Multiculturalism Again
How did everything get turned around?
Today, to criticise multiculturalism, one is invariably derided as ‘right wing’ or ‘reactionary’. Conversely, to champion multiculturalism, one is invariably perceived as ‘progressive’ or ‘of the left’. But it should be, and historically it has been, the other way around. Multiculturalism represents the antithesis of the Enlightenment principle of colour-blindness and the notion of the universality of humankind – while the fetishisation of ethnic particularism is a quintessentially Tory ideal. The liberal-left’s love affair with multiculturalism today is a betrayal of what it used to stand for.
That’s for sure. That realization is starting to trickle through, but dang it’s taking a long time. Hurry up, folks! Get a clue. The fetishization of ethnic or religious or cultural particularism is an idea whose time has gone. Kiss it good bye. Get with the program.
Salman Rushdie says it.
In Europe, integration has been held up as a bad word by multiculturalists, but I don’t see any necessary conflict. After all, we don’t want to create countries of little apartheids. No enlightenment will come from multicultural appeasement.
Maryam Namazie says it.
Though political religion is facing a revival, it is the political Islamic movement which is spearheading this. And this rise is taking place within a new world order in which universal norms and values taken for granted only decades ago can no longer be taken so. In this climate of cultural relativism, Islamists and their apologists have perfected the use of rights language to dupe and silence any opposition.
Simon Blackburn says it.
And as far as
toasting some particular subset of humanity goes, I also wish people were not keen on
separating themselves from others, keen on difference and symbols of tribalism. I don’t
warm to badges of allegiance, flags, ostentatious signs of apartness, because I do not
think they are good for the world. I am glad that the word “race” has lost most of its
reputation recently, and I would rather like the word “culture”, as it occurs in phrases like
“cultural diversity,” to follow it. More moderately, we might keep it, but also keep a
beady eye on it. When people do things differently, sometimes it is fine, but sometimes it
is not.
And Patrick West discusses it in detail in the Spiked piece.
Multiculturalism in subsequent years has acted only to divide the population into groupsicles of competing ethnicities who feel they have nothing in common with each other…In an article in the liberal monthly, Prospect, in December 2000, Alan Wolfe and Jytte Klausen argued: ‘Solidarity and diversity are both desirable objectives. Unfortunately, they can also conflict…But it is easier to feel solidarity with those who broadly share your values and way of life. Modern progressives committed to diversity often fail to acknowledge this.’ Diversity and solidarity, both sound bites of the Left, can be mutually antagonistic.
As can democracy and freedom, or democracy and rights, and for much the same reasons. It’s as well to keep that strongly in mind – to keep ‘a beady eye on it’ – when flinging around the usual rhetoric about democracyandhumanrights or democracyandfreedom, which tend to sound as if they are inextricably linked and that the one entails the other, when in reality they can fight each other, and one of them can lose the fight.
It is peculiar that many who are the inheritors of the secular, rational Enlightenment tradition, and who call themselves progressives, are not only apologists for ethnic separateness, but – under the ostensible banner of respecting diversity – defend organised religion and irrationalism. When Luton schoolgirl Shabina Begum lost her High Court battle to wear strict Islamic dress to school in June 2004, some left-leaning commentators decried this as racist and oppressive.
Peculiar indeed. I remember some left-leaning commentators who resorted to patronizing sexist rhetoric about me when I had the gall to keep pointing out that a lot of French Muslim and Muslim-background women were in favour of the hijab ban in schools. The things that come oozing out of the woodwork can be very surprising – as Nick Cohen notes in the New Statesman.
Her cheery note ended with a warning: “You’re not going to believe the anti-Semitism that is about to hit you.” “Don’t be silly, Ann,” I replied. “There’s no racism on the left.” I worked my way through the rest of the e-mails. I couldn’t believe the anti-Semitism that hit me. I learned it was one thing being called “Cohen” if you went along with liberal orthodoxy, quite another when you pointed out liberal betrayals. Your argument could not be debated on its merits. There had to be a malign motive. You had to support Ariel Sharon.
So it goes. Anti-Semitism, sexist epithets, patronizing anti-intellectual speculation about boredom or money-love – whatever tool comes to hand.
As Stephen Eric Bronner laments in Reclaiming the Enlightenment (2004), this is the symptom of a deeper corruption of the Left. Under the spell of relativist postmodernist theory, and despairing of the failure of the Socialist experiments of the twentieth century, erstwhile progressives have sought intellectual refuge in identity politics. They have come to resemble the conservatives of old. Todd Gitlin notes this in The Twilight of Common Dreams: Why America is Wracked by Culture Wars.
Yes he does. I’ve recommended that book to quite a few inquiring minds.
In academia, there are relatively few voices of the Left still championing reason, such as Noam Chomsky; Brian Barry, author of Culture and Equality (2001); Stephen Eric Bronner; Richard Wolin, author of The Seduction of Unreason (2004); and the late Susan Moller Okin, whose Is Multiculturalism Bad For Women? (1999), gave the answer ‘yes’ to its title. When Okin concluded that gender equality was impossible to achieve among societies that practice polygamy, forced marriage or female genital mutilation, she faced the accusation of being dogmatically attached to Western liberalism.
