A Critique of Taylor's Concept of Multiculturalism in Relation to Nation Building - Essay Example

? A Critique of Taylor's concept of Multiculturalism in Relation to Nation Building Introduction Culture is defined as the way a group of people live and it encompasses the norms, values and distinct social features1. To Taylor, culture is the standards of authentic individual and collective self expression amongst a group of people2. The society is a framework within which different people interact to create various inclinations and trends which define the culture3. The world is a dynamic place and as changes occur in societies, there are numerous tendencies that makes it impossible for cultures to continue to be transferred from generation to generation. This therefore brings to play the concept of “cultural survival” which is concerned with the ability of a given culture to stand the test of time that comes with modernisation4. Professor Charles Taylor supports the communitarian school of thought which claims that the idea of individualism evolved as a consequence of some failures in the development of the modern Eurocentric society5. Due to individualism, the risk of cultural survival is now higher than it has ever been in the past. He holds that the replacement of communal structures with individualism is gradually causing the human race to lose important morals and values. As an antidote to this, communitarians believe that the social structures should be rebuilt and this can be done through enhancing different cultures in a given nation. This idea has become popularly known as the recognition of culture. Recognition of culture therefore refers to the respect of people's distinct cultures and allowing different people to practice their different cultures in a given nation. The end of the recognition of culture is the creation of multiculturalism, which will ensure that different cultures thrive in the same nation. Recognition of culture comes with the idea of the politics of recognition which is summed up to mean the dynamics in the moderation of the scope of multiculturalism in a given nation6. This therefore means that people from different backgrounds should be allowed to practice their culture without hindrance. The ultimate end is that culture will survive and through that, responsible people can be harnessed to build a more responsible society. Taylor's argument, called the politics of equal respect implies that distinct cultures will have to be respected and allowed to thrive in a nation, even if it comes with wide differences. Theoretically, the recognition of culture means that if people from extremely different ends of the world come together in a given geographical area, they should be allowed to maintain their unique values, irrespective of how different they are. It is therefore obvious that this position of Taylor gives room for a wide diversity of possibilities which cannot go unchecked. In this paper, I examine the key debates of Taylor in relation to the concept of the recognition of differences in cultures. I will critically assess the validity of the communitarian views on the subject by comparing them to counter arguments and criticisms of his ideas. I will utilise various philosophical positions and ideologies of various thinkers and theorists and use them to validate or reject various propositions presented by Taylor and other communitarians. The paper argues that the idea of communitarianism is the best way for the survival of today's society and although there are some inherent challenges in it that threaten to prevent cohesion it is the only viable option in socializing children. The Basis of Taylor's Argument Taylor, in his book Ethics of Authenticity built a strong case against the existing systems and structures in the modern society. He identifies that there are three main 'malaises' or cankers in our modern society that are potentially dangerous to the current society7. The first malaise is the concept of individualism. People tend to have the freedom to decide what is right and choose to do it for themselves. Thus, whatever is convenient to an individual is rationalized as right and this becomes the criteria for the decisions that a person takes. Most of these decisions based on relativism do not have any historical or moral bases. Individualism is rooted in the concepts of narcissism which makes an individual feel extremely self importance and hedonism which encourages people to seek absolute pleasure in life8. However, Heller states that individualism is an important component of the human existence that cannot be done away with. He argues that it is the best way of promoting responsibility and enhancing the highest motivations in society9 . Based on this, I believe that individualism is important in society. The second malaise that Taylor identifies is the idea of instrumental reasoning10. In this case, Taylor identifies that rationality is based on the course of action that brings the optimum benefits. Writing in 1991, where the Soviet Union, which stood against instrumental reasoning had crumpled, I wonder his basis for the condemnation of Capitalism which preys on instrumental reasoning. However, on further analysis, I notice that Taylor was supporting the Kantian school of thought which sought to put human interest ahead of economic gains11. Kant further explains that the ideal