Multiculturalism Has Corrosive Effects on Society - Assignment Example

? Multiculturalism has had Corrosive Effects on Society Multiculturalism has had Corrosive Effects on Society Multiculturalism is one of the growing phenomena of a world that has truly globalised. Despite being characteristics of developed cities in the modern world, multiculturalism is by no means a new concept. Multiculturalism, in the most simplest of all terms, can be defined as the doctrine that multiple cultures can coexist in peaceful harmony in one country. The world’s biggest cities of developed countries, London and New York, for example, have become a connecting point for nations and ethnicities across the world. They are cities populated by millions of people, yet, they live together more as strangers than neighbors. This leads to the establishment of the further idea that each citizen shares a common status, which ensures that “everybody enjoys the same legal and political rights” (BARRY, 2001). The establishment of relations based on trust and care that is a feature of small communities is absent in the multicultural river of the modern day metropolis. Moreover, there is a clear lack of belonging amongst such multicultural centers, where each cultural group has a unique identity of its own, but fails to associate itself to the greater identity of the city they are living in. Although multiculturalism may promote a healthy exchange of knowledge and ideas, however, it corrodes the very foundation of a society since it creates factions, leads people to extremism and is the cause of nonexistent interpersonal ties amongst fellow community members. A society is corroded when it works not as a whole, but as separate factions, leading to a lack of solidarity and cohesion. When different ethnicities come together to live in one place, they do not lose their original identities. In fact, ethnic minorities are known to cling on to that which is ‘theirs’. This tendency to see one self as uniquely different has a major impact on how well that group is assimilated in the society on a whole. Developed countries are often host to immigrants who leave their homeland for the host country in search of jobs. The presence of a distinct group, in this case an immigrant group, in the societal structure of the host country creates what Richard Alba calls a ‘social distinction’ in his work titled “Bright vs. Blurred Boundaries” (ALBA, 2005). Alba talks about the existence of bright and blurred boundaries that separate ethnic groups from the mainstream society. For example, the Muslim Turks in Germany may be seen as a group with bright, clearly defined boundaries that distinguish them from the non-Muslim European. The religion, the culture, the dress, the language of one group all are seen as clearly different from that of the other. An individual can be a member of one group at one time, which suggests a clear lack of assimilation. On the other hand, Alba gives the examples of Mexicans in the US, who are also immigrants but their social distinction is classified by blurred boundaries. He writes, “This could mean that individuals are seen as simultaneously members of the groups on both sides of the boundary or that sometimes they appear to be members of one and at other times members of the other”. This implies that the differences between the immigrants and the host nation are not as clearly defined as was in the case of the Muslim Turks. Even so, the exclusion of the Mexican immigrants from mainstream American society does exist, mainly because, even after generations of living in America, they are not essentially American. This mindset leads to the creation of factions that weaken a society, preventing it from seeing itself as a whole. Multiculturalism, especially when backed by state ideologies, corrodes a society since it in effect supports a policy that encourages people to see themselves as separate from the whole, leading them towards extremist ideologies in a desperate urge to belong. Multiculturalism then becomes a program aimed towards “giving recognition to ethno-religious groups and their cultures” (BARRY, 2001).This has a deep connection with how public policy toward immigrant groups is shaped in modern developed societies. One defining feature of policies that encourage ethnic diversity is the presence of anti racial laws. In a country where an ethnic minority exists, it is unlawful for the majority to offend the sensitivities of the minority group. While this may be seen as a positive step towards tolerance, this is however, extremely problematic. In the process of protecting the sensitivities of the minority, the State often ignores how the minority too can offend the majority. Governments are hesitant to step forward to restrict minorities from carrying out their cultural norms, even if they at times become criminal. The Prime Minister David Cameron in his speech at the Munich Security Conference on 11th February, 2011 highlighted how the fact that young British girls hailing from developing countries are “bullied” into marrying at a young age, while the state does not want to interfere in private family matters. He rightly specified that “This hands-off tolerance has only served to reinforce the sense that not enough is shared” (CAMERON, 2011). Young Muslim girls and boys, for example, who have lived all their lives in Britain, cannot relate to the norms and culture of their homeland, while on the other hand, British society and public policy also makes them feel alien. The feeling of not belonging is psychologically destructive to a young mind. Rootlessness and the urge to belong to a greater whole with which they can identify can lead many young minds to extremist ideologies that often culminate in acts of terrorism. A society that cannot offer emotional and psychological stability to its future generation is indeed one that is weak whose very foundations are weak and corroded. Such a society, as Hewitt claims, shapes its racial relations on the basis of “macro political agendas and economic trends” (HEWITT, 2006) rather than emotional well being of its citizens. . Multiculturalism, however, is a process that leads to growth and development of knowledge through a progressive exchange of diverse ideas, and