Well…we’re working on that (those of us who are), and the dam is beginning to break. Witness all those citations. So just keep chipping away at the dam…
Scarey scenario, G. Tingey. I can see something similar happening in Britain. Gordon Brown becomes Prime Minister, wins an election in 2010, then following meetings with his Muslim advisors he converts to Islam. He then sets up an anti-American Euro-Middle East alliance in collaboration with President bin Laden of Saudi Arabia… and the world-wide Caliphate looms.
OK it’s easy to think of scary scenarios but I think the last (by Allen) is particularly unlikely. It would require a huge shift in the UK to accept such an arrangement.
I think I belong to the old centre- left. I’m a little bewildered at being left behind because I happen to believe in Universal human rights, secularism, democracy, equality etc.
I think this shift has been going on for a long time from the days of political correctness in the early nineties. Notions such as “Only oppressed people have the right to define their own oppression” which was a common slogan in Student Unions at the time leads straight to the curent climate of cultural relativism
> Hilary Clinton wins in 2008 and serves 2 terms. the religious right re-group, and support a candidate for 2016. He just wins a disputed election, and then there is a “Reichstag fire” – the constitution is temporarily suspended..< I thought everyone not taken in by US government agencies and their lackeys in the media knew that the American “Reichstag Fire” has already happened. The evidence is out there… The 9/11 Reichstag Fire
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911_reichstag.html
[Humour Alert: The above is not meant to be taken seriously.]
“‘In academia, there are relatively few voices of the Left still championing reason, such as Noam Chomsky; ‘”
Hmmm, on matters of Linguistics maybe. On others he is just polemistist.
Btw, I glanced at Cohen’s article and what I missed were enough specifics to convince me that the Left in England had become anymore anti-Semitic than it ever had been.
Yes, Cohen got a lot of hate mail. Jewish writers (or writers with Jewish names) on hot topics have been getting such letters for decades. Here in Seattle I have been hearing veiled (and not so) anti-Israel/anti-Jewish murmurs for years.
I am not so much doubting Cohen’s sense of things but doubting that his article was a very convincing showing that it is so. He should publish the rubbish and show people.
Chris
As it was NC’s stance on the war which precipitated the anti-semitic ugliness, I don’t think the connection is all that strained.
Irony fumble! My turn to say that. Allen’s reply to G Tingey was not altogether literal (hint: that final three words of mine is litotes: more irony).
ChrisM, actually, Chomsky has also written good rational anti-postmodernism stuff too, so he does still champion reason. B&W has a link to a good article of his on the subject at Zmag, somewhere.
Oops- Brit caught out by irony. Shame, humiliation,what will my friends think…
What is interesting is that this is what George Orwell commented on during the second world war. The “West” may have deep flaws but it is far better than the alternative. Both during the second world war and now there are people who refuse to support the “West” simply because they despise elements of WEstern society. THey end up suppporting something far worse. Orwell despised the capitalist system but thought that Hitler (and Stalin) were far worse.
snerk – yeah, it’s very shaming to fumble irony! I should know.
Just so, about the West thing. I used to do that a good deal myself (and still do sometimes) in the sense of harping on US flaws while not saying as much about those of other countries. That may not be so bad – but it carries the danger of actually supporting that ‘something far worse.’ So at the very least it’s a good idea to keep the danger in mind, I think.
Hmm. I’m not so sure about that. Especially the ‘only game in town/Anything else smacks of denial’ part. That sounds like closing off any possibility of something (significantly) better. Isn’t there some territory between the only game in town and anything else smacks of denial? Some territory where the problems with capitalism can be thought about seriously, without lapsing into absurd dreams (or denial, or wishful thinking)?
Harry: do you really believe that this is what is happening? How much domination of the economy by small entrepeneurs and independent professionals is really occurring? In market segment after market segment, the game is consolidation, rationalization, nationalization and internationalization. For example, in my home town in the midwest, there were six banks, four locally owned department stores, a variety of smaller tool and die shops serving the midwestern economy. Now, all the banking is owned by national money center banks, the department stores have been subjected to waves of consolidation, the tool and die shops have followed their customers to Mexico and now China. The professions? Indian lawyers can do basic law for far cheaper than the local law firm. Architecture-plans can be drawn by eager Romanians, Indians, and Chinese workers. Sure, there are the top tier folks that are doing fien, often as links between the cheaper labor and the US market, but not everyone is “top tier.” Some people may be forced into the freelance, temporary labor side of things, but it doesn’t mean things are going very well for them.
As usual, no answers. But, I found your take on things a little….sunny.
Maybe we should let them keep the holy books. We need some new ones. But we keep the songs.
