Multiculturalism

Discussion

The Paradoxes of Multiculturalism

Hanzi Freinacht:

"I thus hold that societies need to increasingly cultivate and establish institutional practices informed by Transculturalism. This is in keeping with the idea that societies around the world would do well to develop more “metamodern” institutions in order to thrive and survive in the face of mounting disruptions that come with systemic shifts. Transculturalism is a social process (or set of social processes) that manages and develops the quality of ethnic and racial relations. If we seek to resolve the culture wars of today, Transculturalism is our best bet. If we seek to create harmonious relations between groups in society, Transculturalism, the same holds true.

In brief, it can be argued that Nationalism exacerbates ethnic division while only momentarily soothing the grievances of the in-group, Non-Nationalism fails to address ethnic realities and treats the issue with a naïve belief in the progress of society through economic transactions, while Multiculturalism leads to some inescapable paradoxes: More cultures are added and strengthened besides one another, but they fail to interact productively across their cultural divides, and the relativism of “you cannot judge one culture on the premises of another” leads to impasses when it comes to challenging and transforming cultures into better versions of themselves, with better interactions across cultures.

One such paradox is the incompatibility of its two core positions: 1. More diversity is good, so adding more cultures is good, and 2. Cultures should be allowed to preserve themselves in their current form. On the face of it, both of these positions appear reasonable and honorable. But the moment that it is part of a certain culture to be intolerant of other cultures (which is arguably an aspect of all cultures to some degree), the two positions collide. The same thing occurs the moment one cultural practice somehow bothers and disturbs another one (and this also happens as soon as cultures coexist in the same spaces). A simple example: let’s say that one culture has another view on the role of women in society, and this leads to what is perceived as street harassments of women by gangs of young men from that culture.

Multiculturalism seems to be unable to resolve these paradoxes. If members of one culture begin to judge the practices of another culture, that is perceived as racism and condemned. When the first culture responds by defending and preserving its practices, that is perceived as chauvinism and nationalism (and perhaps, correctly so). What you get is an increase of quiet grievances and taboo topics, which results in the suppressed frustrations that play out in all arenas of society: the street, the workplace, the labor market, the housing market, in education. Segregation mounts and ethnic divisions are deepened. Rather than reaping the richness of multiple perspectives, the political realm becomes increasingly charged with ethnic tensions, and ethnic divisions begin to infuse the party politics of formerly reasonably functional democracies.

Ironically, there seems to be a “sociological wormhole” that leads right from the underbelly of Multiculturalism back to the dynamics of Nationalism — albeit in a situation when a larger and growing number of groups contend for power and recognition. Multiculturalism, and its many expressions, is a well-meaning but ultimately self-defeating way to approach the problem. In its admittedly commendable struggle against racism and structural inequality, it inadvertently breeds the very divisions and resentments it seeks to transcend.

Then again, perhaps the very most damning paradox of the Multiculturalist view becomes apparent if we situate it within a wider Postmodern project. This project includes such things as challenging the hegemony of white men, challenging toxic masculinity, of unearthing biases buried in our language — all of which are directly about transforming culture. Yet, if all cultures are to be treated equally and have the right to preserve themselves and define themselves as they wish, all such projects of critique and transformation would reasonably be off-limits.

The Multiculturalist “solution” to this problem is generally to hold the hegemonic culture (usually, Western, white, male, etc.) to a different and higher standard than other cultures (minority, indigenous, counter-culture, etc.) But this solution falls on its own rope: Implicitly, it’s treating one culture as superior, adult, and responsible, and another as inferior, child-like, and exempt from responsibility. In other words, Multiculturalism itself ends up being racist. And so, it’s not that surprising there’s a wormhole right back to Nationalism and Balkanization at the core of the Multiculturalist project."

Shifting Gear to Transculturalism

Hanzi Freinacht:

"It is these paradoxes that must be addressed for the current societal impasse to be surmounted. The fundamental shift of perspective from Multiculturalism to Transculturalism is the following one:

If cultures are to have the right to exist and gain recognition in an environment of other cultures that they interact with, they must also be charged with the obligation to develop and transform into versions of themselves that are — not subjected to, but — compatible with the other cultures.