therefore, is argued to be beneficial for a society. During the period of the great Renaissance, it was this multiculturalism that enabled learning and development of the modern age. Knowledge from Arab scholars was integrated into the thinking of the European philosophers, which resulted in a period of enlightenment and education. Hence, we see the existence of different cultures coming together to contribute meaningfully to the society as a whole. While cross pollination of cultures may enable an exchange of knowledge, and encourage the development of society, however, multiculturalism in modern day cities has had corrosive effects on the society. A society characterized by multiculturalism is also dominated by weak interpersonal relations, where fellow community members live and interact as little more than strangers, which weakens the social ties upon which all societies are based. The very essence of society is the social relations which exist within it, and one where social relations are weak and flimsy, the society too, is a fragile one. In agricultural societies where communities were formed around kinship ties, the interpersonal relationships between individuals were strong and well built. It is interesting to note that such societies had a lot in common in terms of religion, language and culture. Every member of the community was deeply involved in the life of his fellow community members, and one man’s grief and joy was shared, quite literally, by everyone around him. Any group different from their own, however, was not welcomed within their community and was seen with skepticism and doubt. Putting this in contrast with the modern day developed world, two things clearly stand out. First, the concept of the right to privacy and individual freedom has replaced that of sharing life experiences. Lack of trust has further propagated this feeling of isolation. Individuals living in crowded metropolitans share very little amongst each other, and would not prefer sharing their personal experiences with someone living right next door. Secondly, the integration of different and diverse groups within one is also a defining feature, and one that serves to weaken the harmony within society. David Goodhart explains this idea in his article titled “Too Diverse?” (GOODHART, 2004). He speaks of the society trying to strike a balance between diversity and solidarity, where it can either achieve one or the other. A society that is diverse is not unified, while one that is unified is not diverse. For Goodhart, the growing presence of immigrants is a concern because it weakens the foundations. The same society, however, if formed by a homogenous group, would be cohesive and organized. Not only do the immigrants feel a sense of distrust towards the society as a whole, the natives of the country are skeptic of people that live within the same community as theirs. This suspicion is evident in the reluctance of the taxpayer to provide welfare for the poor immigrant. The welfare system works by taxing high income earning individuals by convincing them that the money will be used for the support and benefit of people who are very much like the taxpayer himself, but are poor. Thus, it is the feeling of mutual brotherhood that drives the rich man to contribute towards the welfare of the poor. However, the growth of multiculturalism has led to a growing dissent towards welfare programs. Goodhart speaks of how the very legitimacy of a welfare system based on tax money is questioned when a huge proportion of the recipients of the welfare money are immigrants belonging to low income families. Giving the example of America and Sweden to explain this, Goodhart says that Sweden is an example of a successful welfare state because it is “homogeneous society with intensely shared values”. On the other hand, America cannot cope as a welfare state because it is made up of diverse people who feel less obligated towards the welfare of their fellow citizens, and therefore, are less willing to pay heavy taxes for that purpose. This example serves to drive home the fact that multiculturalism breeds a society based on ties formed with strangers, while homogenous societies nourish unified solidarity amongst its people. The second and third generation of immigrants has experienced greater assimilation into the society of the host country than their parents. In other words, the children of the people who left their country for another have undergone the process of acculturation. Acculturation has been defined by J.W. Berry as a “culture change that results from continuous, first hand contact between two distinct cultural groups” (BERRY, 1992). This occurs for instance when an Indian girl, born in America to Indian parents, can relate more to jeans and English than to a sari and Hindi. A crude irony exists here. While the Indian girl may see herself as an American, she may be seen with skepticism and mistrust by her American classmates. This is what multiculturalism actually does – corrode the individual as well as the society by giving no one their due share of belonging and acceptance within the society, and promoting feelings of mistrust among members of the same community. Bibliography Top of Form HEWITT, R. (2005). White backlash and the politics of multiculturalism. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press. Top of Form BARRY, B. (2001). Culture and equality: an egalitarian critique of multiculturalism. Cambridge, Mass, Harvard University Press. Top of Form ALBA, R. (2005). Bright vs. blurred boundaries: Second-generation assimilation and exclusion in France, Germany, and the United States. Ethnic and Racial Studies. 28, 20-49. Top of Form BERRY, J. W. (1992). Acculturation and Adaptation in a New Society. International Migration. 30, 69-85. GOODHART, D. (2004). Too Diverse? Prospect (February). Available at: [http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/too-diverse-david-goodhart-multiculturalism-britain-immigration-globalisation/] CAMERON, David, 2011 Speech at the Munich Security conference, February 5th 2011. Available at: [www.number10.gov.uk/news/pms-speech-at-munich-security-conference] Top of Form Bottom of Form Bottom of Form Bottom of Form Bottom of Form Bottom of Form Read More