first thing one discovers researching on multiculturalism is that there is no general definition of that concept. Multiculturalism is a different phenomenon in each country, mainly if it is thought from a political outlook. Depending on how each country faces it, political analysts will describe different models of managing multiculturalism: Canadian model, British model, Australian model, etc.

Another problem is the daunting amount of confusing terminology: cosmopolitanism, multiracialism, communitarianism and so on. Yasmin Alibhai-Brown distinguish between multiracialism and multiculturalism (Yasmin Alibhai−Brown et al. Multiculturalism: A failed experiment?, www.eurozine.com). The first one would be the objective coexistence of many races , the other concept would be connected with the political policies towards multiracialism that each country carry on.
It is also worrying to know that multiculturalism, such a recent phenomenon, has evolved and is now completely different from its firsts manifestations. Ted Candle, in the same article above mentioned states that “[W]e used to think of diversity in terms of four or five principal groups. Now we have 300 languages in London schools and we see a huge amount of globalisation going on. We have to think about diversity in a totally different way; a more complex approach but I think ultimately far more rewarding. Let's not just throw out the concept of multiculturalism; let's update it and move to a more sophisticated and developed approach”.

Hoever, if nobody has a good definition of multiculturalism, How to update it?

Gabriel Carpintero Román

Anarchism and Democratic Socialism

Howard Zinn on Anarchism and Democratic Socialism

Democratic Socialism and multiculturalism;

Democratic Socialism must not be confused with Socialism or capitalism, for it is the belief that the equality which socialism is designed to bring cannot be achieved without democracy. Unlike Social Democracy, Democratic Socialists are more Left-wing than centrist. Democratic Socialists are opposed to both Communism and capitalism, feeling that both systems have failed to liberate the workers from a world of exploitation.

However Democratic Socialist is generally used as a label for any person or group who advocates the pursuit of socialism by democratic means.

Democratic socialism advocates socialism as a basis for the economy and democracy as a governing principle. This implies that the means of production are owned by the entire population and that political power would be in the hands of the people through a democratic state. This differs from socialism in the fact that the democratic system is itself by the entire population for the people and not just representatives of the working class. This contrast is evident in the Soviet Union’s state capitalism during and after Stalin, where a non-democratic state where in control rather than the workers.

Democratic socialism is not revolutionary. Instead, it is reformist. Recognizing that a revolutionary society always fails to establish both democracy and socialism, we feel that the best way to ensure the dominance of the people is a system of reforms upon existing infrastructure of state apparatus. A revolutionary society promises two things: civil war, and destruction of life and infrastructure, and disruption of life.

Democratic Socialists today;

- promote people before profit

- strive for equality for all working people regardless of race, creed or sex

- call for a world united, where peace reigns supreme

- work for universal healthcare for every living citizen

- speak out against radical parties such as the BNP

- claim to be the biggest political movement in the world under the Socialist International

- call to not take away private business but democratise it.

So, in the strive for equality for all working people regardless of race, creed or sex how does democratic socialism interpret multiculturalism.

Firstly, it should be pointed out that democratic socialists draw a distinction between values of humanity and values of a particular religion, pushing for agreed moral values of all.

By opting for a homeland for every major ethnicity striving for foreign nation building for ethnicities who lack their own homeland, democratic socialists may run into similar problems as those we see today in the capitalist world. By segregation there is a definite possibility of alienation. Recognising this as no easy task, giving the problems facing Israel and Palestine, democratic socialists stand by their belief that every major peoples should have a sovereign voice empowering them to govern their own destinies without fear of foreign influence or domination. Advocating a federated humanity, and for structures for world governance and dispute arbitration as a goal for a humane, egalitarian and democratic world.

By believing in a more egalitarian approach to political theory and practice, democratic socialists believe in moving forward in progress towards the better status of equality between sexes, religious groups and non-religious groups, cultures, and nations. Seeking a peaceful coexistence for all where every vote is counted equally, thus striving for economic and social justice as a prerequisite of a truly democratic society.

Democratic socialists believe in basic fundamental human rights for all condemning those who seek to restrict the human rights of others. Equality belongs to all people, regardless of color, creed, ethnicity, religion, or other attributes that differ from others. They believe all people are to be entitled to rights, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness by rejecting the notion that some human rights aren't appropriate for certain cultures or nations at this time.

Most importantly when looking at the relationship between democratic socialism and the ideas of multiculturalism are their views on religion. Democratic socialists maintain that Religious institutions and ideology shall remain separate from the state in every area with no “one nation, under God” and no “In God We Trust”, thus preventing religious dogma from infiltrating a secular government of the people and for the people. All people are entitled to worship anything or anyone they please as long as it does not involve harmful activities or cross the boundaries of human rights.

With all this in mind I believe that the ideas of multiculturalism would become obsolete and the problems we face today as a direct result of multiculturalism will no longer be issues for dispute. The ideas expressed by democratic socialists suggest that the world takes one agreed approach to its problems with one universally approved structure for world governance that considers the needs of all of its citizens using democratic channels in a fair way. The political doctrine is a multicultural approach, but one with limitations; a product of better used democratic system, rather than a malfunctioning product of it.