position is where there are boundaries, since he identifies that the concept of instrumental reason will lead to a situation where there will be nothing sacred in the society and this will mean there will be no values. The third malaise in society is where individualism and instrumental reasoning merge on the political and institutional level12. In this situation, the political institutions and social structures of the nation will be influenced by apathy and economic gains to the detriment of social welfare. Does the third malaise apply to us today? Yes, I think it does. The British Prime Minister, David Cameron in his address on the recent London riots stated that indiscipline in the society of today is strongly linked with the collapse of the family structure and social systems13. The high rate of divorce today can be traced to individualism and instrumental thinking. Another way that the third malaise occurs in today's society is what Crouch describes as Post-Democracy. Post-Democracy refers to a situation where politics in a society is hit by apathy from members of the society to a point where control in a nation slips back to a few powerful individuals in the society who manage the nation's resources like dictators of old14. The Road to Multiculturalism I think these three points are cogent and they seem to reflect events in today's society. People lack values, people take decisions based on economics and the next generation faces a great danger of social turmoil. In the vacuum created by the modern society, Taylor suggests that multiculturalism should be nurtured and instituted. In this quest, it appears that Taylor is arguing for a system where the social units and other informal systems of different kinds of people in a given society needs to be recognized. Hegel originally states his thesis of Sittlichkeit that the notion of community is an 'ethical substance' and a spiritual life which people must participate in15. This enforces the popular adage that no man is an island. It is therefore necessary for some kind of social and cultural participation which will ensure that people can improve their lives by contributing to the collective development of the society. Taylor explains these concepts on three premises16. First of all, individuals cannot achieve much without contacts with the society. Secondly, all other organizations or groups in the society are regulated and controlled by the larger society. Finally, the society reflects more than just a collection of people, it reflects the ideas and ontological structures of a given group of people. Habermas identifies that the society should be nurtured both on the supranational level as well as the the micro-local level17. This therefore means that there should be some emphasis on the basic level through which an individual is socialized like the family and local community within which a person lives. This implies that the individual will have to connect to the society through the social group s/he belongs without interference by the state. Thus, the concept of multiculturalism ensures that Christians, Jews, Muslims, Africans and Asians can pursue their specific social desires and ideas in the local community they belong to. From there, they can relate to the structures of the nation. Multiculturalism has strong connection with the British imperial system of integration. Through the concept of integration, the British were able to preserve local structures and institutions of the natives in their colonies around the world and ruled those lands through the leaders of those local structures. However, others like Schlesinger have argued vehemently against the idea of multiculturalism which they see as a threat to the unity in a modern nation18. According to this group of philosophers, the idea of multiculturalism threatens the fibre of society and prevents the creation of a national identity. This argument attains its legitimacy from the fact that most nations in today's world are artificial creations that need to be nurtured. In Europe, most of the citizens have migrant backgrounds. Nations in the Americas were built by various forms of migration of Europeans, Asians and Africans who entered under different circumstances. This therefore means that there is the need for these nations to find a way of building a national identity that will ensure that the citizens get the best opportunities for its citizens and build an identity that can be exported. The argument of these anti-multiculturalism identify that there should be a way that people with different backgrounds can abandon their primary identity and help build a distinct culture of the nation within which they live. This is known as assimilation. It is consistent with the French colonization policy which sought to force locals to abandon their local identities and take up and support to shape up a universal Francophone identity. Assimilation was often at odds with the British Integration policy. These schools of thought have their strengths and weaknesses. If we are arguing for a multicultural society, how do we deal with the conflicts that will inevitably come with it? Politics of Equal Recognition There are numerous differences that divide people in society. These differences include banners of sexuality, gender, ethnicity and race and this defines the basis for power struggles and shapes up the politics of