MULTICULTURALISM: probing the limits

Much obeisance is paid to the need for "multiculturalism" in the school curriculum. How else, ask earnest disciples, can educators promote a sense of empowerment and worth in all Americans? How else can they truly engage the many communities they serve? How else can they run schools that are strong and accountable community institutions? 

All that is true enough. But this comprehension and valuing will not change the fact that groups, be they clans, tribes or nations, compete for limited resources. And to the extent that these resources are limited, they do so at one another's expense. For instance, geographic territory is limited; and the demand for it exceeds the supply. It's a zero sum game. Consider the nearly three quarters of a century struggle between Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs over land. Think the Palestinians are going multicultural and recognize Jewish holidays anytime soon? Or how about Russia's invasion of Ukraine? Far from honoring Ukraine's culture, Putin alleges it doesn't even exist. Are the Ukrainians going to go for that kind of multiculturalism?

This competition for limited resources is one thing that strictly defines multiculturalism's limits. Why? Because it is difficult to even tolerate, much less honor, another group when that group's gain has been your group's loss. Competition for resources, be they jobs, desirable territory, natural resources, and so forth, has existed for all of recorded history. And, be assured, that this competition will continue, "... for as long as grass should grow and water flow." 

Now, in polyglot nations like the U. S., Canada or Australia, token recognition of the other guy's culture is de rigueur. For example, despite the vitriolic distrust and outright rejection that greeted Irish immigrants when they first arrived in the U. S., lots and lots of folks now wear green on St. Patrick's Day, perhaps eat a couple of those horrid confections, Irish Potatoes, or watch the parade. But that's only because the Irish have been so absorbed and intermarried that their presence is no longer the threat it once was seen to be. They now are a part of us.  And social science reveals that it is expressions of difference that result in negative appraisals.

Here is another strict limit on multiculturalism. Often one culture's values are diametrically opposed to those of another. Thus, they are utterly incompatible. And that leads us to the biggest problem of them all. The very tolerance required for a group to be multicultural is not only absent, but utterly rejected in many other cultures. Consider Saudi Arabia, for instance. They are so sure they are right about all sorts of things, religion for example, that they make no accommodations for difference whatsoever. Yet this fundamental incompatibility of multicultural tolerance for an intolerant culture is seldom, if ever, recognized by right thinking multicultural advocates. 

Sure, if another group's culture has been thoroughly adulterated by elements of the polyglot host culture, modest tolerance toward that other group's culture is likely. But even a long-resident group will still catch a world of crap if they remain sufficiently different. For instance, recent unprovoked assaults on Asian appearing citizens demonstrate that these Americans are sometimes punched in the face, beaten up, sometimes even killed, just for looking different. And if a group who wants to enter is really different, say, Middle Eastern Muslims, one quickly sees how minimally "multi-cultural" the rest of us are prepared to be. Remember Trump's attempted muslim ban? What kind of multiculturalism did that amount to? Then there is his border wall welcoming "the tired, the poor, the huddled masses yearning to be free."

Can one group's culture be enriched by welcoming another group and adopting, or at least respecting, aspects of their culture? Sure, it happens all the time. Nevertheless, due to the dynamics just described, this adoption will often be limited to the dominant group gingerly granting mere token recognition. For instance, deciding that their vittles are tasty.

So, to be realistic, advocates of multiculturalism, in education or out, must limit their ambitions and recognize the limitations. Too frequently that's not happening because of virtue signaling and imbalanced zealotry. Yet this is far too important an issue to address so thoughtlessly. The very growth, enrichment, coherence and stability of our society are at stake. 

For a more detailed treatment of this subject see: http://newfoundations.net/?page_id=303 

The Limits of Multiculturalism

A quarter of a century ago a friend of mine was growing up in a largely Italian-American working class section of Baltimore. Because he liked school, succeeded in his studies and enjoyed reading, he found himself the subject of merciless bullying and negative peer pressure. So pervasive was the anti-intellectual attitude of the community that when a competitive full college scholarship was offered to young people from this particular environment, my colleague, who had persevered in his interests, won it by default. There were no other applicants!

I asked my friend, “What would have happened to you had an emphasis on “multi-culturalism” further legitimized the community’s hostility toward learning?” He responded, “I imagine I would have begun selling numbers, or even become a gang member. And I suppose, if I was lucky enough to avoid involvement with organized crime, I would have ended up as some of my relatives did, surreptitiously expressing their anger by urinating in the pizza sauce of a local restaurant where they had found marginal employment.”

Anti-school attitudes are or were common in many ethnic or racial communities. For instance, we are all aware of the difficulties serious students experience in many African-American neighborhoods. Earnest students are often accused of “acting white.” And there is plenty of “encouragement” (read coercion) to forget school and just “hang” on the corner. What are we to make of this in the context of “multiculturalism?” Shall we, in our desire to accommodate or celebrate other cultures and other ways of life, embrace this value? Should we smile benignly at just “kicking back” and “being cool?”

