Issues and Boundaries in Multiracial Nations - Essay Example

Religion has had a dominant role in the evolution of most cultures. Each modern country has also developed its own norms of social behavior. Very few countries remain isolated in this age, and have citizens from different cultural backgrounds and faiths. Professionals are now mobile across national boundaries, and have their won effects on the work place environment. The melting pot of various streams of community norms, which one finds in important international urban centers, present new challenges and research compulsions. Boundaries of individual freedom, requirements of social order, responsibilities of citizenship, and prerogatives of employers, may be in contention with each other. All countries have not arrived at the same compromises in these respects, but global consensus is a pressing need. Issues and Boundaries in Multiracial Nations Variations in culture can distinguish nations from each other (Heine). The theocratic countries of the Middle East stand out in sharp contrast, with a dominant cultural form all of their own. It is not language, dress, and customs, which define culture entirely: the overwhelming predominance of one faith puts its own stamp on how people behave and interact with each other. The Hindu Kingdom of Nepal and the Vatican are other examples of cultural uniformity through faith within territorial boundaries, though they are marginal in the political equations between countries. There is little room for variations and minority expressions in such societies, for the pressures to conform are irresistible. People tend to be conservative, and much importance is attached to observing customs in the ways of ancestors. Individual rights recede in to the background, and faith is used to suppress even relatively minor dissent. There are strong moral undertones to regimentation in such countries. It would be unfair to blame organized religion for putting culture in straight jackets. Totalitarian states have the same effect, and even put religion down with heavy hands in order to establish the unitary authority of governance and ideology. Petty dictators and monarchs tend to strike some kind of understanding with religious authorities, but political establishments are not inclined to share power. The extent to which such bigotry was practiced by the erstwhile Soviet Union is not visible in the China of the 21st century, but the primacy of the State is essentially a Communist phenomenon. People with liberal minds may rejoice at the modern culture of Europe and the United States, given that individual freedom has such priority in these countries. People from Europe who have migrated to the Southern Hemisphere have largely carried this spirit of human freedom with them, with the exceptional interregnum of apartheid. Yet there are elements of dissonance even in the bastions of freedom, as conservative ethnic communities from former colonies settle in the lands of their former rulers and masters. The evolution of multi racial countries has not been all smooth sailing. It is possible to dismiss the persecution claimed by Muslims in Europe, as an inevitable spin-off of the security issue. However, France has carried secular leanings in to its schools, preventing children from covering their heads, and Sikhs from wearing turbans. We see in these countries, a struggle between individuals, different cultures, organized religion and the State. Minorities and foreigners accept languages, dress codes, cuisine, and art forms of the culture of their adopted homes. Most of them have emigrated for economic reasons, and either observe their original cultures in private, or sacrifice it altogether in quests for better lives. However, faith is another matter. (Ashbrook, 1988), has said that “religion is the substance of culture, and culture is the form of religion”. This no longer applies to the majority of the white Caucasian native population of Europe, since most of them have marginal or no places for faith in their lives. However, the majority of first generation immigrants rankle at restrictions on their religious expressions. No matter how commendable the efforts to reach consensus may be, the State has a final say. The entry of organized employers in to the sensitive arena of religious symbolism is a recent development (woman loses fight to wear the cross, 2006). The individual in this case is a Christian rather than from an oriental faith, but this does not detract from the significance. We may expect such instances to develop in to new norms of social behavior. Culture in multi-racial societies and governance in secular countries, may diverge further from their theocratic peers. Such differences would not have mattered centuries ago, when contact between continents was limited. However, it is an issue worth investigating in the global village of today. Boundaries of Faith The Protestant Church is exceptional-all other religions strive to extend their reach beyond the confines of teaching Scripture, and leading rituals within the walls of designated houses. Religion drives much of the terrorist movement, as indeed the divide in Palestine. Even sects within religions make heavy weather of the fine differences which divide them. The Catholic Church dictates behavior with respect to intimate aspects of family life. Hinduism is a major political force in the Indian sub-continent. Sikhs have agitated for their own home land. Jains celebrate fasts unto death, which are suicides in law and order terms. Buddhist monks are active in politics in Tibet and Thailand. Since faith exists in the non-rational parts of human minds, the force behind a religious diktat is almost impossible to counter. Muslim women continue to cover their faces, even when free not to do so. They