equal recognition19. There is therefore the need for nations to come up with a philosophy on how to deal with these differences amongst its citizens. There are two extremes in this quest – Universal Dignity and Politics of Difference. Taylor argues in favour of the theory of universal dignity. In this conception, people of different backgrounds are accepted with dignity and there is equality of recognition20. Taylor argues that we should respect and acknowledge cultural and social systems that are not universally shared. This way, people get an identity and are respected for who they are. Taylor supports Hegel's position and states that the refusal of equal recognition “can inflict damage on those who are denied it…. The projection of an inferior or demeaning image on another can actually distort and oppress, to the extent that the image is internalized”21. This therefore means that if one fails to respect other people for who they are, there are various problems and challenges that can make such a person feel inferior and become anti-social. Fraser identifies forms of disrespect and dishonour for other people's identity include things like stigmatization and oppression22. Following Taylor's position, it means that every culture has an equal right to respect. So should we legitimise cultures that are barbaric and backward? I think this is a very serious situation and needs to be carefully examined before anyone accepts the politics of equal recognition. Appiah states that it is not all cultures that are worth preserving23. There are some cultural practices that are extremely inhumane and do not deserve to be observed into the future. Examples of such practices are slavery and female circumcision which are upheld in some cultures and benefit some few people and create immense suffering for others. I think such cultures cannot be respected and need to be banned. In this case, it means that Taylor's position on multiculturalism is potentially dangerous because it could breed certain negative and inhumane systems that are destructive under the guise of the right to cultural recognition. Appiah points out that the communitarian idea of Taylor leads to stereotyping and this can cause people to be classified and identified with certain practices which can cause unfair treatments to such people. This can also cause people to be imprisoned in certain psychological limits. This criticism of Appiah is valid and has in fact been used in the past to oppress people through the politics of difference. On the other side of the politics of equal recognition are the supporters of the politics of difference. This school of thought argue according to Durkheim's concept of the division of labour which states that human beings are different and people are attracted to other humans who are like them. Based on this idea, different classes of people should be grouped on the basis of what unites them and enable them to contribute optimally to the nation. Although the politics of difference can be used as a tool for positive discrimination, which involves trying to use conscious efforts to bridge differences between some severely degraded cultures and promote national integration, I think the same idea can be used negatively. In South Africa, Apartheid was seen as 'good neighbourliness' because it kept the White people separated from their Black neighbours because they were significantly different from each other24. Although this evolved harmlessly under the banner of Afrikaner nationalism, it caused severe oppression to the Blacks of South Africa. Multiculturalism & Nation Building There are inevitable conflicts that will come up with multiculturalism in areas like formalisation, representation and legalisation of views. So what is the best way of implementing multiculturalism in a given nation? And who should be the authority to intervene in cultural matters? These are the definitive questions of the politics of recognition. The first question is about how the issue of conflict between cultures can be resolved. There is a significant argument about whether things from cultures in a given nation should be judged by a set of absolute standards or should members of cultures set their own standards and live by them. Taylor claims that cultures should be judged on their merit. This suggests that absolute standards will be set25. With the idea of globalization and the world becoming a single entity, it appears that this standpoint is valid and eventually, the stronger and more productive cultures will dominate in shaping up unified systems. Wolf however denies this thinking and states that different cultures should be allowed to thrive and the society must study them closely26. This tends to suggest that every culture should be allowed to exist even if they are not useful today. Perhaps in the future, we might find the importance and essence of such cultures. This inevitably leads to the question of the extent to which universalism should be balanced with particularism. Should we allow some seemingly negative things continue in a nation under the guise of culture? How should we teach our children? Should we tell them absolutes or should we teach them relativism? These are cogent questions that prompt debate. Universalism might lead to community repression of minorities as it occurred in Yugoslavia. However, without a universal concept that allows the