Centerfield

A Proper Multiculturalism

Amartya Sen is a Nobel Prize winning economist who also writes much in a more political and philosophical vein. In this New Republic article, Sen sets out what I think is the proper way to approach societies with many different cultures. The world "multiculturalism" conjures up a lot of images, many of them negative, but his article suggests, in my view, first, that multiculturalism need not be cultural separatism and, second, why I think the United States has been more successful than Europe in integrating diverse cultures (although that is certainly not the received wisdom).

Sen asks an important question--although one would not think this should be controversial in the West.

One of the central issues concerns how human beings are seen. Should they be categorized in terms of inherited traditions, particularly the inherited religion, of the community in which they happen to have been born, taking that unchosen identity to have automatic priority over other affiliations involving politics, profession, class, gender, language, literature, social involvements, and many other connections? Or should they be understood as persons with many affiliations and associations, whose relative priorities they must themselves choose (taking the responsibility that comes with reasoned choice)?

I certainly prefer the latter approach which I think, for the most part, is what we do in the United States. According to Sen, the attitude in England seems to be more the former, ie, that people are seen in terms of their particular cultural or ethnic grouping. Athough he doesn't specifically say this, I suspect that this is a matter of taking the path of least resistence, ie, its less trouble to accomodate cultural militants who want to encourage cultural separtism and may turn to violence to get what they want. Plus, there are plenty of leftist third world romantics that think "indigenous" culture is automatically superior to western culture and must be preserved at any expense--and regardless of the specific practices involved.

Sen makes what I consider a very valid distinction between what he calls "plural monoculturalsim" and"multiculturalism."

In contrast, having two styles or traditions co-existing side by side, without the twain meeting, must really be seen as plural monoculturalism. The vocal defense of multiculturalism that we frequently hear these days is very often nothing more than a plea for plural monoculturalism. If a young girl in a conservative immigrant family wants to go out on a date with an English boy, that would certainly be a multicultural initiative. In contrast, the attempt by her guardians to stop her from doing this (a common enough occurrence) is hardly a multicultural move, since it seeks to keep the cultures separate. And yet it is the parents' prohibition, which contributes to plural monoculturalism, that seems to garner the loudest and most vocal defense from alleged multiculturalists, on the ground of the importance of honoring traditional cultures--as if the cultural freedom of the young woman were of no relevance whatever, and as if the distinct cultures must somehow remain in secluded boxes.

I think that is absolutely correct. A lot of antiglobalizaton activities are based on the premise that any contact with western cultures contaminates so-called "indigenous culture"--even when that indigenous culture contains practices that almost everyone outside (and probably many inside) would find absolutely appalling. And this carries over into universities and everyday life where the "plural monoculturalists" try to enforce a sterile rigidity toward non-western cultures while showing no respect at all for the western cultural heritage. Or, they argue in favor of western cultural values, such as free speech, until it impinges on the third world. So, that we should respect the right of college professors to disparage the victims of 9/11, but don't apply free speech standards to other cultures.

If there is anything the US has done right, albeit imperfectly at times, it is bringing different groups into the society while still respecting their particular cultural space. Europe is struggling with this because they can't find a middle ground between cowtowing to cultural separatists and wiping out any cultural distinction. I blame this, in part, on the fact that abstract ideology has traditionally played a large role in European society as opposed to the more pragmatic approach in America.