accept tenets of Islamic Law which blatantly discriminate against them. Again, it is futile to blame any one religion, as most of them define culture and many social norms. What happens when cultures within a country diverge on the basis of religious beliefs? How far can individual rights be honored? What effects do binding decisions on such matters have on culture? Can we evolve a template for the future? These are some burning and relevant questions, for which answers can be found from the thorough examination of a factual incident. Investigating the Effects of a Symbol U.K. courts have determined that British Airways is within its rights to dismiss a 55-year old employee because she insisted on displaying the cross along with her uniform. The woman was a member of the check-in facility, which would have brought her in continuous interaction with customers of all callings for years. British Airways is a global company, and operates in the most conservative countries, though this case relates to its home country. The situation is easy to create afresh. We can have a check-in counter at any European airport, where a volunteer wears a cross at work. Even a railway booking counter will do! There can be another counter adjacent at which the person in service has no religious symbol whatsoever. We can then survey passengers after they have collected their boarding passes, and find the facts on the following matters: 1. What proportion of people notice the cross? 2. What proportion of people notice the cross, and feel offended by it? 3. To which demographic, economic, and religious groups do the people offended by the cross belong? 4. Are customers more satisfied at the ‘secular’ counter? 5. Do beards and turbans put off people? 6. Do wedding rings make a difference, or are objections limited to signs of religious devotion? 7. What happens with regional service providers, which have ethnic dresses as uniforms? Do British Airways cabin crew members in ethnic uniforms offend passengers? Would you trust a pilot with a flowing beard? 8. What happens if an agnostic has to stand in line or sit next to a person in robes or a cross? Should we have dress codes for passengers as well? The objectives of the research would be to find the limits of religious symbols that individuals should be allowed to display in pluralist societies? Further, there should be attempts to understand how people of other faiths or no religious disposition, interact with the devout from one particular school. We know already that no one objects to personal choices in food or music, so why is belief so different? Answers from passengers traveling within the U.K. may not be the same as when a flight is schedule to leave for an exotic destination. People on vacation may be less bothered than bureaucrats traveling on duty. Some born again Christians may also be heartened at the sight of a fellow faithful behind the counter! We may learn at least as much about passengers as about the cultural wisdom of British Airways. It would only be fair to take this research further to some of the other countries in which British Airways operates. Can members of the Clergy use the airline? Are Sikhs allowed to fly planes, work for the airline, or to buy tickets? What happens to a stewardess on landing in a country where women have to cover their heads? What does the U.K. action do for the global British Airways brand? Is this a worthwhile precedent for other companies to follow? The Two Sides of the Atlantic Religion is allowed to have precedence as long as it does not harm others, or go to extremes (Clanton, 2003). The United States may have found a via media for the contradictory pulls of faith and State. Perhaps Europe can adapt the model used by the most illustrious of its former colonies. Religious and cultural freedom does not suffer in North America because of homeland security concerns. All religions flourish here, and communities such as the Amish and the Mormons have no limits to their cultural aspirations. The same research, conducted on the two sides of the Atlantic, may produce different results. Yet, Europe and the U.S. today have multiple cultures, and strong religious influences, which we may see in other parts of the world, in due course. The research proposed in this document is therefore of considerable importance. Preliminary Conclusions The modern contact between cultures throws up new challenges and research areas (Heine). Major religions continue to wield powerful and pervasive influences over large sections of citizens everywhere. There are large differences between how countries adapt to the roles of religion and culture. People who move between countries, as is an increasing practice, have to adapt to cultural differences, and to the space given for personal faith and worship. International companies, which are significant employers, have to find ways of integrating members of their staff from all backgrounds. No answer can be imposed, for resentment will lead to instability. It may be best to allow everyone to do as they please, as long as it does not interfere with their duties, or tread on the rights of others. References Ashbrook, James, B, 1988, ‘Paul Tillich in Conversation: Psychotherapy, Religion, Culture, History, Psychology,’ Cloverdale Coproration Clanton, Dan W, Jr. 2003, ‘These are Their Stories: Views of Religion in Law and Order’, Journal of Religion and Popular Culture,’ Volume IV, accessed November 2006 from: http://www.usask.ca/relst/jrpc/art4-lawandorder.html Heine, S. J. ‘Cultural Psychology’, New York: W. W. Morton, accessed November 2006 from: http://www.psych.ubc.ca/~heine/psyc407/ ‘Woman loses fight to wear cross,’ 2006, BBC News, accessed November 2006 from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/6165368.stm Read More