best systems to evolve, society will be static and backward. The debate of universalism and particularism has strong implications on nation building. Whereas universalism can help foment a national identity, particularism can breed sectarianism and social tensions and the idea of citizenship will be blurred and devoid of national identity. Another area of intervention of this debate is the area of procedures and legal identity. The coming together of different cultures will bring with it different legal, moral and procedural codes. In this sense, to what extent should we formalize and centralize legal and ethical procedures in a country? Wolf's position intersects with the need for legal codes in a very interesting manner. Malaysia, a multicultural Asian nation announced that it will invoke the laws of its four dominant social groups based on the identity of people involved in the case. Thus, if a Muslim is caught stealing from a non-Muslim's premises, he must be amputated. On the other hand, if a non-Muslim is caught stealing from a Muslim home, that person will end up with just a three-month jail sentence because he is non-Muslim. This is very absurd, ridiculous and potentially unfair. Taylor argues that the liberal and procedural state which gives rights to its citizens is abstract, leads to apathy and prevents national cohesion since people have no identity. In its stead, he calls for national values and communal activities that will unite the nation. This brings questions of how this national cohesion must be created. If it is created in the Malaysian way and every culture is respected, people would be forced to adhere to some standards that they might not want to live with. Habermas however takes a different position and argues that the collection of individual rights in a given society can help build a stronger nation with people who can capitalize on their rights, build strong communities and integrate into the broader national framework and without rights, individuals can hardly do this27. Conclusions: I agree that individualism and instrumental thinking have an adverse effect on communal cohesion, which is potentially dangerous for social development. However, in reality, I do not see alternatives to individualism and instrumental thinking in our generation. I therefore believe that the best solution is some kind of compromise that will ensure that individualism and instrumental thinking flourishes in the society but in a responsible manner. Culture and social identity are important things that define the authenticity of an individual and a group. A child socializes through the family first and other intermediary in the immediate environment. This therefore means that the family and social environment needs to be at its best to ensure that the next generation is responsible enough to build a better society tomorrow. In this wise, I agree that the best way of preserving such structures is to build a multicultural model of societies within a nation that will allow people to hand down beliefs and values from their ancestors to their children. Since people prefer to stick to their familiar systems, there is the need for cultures to exist side-by-side. This therefore means that the recognition of differences is vital and must be honoured and is the best option for national cohesion. To this end, I support the recognition of difference, the preservation of culture and the politics of equal recognition. However, in doing this, there is the need for care to be take in some important areas like defining a framework for dialogue, preservation of basic human rights, elimination of negative practices and the promotion of uniformity. Bibliography Appiah Anthony K (1994) “Identity, Authenticity, Survival: Multicultural Societies and Social Reproduction” in Multiculturalism Ed. Taylor Charles. Princeton University Press. Bucher, Andreas (2003) “Charles Taylor Multiculturalism & The Politics of Recognition” in Ethnicity & The State in Africa Available online at: http://www.unibas-ethno.ch/redakteure/foerster/dokumente/h011203.pdf Accessed: November 30, 2011 Crouch, Colin (2009) Post Democracy Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Publishing Ferrante Joan (2010) Sociology A Global Perspective Mason, OH: Cengage Fraser Nancy (2000) “Rethinking Recognition” New Left Review 3 May/June 2000. Habermas, Jurgen (1994) 'Struggles for Recognition in the Democratic Constitutional State' in Multiculturalism Princeton University Press Hegel, G W F (translated by A V Miller) (1977) 'Independence and Dependence of Self-Consciousness: Lordship and Bondage' pp 111-119 in Phenomenology of Spirit Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. Heller Thomas (1986) Reconstructing Individualism Stanford University Press Louw Eric P (2004) Rise & Fall of Apartheid Greewood Publishing Schlesinger, Arthur Jr (1992) The Disuniting America: Reflections on a Multicultural Society New York: WW Norton Smith Nicholas Hugh (2004) Charles Taylor: Meaning, Morals, and Modernity Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Taylor, Charles: (1991) The Ethics of Authenticity. Harvard University Press, London, UK. Taylor, Charles et al. (1994) Multiculturalism: Examining The Politics of Recognition. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Taylor, Charles (1977) Hegel & The Modern Society Cambridge University Press. Read More