How do very different groups live together in a single society? Multiculturalism policies that celebrate diversity are often advocated. But these policies are difficult to pin down. They respect ‘diversity’ but seek ‘unity’, almost contradictory ideas.
In a recent New Republic article, Amartya Sen provides a synthesis. He argues we should assess multicultural policy successes not by the extent to which people are ‘left alone’, but by whether they improve abilities to make choices. Tolerance of diversity is not enough - sound policies should promote abilities to choose rather than having decisions imposed. Having different cultures co-existing side-by-side, without the twain meeting, is, to Sen, plural monoculturalism (PM), not multiculturalism. And PM, to Sen, does not yield big social payoffs and can generate sectarianism.
Being born in a particular social background is not an act of choice but the decision to stay within a traditional mode or to move from it is. If multiculturalism is defended in the name of cultural freedom, it is inconsistent to regard it as demanding unwavering support for staying within one's inherited tradition. As an instance, multiculturalism should not override the right of a person to participate in civil society, or national politics, or, indeed to lead a socially non-conformist life.
Promoting new ‘faith schools’ for religious groups may help provide ethos and values but education is not just about getting children immersed in an inherited ethos. It is also about helping children to reason about new decisions they will have to take. Non-immigrant communities also should need to see the demands of multicultural education. World history need not be 'parochial recollections' coupled with 'packaged religious history'. The priorities of genuine multicultural education differ greatly from the intellectual segmentation of society via PM. With genuine multiculturalism ‘gains-from-exchange’ arise.
If immigrants do see themselves as members of specific religious ethnicities first, and only through that membership as citizens in a ‘federation’ of communities, this leaves them open to the preaching and cultivation of sectarian violence. PM can impose costs.
Sen believes there is a need to re-think multiculturalism, to avoid 'conceptual disarray' about social identity and to resist the purposeful exploitation of divisiveness that this disarray encourages. What has to be particularly avoided is the confusion between a multiculturalism that goes with cultural liberty, on the one side, and PM that goes with faith-based separatism, on the other. A nation should not be seen as a collection of sequestered segments, with citizens assigned places in predetermined segments.
Multiculturalism as policy is analyzed generally here (note this wiki wrongly states that PM Howard is opposed to multiculturalism when it is government policy) and Australian policy stated here (not that useful as largely ‘unity in diversity’ clichés).
Reference: Amartya Sen, ‘The Uses and Abuses of Multiculturalism. Chilli and Liberty’, The New Republic Online, 18/2/06. Professor Sen won the Nobel Prize in economics in 1998.
Posts
2 comments:
I read this post. I don’t think that it is altogether relevant to Australia. Australia has a broad class of dominant cultures with Anglo/Celtic roots.
The main concern in Australia is to afford some measure of protection to individuals and various miniscule communities who either choose not to belong to these dominant cultures or because of sectarian prejudices and customs are not well received in these cultures.
Of course, you may have a different Australia in mind than my Australia.
I agree that the base is Anglo/Celtic although it is changing. Most permanent settlers in Australia come from NZ and the UK (in 2001/02) about 27%. But in that same year 26% came from China, Phillipines, India, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Malaysia. You cannot measure the base by arrivals but it does indicate the way things are going. By the way how do you measure the base? I don't have any really good idea - second generation plus first generation immigrants by country. The difficulty is that most Australians (75%) are naturally born in Australia.
But this is a detail I know your claim about the dominant size of Anglo-Celtic culture is right.
But is Sen's argument affected by the fact that groups have miniscule status? Isn't the argument just about expanding the range of choices between the groups. I think his argument is that minority perspectives are fine provided they become choices not something forced by the older generation. And this applies both sides.
I'd welcome a post on this by you Rabee because I know you have definite views. This would put me in the position of being a discussant and would help me clarify my own views.
Post a Comment