Arise ye workers from your slumbers
Arise ye prisoners of want
For reason in revolt now thunders
And at last ends the age of cant.
Away with all your superstitions
Servile masses arise, arise
We’ll change henceforth the old tradition
And spurn the dust to win the prize.
So comrades, come rally
And the last fight let us face
The Internationale unites the human race.
So comrades, come rally
And the last fight let us face
The Internationale unites the human race.
May I point out that there are some parts of Marx’s analysis that are not shit? While it is true, for example, that he was completely mistaken about the ability of the proletariat to generate a class-consciousness sufficient to propel their interests forward to historical domination, there is evidence all around us, all the time, that he was quite right about the ability of the capitalist class to do the same…
All the variations on Leninism that have disfigured the twentieth century, it is worth reflecting on, owe at least as much to the paranoid culture of organisations forced to work under ground until 1917 for fear of the Secret Police as they do to any vices of theory…
Don: I much prefer the Dutch version, which has the last lines “Want de Internationale / zal morgen heersen op d’aard” (And the International / Will rule the earth tomorrow). Much better than that wussy touchy-feely stuff about “uniting humanity”. Sounds like UNICEF, for Goodness’ sake!
Anyway, I still believe Marx was roughly correct about something called Historical Materialism. Not a minor part of “Marxism” either. This in itself does not mean I disagree with Harry’s interesting points.
And Harry is correct as well that until the 60s, it was not unreasonable to regard the Soviet Union as a beacon of science and progress. Sure, they had Lysenko (and eventually _lost_ Lysenko) but you don’t need coloured spectacles to recognize the SU put the first spaceship into orbit, put the first dog in orbit and subsequently put the first human being into orbit. Also, contributions of Soviet scientists on areas such as psychology and neurology (Vygotsky, Leontiev, Luria) as well as many others should not be underestimated.
Now, if they had put all dogs into orbit and left them there, I would be impressed.
Don, thanks, but I already knew the words. I was in the far left for years until reality sank in.
Ophelia and others, I wasn’t claiming that capitalism is perfect, or doesn’t create inequality and injustice – only that it doesn’t create a brake on science and technology, or an increasingly homogenous proletariat.
My main point stands. If we want to understand ‘how it got turned round’, we have to be clear-headed about the defects of marxist theory that created the present situation. Just to restate the old verities and accuse the others of treason is unworthy of a rationalist, empirically-minded web-site.
But, Brian, it is also true that not everyone is either a fat-cat or a minimum-wage slave. There is a huge and growing professional and technical middle class, and this is also one of the effects of capitalism. Maybe you get a distorted picture in parts of the mid-west. Obviously not all regions benefit to the same extent. Again, we have to look at the facts, and not be blinded by ideology.
Harry, read McKight’s _The Careless Society_. Go on.
Harry: There are more regions “like the midwest” than there are areas that are hotbeds. (I’m not denying the fallacies of Marxist cant. I still believe it’s a religion.) I’m just not so sure that today’s economy is all that sunny, at least for the United States, where consolidation of industries and professions is the rule, and attackes on bothersome things like environmental regulations and unions run apace. My midwestern example (I live in California now :)) was just that.
But, Harry: I am not saying that we should “overthrow capitalism” or any of that rot. I’m just being my habitually gloomy self.
(I think “peak oil” will limit the reach of consolidated corporations-and even large nation states/empires-anyway. So…the positives-and negatives (many negatives) of more locally-based lives will be upon you children, if not us ourselves.
Harry
I know you know the words. Every now and then, have that extra glass and sing them.
“The professions? Indian lawyers can do basic law for far cheaper than the local law firm. Architecture-plans can be drawn by eager Romanians, Indians, and Chinese workers.”
i dont see the problem… apart from the attitude to Indians, Romanians and the Chinese.
The “problem” is collapse of the Amreican economy due to widespread unemployment and lack of career paths for upward mobility. In a purely cosmpolitan way of looking at things, no, Americans don’t necessarily “deserve” high paying jobs. But, as an American citizen, I have to care about the economic collapse of my country, first. That IS a problem to me.
Why the scare quotes? The collapse of the American economy would certainly be a bad thing, and not just for Americans, but I think you’ll find that most economists would argue that the scenario you suggest is actually pretty good for the economy, not bad, American consumers will certainly benefit. Would you recommend protecting industries from cheap imports too? Surely they have the same effect on jobs but the US does spend loads of money on cheap imports and unemployment is low. I’m not in favor of just throwing borders open (that would be a recipe for chaos, I do think it should be significantly easier to immigrate to countries like the US though), but I do think your assertion really needs some arguing.
So, I’m not convinced how bad it is even for Americans, but you are right, I do look at things in a more cosmopolitan way.
Well, whaddaya know . . . Cohen’s claim that:
“the Guardian ran a web debate entitled: “David Aaronovitch and Nick Cohen are enough to make a good man anti-Semitic”. “
is bollocks.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1592623,00.html
Nice to know that. I wonder if he’ll admit it and apologise.