In terms of majority cultures, this very often comes down to increased tolerance, inclusion, and acceptance. It comes down to curiosity towards “the other” and strong norms against discrimination, as well as increased self-awareness of how privileges can shape biases and prejudice. This is not to say, in the case of for instance Western majority populations, that self-defeatism and shame should become the norm, or that the cultures should cease to express themselves through traditions, customs, and values. It simply means that, in order for these cultures to live up to their own values, racism should be viewed as entirely unacceptable — and that histories of oppression (colonial, genocidal, or other) are owned up to. You have the right to express pride in your own culture, but also the obligation to embody the best version of that culture in a manner that respects other cultures. In other words, nationalist and chauvinist reactions must be questioned and condemned. On a day-to-day level, it’s not okay to refuse to rent your summer house family to another family-based only on their Arabic family name, for instance. Hence, real work with transforming dominant cultures and owning up to the postcolonial heritage must be worked with until the norms are conclusively shifted towards tolerance and inclusion. As argued in last week’s article, cultivating the psychological capacity for Acceptance among the population may be an effective lever to pull in this regard.

This struggle with postcolonial ghosts of Christmas’ past undeniably even has geopolitical consequences. If Western cultures retreat into Nationalism or default to Non-Nationalism (largely ignoring issues of race, still the majority position in Western cultures), this will only feed the revanchist tendencies of new global powers, from China, to India’s Hindu nationalism, to the public Russian support for Vladimir Putin’s warmongering. The Global South, in Africa in particular, is increasingly turning away from the West’s attempt to uphold a liberal world order, and often questionable regimes are colluding increasingly with the powers of Russia and China in what seems to be amounting to a new Cold War.

Simply said, Western cultures, in their failure to take up the obligations that come with their own values, are fanning the flames of hurt pride around the world, of peoples trampled over decades and centuries. Whereas the dark clouds on the geopolitical horizon cannot simply be reduced to this one issue, it is very likely a strong contributor to the situation. “We” Westerners need to evolve our cultures, swallow some pride (which is often disowned shame and guilt), and be humble towards the rich contributions of others. But the hurt pride of other cultures lives on even within our own societies — from the experience of being Black or Latino in the United States to being Arab or African in Europe, people are feeling downtrodden, and understandably so. When riots arise in our banlieues or ghettos, or when ISIS emerges as a specter of our cultural dynamics, we shouldn’t be so surprised.

For other cultures, the demands upon their evolution naturally vary from case to case. Indian culture has a grim heritage of the caste system, which is viewed as largely unacceptable in other parts of the world. Honor killings, antagonistic isolationism, and limitations on the freedom of women are unacceptable aspects of many Muslim communities in the West. In each of these cases, the answers do not lie in denial of one’s own heritage, but in creative redefinitions of the culture.

A similar position has been explored by the sociologists Michael O. Emerson and George Yancey in their 2010 book, Transcending Racial Barriers: Toward a Mutual Obligations Approach. While I don’t support everything in the book, and while the study they base their reasoning on is much too small and limited, I do feel that they capture something essential in their “mutual obligations approach”. Groups have a right to be mutually respected, yes, but they also have obligations towards one another. And those obligations can only reasonably be negotiated mutually. There need to be institutional practices that facilitate such mutual expectations of obligations to develop, to evolve, to transform. That is marital counseling functions, and cultures of the world are, in an interconnected world, stuck with one another. We’re collectively married, whether we like it or not.

Today, such institutional practices and skillsets of facilitation hardly exist. But it could certainly motivate people to change their own cultures and positions — in keeping with their own traditions and customs — if people see corresponding work to change on the other side. Again, just as the two individuals of a marriage are reasonably obliged to help both parties become the best versions of themselves, so cultures can and should be charged with the task to help one another improve, to live up to our own ideals, to become cultures more worthy of respect and recognition.

And that’s the real wealth of multiple cultures co-existing. It’s that each culture is a parallel perspective, a weird mirror through which we can see new aspects of ourselves. The promise is not perfect harmony or the resolution of all ethnic tensions. The promise is increased collective intelligence. As a global community, we’re ultimately lucky to have each other, even if it hurts, even if there are clashes and misunderstandings.

Without each other, we are culturally blind. With the right processes — arduous as they must be—we can see our own cultures from the outside, and work to honor our respective cultural heritages by cultivating cultures that we are proud of and command the liking and respect of others."

(https://metamoderna.org/the-failure-of-multiculturalism-and-its-resolution-transculturalism/)