236. The problem of multiculturalism
Finkielkraut[i]
argued, and I sympathize with this, that a state should be based not on
cultural affinity but on the law, consent, and plebiscite, able to combine
multiple cultures.
That would plead for tolerance of different cultures in a society. But
that has brought mutual indifference, which has led to isolation of cultural or
ethnic minorities in ghetto’s.
Also, one cannot so easily separate laws from culture. Laws are laden with
culture and corresponding ideology. Liberalism, for example.
Furthermore, like it or not, present nationalist populism demonstrates
how people are emotionally, viscerally attached to cultural affinity, raising
doubts whether a state or community (such as the EU) is viable without it.
The central question then is how much overlap there is between different
cultures, as a basis for living together.
Let us assume culture is made up of a constellation of features, both more
fundamental, deeply rooted, foundational (faith, ideology) and more derived
(dress, food, art). I define ideology as ideas and ideals concerning the human
being and its relation to society. There are underlying philosophical views,
often implicit, tacit, concerning the true, the good, and the beautiful. I will
untangle the features of culture in more detail in the following item in this
blog.
Then there are three positions with respect to multiculturalism:
2. Particularism: the features are systemic, connected, forming a distinct ‘collective spirit’ (‘Volksgeist, going back to Herder, 1774), rooted in history and location. Individual identity is moulded by the collective spirit, adopted tacitly, taken for granted, not easily amenable to criticism and inter-cultural debate. Here, multiculturalism cannot exist.
3. Postmodern eclecticism: any features from any cultures can be mixed at will. This started with a mix of styles in architecture and art and spread to mixes of cultural features such as dress, food, music, dance, slang … Here again multiculturalism is no problem.
I go along with none of these.
The problem with universalism is that every culture proclaims some of
its own features to be the universal ones, and that what the salient features
are may change.
The problem with particularism is that it locks people up in their
culture, without ability to wrest oneself free, thus denying individual identity
and responsibility. And it leads to a re-emergence of nationalism.
While particularism exaggerates the coherence of cultural features, the
problem with postmodernism is that it neglects them. Surface features of style
are rooted in deeper features of faith, ethics, etc. Culture contains narratives,
and one cannot simply take out one element without loss of meaning. The whole
depends on the parts but the parts also depend on the whole. Postmodernism breeds
superficiality, mixing styles of consumption without touching upon deeper
sources of sensemaking (religion, ideology, etc,). Yet in discourse between them,
cultural narratives can change, or so I propose.
There is diversity within culture: not every individual shares all the
features equally. There can be no individual identity without contrast. On the
other hand, different cultures have more or less overlap, sharing features,
also more basic ones, and overlapping narratives. That yields some bridgehead
for connections.
Slavoj Zizek[ii]
noted that if cultures are distinct, one views other cultures from the perspective
of one’s own, adopted tacitly, taken for granted, not seen to be prejudiced. Tolerance
then is condescending, and can become repressive.
The perversity of this is that there is a hidden bias, hiding implicit
claims of superiority. Under the guise of allowing for cultural difference,
minorities are in fact discriminated. Explicit intolerance is more honest, in
not hiding such claims.
In order to succeed, then, multiculturalism must become reflexive, aware
of the difference from which it relates to a multicultural world.
Zizek’s conclusion, and I agree, is that one should own up that politics
is antagonistic. That is democracy. It requires a choice of position, not an
equalisation of positions. One should shed the political correctness of
pretended equality and frankly and openly engage in defending and promoting
one’s own, partisan position, not pretending to be loftily lifted beyond it.
From being reflexive, aware of the parochiality of one’s view of
differences, one should open up to debate between such views. One should stick
to one’s views tenaciously, while facing those of others, remaining open to
opposition, as a basis for changing one’s views.
There lies the value of freedom of expression: being frank in expressing
one’s views, while allowing for the possibility that they are wrong, or biased,
or even blind, and for that reason welcoming opposition. Contesting the value
or validity of other cultures, while allowing for them to contest one’s own. As
Erasmus said: fire is kindled by striking flintstones together.
Admittedly, there is a problem of ‘incommensurability’, the difficulty
of comparing perspectives. But one should not give in to this problem too
easily. Cultures share features, more or less, even though with different
senses attached. There is always potential for some mutual understanding, using
the force of metaphor, imaginative switches of perspective. Literature and art
can help. And even if this fails, one should manage to grant the possibility
that the other is right. And come to some pact of non-aggression.
But again, here still re-appears the joker in the pack. I am saying this
from the perspective of my culture, struggling to maintain an ethic of open
debate, an afterglow of the Enlightenment, even against all odds. So, is there
anyone out here who wants to contest this? And then, is it too much to ask for
arguments?
[ii] Slavoj Zizek, Multiculturalism. Or,
the cultural logic of multinational capitalism’, New Left Review, September-October 1997.
No comments:
Post a Comment