Multiculturalism, a terminology of many proponents both in Islamic Countries and among Western Radicals, bears many assumptions, on which I attempt to shed light, today.
The thought of pluralism, which is largely known as the motto of this age, can be best described in the words of the philosopher and thinker, Edward Said, when he hopes for … 'the possibility of a more generous and pluralistic vision of the world, in which imperialism courses on, as it were, belatedly, in different forms (the North-South polarity of our time is one), and the relationship of domination continues, but the opportunities for liberation are open.'[I]
What pluralists mostly point out to is that ‘pluralism is self-evidently good’. It’s good, firstly because, multiculturalism is the only means of ensuring a tolerant and democratic polity in a world in which there are deep-seated conflicts between cultures embodying different values, And secondly because, human beings have a basic, almost biological need for cultural attachments (Malik,2002)[II].
What they further claim for their assertion of such assumptions is that pluralism is basically against the Eurocentric thought of universalism, which, historically speaking, has proven to lead inevitably to tyranny and racism. Imperialism of the New World to the Old World, the Holocaust and many others are taken as the proof to it. They, the pluralists, also, claim that if we accept the need of human to be attached to a culture, therefore, we have to give them the right of de facto, e.g. recognition of their cultures by publicly validating and protecting their, as pluralists put it, unique & different cultures.
On pluralism, Isaiah Berlin writes: 'Life may be seen through many windows, none of them necessarily clear or opaque, less or more distorting than any of the others'[III]. Here, Berlin’s emphasis is on the fact that every world view and value is culture-specific & that by Malik’s(2002)words satisfies a sort of incommensurability, by which he means that not only ‘cultures are incompatible, but that cultures were incomparable, because there was no common language we could use to compare the one with the other.’ This was the reaction of radicals to avoid, once for all, the out come of the Enlightenment Age, namely, tyranny and racism imposed by the westerners through the past two and a half centuries. By this, they aim to put pluralism and postmodernism against the progressive universalism and the age-old modernism.
The idea of Equality is also given credits by the pluralists; they believe that different cultures should be treated equal respect. They seek equal rights on the face of the earth for all cultures—with different and unique world views. And in doing this they blame the all-powerful pole of the World—America.
Multiculturalism under scrutiny
Cultural diversity is the source of the epiphany of new biases leading to further disintegration instead of acculturation, according to many scholars. Kenan Malik in the winter of 2002 writes in Connection that: ‘Cultural diversity only makes sense within a framework of common values and beliefs that enable us to treat all people equally. And to create such a framework requires us to be a bit more intolerant and to show a bit less respect.’[IV] In his essay “Against Multiculturalism” from a totally Eurocentric angle, he writes that:’ Multiculturalists have turned their back on universalistic conceptions not because such conceptions are racist but because they have given up on the possibility of economic and social change.’[V]
He believes that pluralist deny the benefits brought to humankind by the progressive and the universalistic way of European thinking; That only certain countries could achieve it; that this difference is of and in itself only for certain cultures and finally that those who claim pluralism has led the humanity to the brink of inactivity and backhandedness.
Malik condemns the equality so much honored and praised by pluralists, so far as he sees it only a sham policy to impose human mind and feeling with its Thought Police. He feels the core of its equality policy, merely lead to blockage of free speech and debate, as is defined in Habermass’ theory of Public Sphere.
Personally, when I read these essays, I felt my self dumb. I always cheered with idea of giving every man his place he deserves and so… but I think Malik’s questions are of enough bases to be taken into consideration.
He’s right when he says a man’s culture is not fixed; that it changes, and the policy of every man has to bear a specific culture looks weird. I don’t want to make the conclusion that he’s right, but it does not mean that I deny his sayings. Rather, I suggest you to at least read his essays and think over it. It’s all a new look to the subject of Intercultural Communication. I have started to think no matter how much one be mindful of the differences, there always remain differences. Because if you believe that there are differences, it means that you have accepted that the differences are irresolvable, too!
[I] Quoted by Malik, K., (2002), “all cultures are not equal”, Online-Spike. Read the whole essay at
http://www.kenanmalik.com/
[II] Malik, K., (2002), “Against Multiculturalism”, New Humanist. Read the whole essay at http://www.kenanmalik.com/
[III] Ibid.
[IV] Malik, K., (2002), “The Real Value of Diversity”, Connections. Read the whole essay at
http://www.kenanmalik.com/
[V] Malik, K., (2002), “Against Multiculturalism”, New Humanist. Read the whole essay at http://www.kenanmalik.com/
0 comments:
Post a Comment