An article titled Pluralism and Multiculturalism by George Crowder (Flinders University, Australia) , discusses a subject that should be of interest to Canadians. While the article explores other considerations that goes beyond the scope of this post, I will content myself to one small part of the article where the author desrcibes two types of multiculturalism.
The first considers extreme "cultural relativism" that "demands respect for all cultures regardless of content." It is here, I suppose, we find all the prevailing romantic views about premodern societies and that industrialized nations are not anymore advanced than primitive tribes. You can only judge a society against itself and nothing else. One can add moral relativism to the mix.
The second is one in which a moderate form of MC within liberal universalism asks for "the idea that membership of a flourishing culture is universally a component of individual well-being and that consequentially one'sown culture ought to be accorded some level of public respect and support by a just political system."
He goes on to mention that "the degree of respect and support" sought must be justified and further adds, "Cultural practices will not be accommodated if they violate basic rights or undermine personal autonomy."
Which of these fits into the Canadian model? Was the intention the first or the second? Do we we have a hybrid of both now? Perhaps the original intent was the second version but given the modern relativist ethos that prevails perhaps it is headed towards the first definition?
I have recently tended to take a hard stance on multicultualism not for what it intrisically aims to achieve but of its practical unintended consequences. In other words, it seems to me it is heading into the first definition. Canada seems to be a disjointed collection of provinces and communities all seeking to preserve its own "identity." The price to be paid by the state we call Canada. Is Canada merely a warehouse for communities and cultures?
Of course, now the conversation shifts to relativism and the laws of a nation-state. How far can communities go to be treated fairly? When does it graduate into favoring one side over another?
Relativism is a hard topic. And we are living hard times. A mixture of the two MC approaches you describe could be best in my opinion. I have talked before even about moral relativism (where I perceived we might disagree), but I did it from a very general point of view, which doesn't impede a society like Canada (or Italy) to stick to basic human rights thus, for example, rejecting cultural practices like slavery or woman's exploitation in any way.
ReplyDeleteRegards
MOR, my concern for relativism is its attachment to populism. Populism is further attached to nationalism which subverts the individual to the collective. On top of this, I fear that it removes any legal, moral, social etc. clarity we may possess.
ReplyDeleteCase in point in athletics: How the Zidane headbutt was rationalized by many people to actually turn him into the victim.
In terms of multiculturalism, many societies have been "multicultural" in history. We can think of Spain under the Moors and Lebanon pre-1975. Throughout the Golden Age of Islam, Jews, Muslims and Christians lived in peace and with decency towards one another.
Yet, there was no official "policy" like we have in Canada. My concern here is that no matter how well-intentioned, liberal or tolerant we strive to be (and Canada's record on race relations is far from stainless) actually allowing for cultures and communities to have legal recourse in a piece of legal document is an example of putting culture before the individual.
Some may argue that Canada is a nation of immigrants ergo multiculturalism is a logical extension of this. This is foolish; if not illogical. A case can be made that all societies are made of immigrants. The important factor is that Canada should be a "blind" nation-state the does not play games with cultures.
Right now, the tendency is that people will say I am proud to be Indian-Canadian, Polish-Canadian etc.
Aside that neo-nationalism is on the rise, this hyphenated description of what it means to be Canadian is bad for Canadianism and bad for the entity known as the individual. We've pretty much ghettorized Canada as a nation-state.
Add that it already was a highly frgamented collection of parochial provinces and the idea of Canada (which has been drastically restructured - call it social engineering/tinkering) and any idea of Canada existing as like-minded Canadians with a single-minded approach which help to define our morals, values and principles in a clear manner is now under stress.
This is why I agree with the authors liberal form of multiculturalism. Encourage the identity of a culture but NEVER at the expense of the individual.
Alas, these are just my poorly thought out perceptions. They are not infallible.