Some links are provided in the text.

Peace
Chris

Democracy and Multiculturalism: a love-hate relationship

Multiculturalism owes to liberal democracy its existence and its biggest challenges. On the one hand, multiculturalism burst into existence thanks to the political liberty that democracy provides to many citizens. Given that democracy means one person one vote, liberal democracy foments association based in free contract. So individuals with similar interests form lobbies to fulfil their targets. In the beginning of democracy, to be a human with the category of person implies to be white, male and western. Following the preceding, many thinkers have criticise liberalism for protecting only the interests of these group of people. However, I think that those thinkers have not understand the meaning of democracy and majorities.

It is true that many current legitimate claims have been risen up from new associations of citizens. But it is also true that those new groups are minorities: homosexuals, feminists or individuals trying to maintain their cultural and religious traditions. Those associations are still reduced groups of people compared to the overriding so-called “white and occidental” citizen. With that, I am not denying the right of minorities to their legitimate requests, but the right of minorities to obtain all they demand.
This is why democracy is also the Achille´s heel of multiculturalism, because minorities depend on the disposition of bigger and therefore powerful groups to recognise and execute their claims, and that not always happens...


A good example of the aforementioned situation is the approved Proposal 8. California has voted to ban gay marriages only months after the practise was legalised. The proposal to limit marriage to members of the opposite sex was approved by 52.1 percent of voters, compared with 47.9 percent who voted against, with 95 per cent of votes counted (information quoted from Times On Line http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article5091994.ece).
Although the difference of votes is minimal, already exists a majority of individuals whose beliefs motivate them to deny the civic right of humans with the same sex to benefit from the protections the state grant to the heterosexual marriage institution. Are the demands of homosexual acceptable? Should they have the same rights than the rest of couples? That is very debatable, but while the number of homosexuals or its number of civic supporters do not increase (at least a 2.1 % in California), the liberal democratic system will support heterosexual couples. Some critics over-worried on power relations might understand that us liberalism supporting white and western individuals, what is false, as I have tried to explain here; because this is how democracy works.

Social Theories beside Identity Politics

Liberalism is based in the underlying principles of the enlightenment: freedom and autonomy. Multiculturalism, on the contrary is based on romantic ideals as authenticity and on ontological presuppositions, mainly the Durkheim assertion of social facts, which inevitably leads to the idea of volkgeist and nationalism.

To make this easier to understand I should explain the two social theories underlying both liberalism and communitarianism. Liberalism is based in Max Weber´s sociology. This German thinker depict sociology as a science which studies and tries to explain the actions of individuals. Weber emphasises in his concept of sociology the social actions. On the other hand, Durkheim is the intellectual father of communitarians beliefs on society. He proclaimed that the object of sociology is the study of social facts. Durkheim asserts the existence of social facts, like being French, and explains the behaviour and features of individuals using those existing-by-themselves concepts. Here is where many liberals thinkers (with whom I agree) have seen the main error of identity politics. Supporting identities or cultures implies sustaining social facts. Instead of explaining the actions of social agents from their own interests and motivations to act, followers of Durkeim sociology attempt to explain social actions through referring them to sociological categories like being French or male or utilitarian.

This is why I prefer liberalism, because they do not associate you to a human category, to a culture or an identity. For liberals there is no ideal of authenticity to follow or respect, there is only personal election of what is valuable. I cannot think in the social fact of being British or German, in a cluster of characteristics, customs and skills that someone must perform to be a proper British or a German. Even less now that I have met here in England so different people from different countries. It does not exists any volkgeist nor any national character, only more or less free and independent individuals.

Gabriel Carpintero Román

News Article directly relevent to our presentation

I found this yesterday, it has been slightly adapted from the origional (not an uncommon trait of online journalism).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/20/barack-obama-president-intelligence-agency


My thoughts to follow.

Peace
Chris

Introduction

MENTAL GROUND ZERO: The location where one visualises oneself during the dropping of the atomic bomb; frequently, a shopping mall. - from Douglas Coupland, Generation X.

In-directly this play on words by Coupland emphasises the growing anxiety of the political mess that is cast upon any critical thinker in the modern world.


The initial ideas for our group presentation focus around issues such as multiculturalism and politics of recognition, and how they are contradicted in modern politics today.

The major powers of the worlds economy, and therefore of humanity, advocate moral objectives, which, we as its citizens not only subscribe to, but promote. We, its proletariat, are 'junkies' for our own comfort, blindly skipping TV channels to avoid the truth - we lie on a bed of hypocrisy drugged on the effect by a media that feeds us detached lucid dreams. It is not real.

This is of course just my observation, but I think it could be an interesting topic to explore - to look objectively at ways to act upon those values of democracy we promote by acceptance of the Status-Que.

The dictionary definition of 'plateau' is "stage when there is no change or development".

Peace
Christopher Jones