There is also the matter of bribery to consider. A front page article in the Philadelphia Inquirer described how many Italians have become concerned about Italy’s national character. It seems that bribes recently have become a part of everyday life, not just the customary politics. This trend is making life in Italy more and more unpleasant. We all know that the “greasy palm” is not unique to Italy. Bribery is a way of life in many cultures. Does “multiculturalism” require us to celebrate, or at least wink at, such behavior if it is transplanted from foreign soil?

There is also the matter of the treatment of women. A recent episode of the real action T.V. show “Cops” featured a domestic disturbance. The “cops” arrived to find an enraged and bloodied Latino woman and her teenage daughter confronting the woman’s battering, common-law husband. The husband readily confessed to having thrashed his wife, explaining that she had not prepared his dinner for three days running and that in his culture of origin, this negligence required a beating. Failing to do so, he explained, would emasculate him. The beaten wife called the police at the insistence of her Americanized daughter, who had convinced her mother that no woman should ever endure such abuse. Wife beatings are an accepted part of many civilizations. Does “multiculturalism” require us to accept or even celebrate this fact? And if school officials helped the daughter redefine how women should react to beatings, was this a disservice to her, her mother, or even her father?

France recently had a national fracas over another “multicultural” matter affecting women. African immigrants had brought their practice of clitorectomy with them. When French authorities learned that an immigrant woman had had her 13 year-old daughter’s clitoris excised so that she would never experience sexual pleasure, they arrested her for child abuse. Tribal members were furious, alleging that the French authorities were destroying their culture. Would “multiculturalism” require them to take no action or even to celebrate this mutilation?

In India it is common for pregnant women to have ultra-sound testing in order to determine the sex of the unborn. Females are then aborted because they are unwanted. How about arranged marriages or the fact that some languages (like Korean) have female deference built in? Are these the sorts of things we want to hold most worthy or should we give precedence to the emancipation of women?

We need also to consider intolerance. Many cultures partially define themselves via traditional conflicts with, and intolerance of, others. Is it acceptable for Palestinian-Americans to define themselves in terms of antipathy toward Jewish-Americans or vice-versa? And what about the anti-Korean feelings of some African-Americans? Is the destruction and looting of an estimated 5,000 businesses justified if black L.A. street culture endorses it? Consider also the bigoted intolerance of religious extremists like David Koresh. Did “multiculturalism” require us to celebrate the Branch Davidian’s dogmatic exclusionism? Did it require us to honor Koresh’s sexual claims on all the women (and post eleven year old girls) in that community?

Does “multiculturalism” include an appreciation of the Skinheads or the Klan? Shall we be charmed when Vietnamese-Americans express hatred toward Cambodian-Americans or when Korean-Americans define themselves in terms of their contempt for Japanese-Americans? This sort of intolerance is a common feature of many of the world’s cultures; and it is a particular feature of such truly “multicultural” places as Yugoslavia.. Yet such intolerance destroys the very tolerance that makes “multiculturalism” possible. How shall we reconcile this contradiction?

Even relatively tolerant cultures reject members of other cultures in order to preserve their own integrity. Consider the Jew who views marriages to non-Jews as a “problem.” It is a “problem” from the standpoint of perpetuating Judaism. But intolerance toward someone whom one’s daughter or son might truly love is also a problem for most of us who place a high value on our common humanity. Shall we celebrate such exclusionism in order to honor human differences? Should Jews give up being Jewish in order to embrace “multiculturalism?”

We also should remember that, as the old saying goes, “What is sauce for the goose, is often gall for the gander” For example, at North Carolina Central University, the oldest state-supported black public university in the nation, student responses to multicultural initiatives were broadly negative. Fully 74% of the students polled said they were “somewhat” to “greatly concerned and disapproving” of the university becoming more racially/ethnically diverse. Many indicated they were opposed to “anyone other than African-Americans,” which means excluding even Africans. Enthusiasm for Black colleges would seem a logical outgrowth of “multiculturalism.” How, then, shall we understand the fact that they seem to harbor and possibly encourage the very exclusionism “multiculturalism” seeks to avoid? Perhaps by considering that any far-reaching “multiculturalism” could well be self-defeating. After all, once we are all divided into little in-groups, who will be left to urge inclusivism?

“Multiculturalism” is easy if we avoid the tough issues. Just stick to relatively trivial things like the Frugal Gourmet’s celebration of ethnic foods or everyone’s wearing green on St. Patrick’s Day. Then conflict is minimized. Try to go beyond that, however, and the slogan soon slams against the sort of limits illustrated above.

Mindless chauvinism and knee-jerk negativity toward anything or anyone who is different has bred much misery. And the best possibility of “multiculturalism” is that in carefully adjusted amounts it will help us check this sort of hatred and intolerance. A bit too much, however, and we are headed down the same road as the former Yugoslavia.

There is much to be gained by trying to learn from cultures different from our own. And this is true even if such openness is only a one-way street. But we risk national unity if we continue to play with “multiculturalism” uncritically. The sloganistic and essentially mindless (or merely opportunistic) definitions of the day lead inevitably to disunity and acceptance of nearly everything. And if you allow all, you stand for NOTHING.

To examine these issues further, see articles at www.newfoundations.com