The Collapse of Multiculturalism and the Rise of Nationalism - Admission/Application Essay Example

The Collapse of Multiculturalism and the Rise of Nationalism Multiculturalism may be called one of the most obscure political concepts of our time. Its meaning seems to depend on personal viewpoint of the speaker. The advocates of multiculturalism consider it as a characteristics of modern society, represented by the variety of cultures. According to the principles of multiculturalism the representatives of different ethnic groups, religion, and races may successfully live together. Of course, cultural identity is to be saved and maintained. As a rule, most European politicians approve such an approach. Instead, they tend to criticize other aspects of multiculturalism, viewing it through the prism of national policy. Since advocates and opponents of multiculturalism tend to consider this notion from different angles, their discussions sometimes resemble a total mess. It happens because this notion does not have clear and unambiguous definition. Such a kind of collision occurred during the discussion of political announcements, made by leaders of Germany (Angela Merkel), the United Kingdom (David Cameron), and France (Nicolas Sarkozy) in 2011 concerning the policy of multiculturalism. None of these leaders tried to doubt the importance of peaceful coexistence between the representatives of different cultures within one country. But all of them spoke about collapse while appreciating multiculturalism as a political strategy. They criticized the organizing principles of interaction of different ethnic, racial, and faith communities within a single country. According to their words, the chosen principles turned to be wrong and ineffective. It is clear, that the issue of multicultural disintegration is acute for many countries. Multiculturalism is one of the aspects of tolerance which presupposes mixture of cultures. It means that different cultures interpenetrate and enrich each other in terms of universal mass culture development. Multiculturalism may be regarded as one of the most essential issues of our time, which is especially urgent for European countries. The concept of universal human values expects highly-developed societies to accept cultural elements of different peoples and societies into their own cultural space. Alien cultural elements may come from former colonies of metropolitan countries. Increasing influx of immigrants from poorer countries is one of the largest factors as well. As a result, centuries-old cultural patterns and traditions of such countries are endangered, since this kind of intermixture leads to inevitable loss of cultural identity. Even more, cultural level of incomers may sometimes advance while the one of targeted countries tends to fall. Many analytics claim that multiculturalism may be regarded just a rhetorical reconsideration of old problems. Some processes, which had been discussed in terms of ethnic revival since the 60s, received new names. The category of culture replaced the category of ethnicity, since its formula to describe modern conflictive society is much milder, wider, and obscure. The policy of multiculturalism seems to be a method of influence over society. Certain countries like Canada and Australia, where multiculturalism has been pronounced an official policy, may be a good example. The policy of multiculturalism performs an important function there. In Canada it helped escape the danger of Quebec separatism. Canadian government proclaimed the development of multicultural (but by no means multinational) society to be one of its primary goals. On the one hand, it helped neutralize secessionist sentiment of francophone Quebec. Public concern about unity and integrity of the country was also softened. Implementation of multiculturalism in Australia may be explained by decreasing influx of immigrants in the 70s, which could have brought adverse consequences for economic and demographic situation. Multicultural discourse turns to be a functional tool in Germany too. Multiculturalism was initially propagandized by the representatives of industrial capital. Large-scale entrepreneurs were concerned about worsening labor-market situation caused by low influx of labor power. It is known that the introduction of such terms as “multiculturalism” and “multicultural society” in German language belongs to Heiner Geißler, a German politician representing the CDU party. Sociologists warn about methodological and theoretical inconsistencies of such notions as “multiculturalism” and “multicultural society”. Sometimes it is difficult to specify which country may be regarded multicultural. Culture is a symbolic system, typical of certain society and codified within its institutes, that is why the existence of several cultures within one society is rather problematic. If to take into consideration the fact that various social groups represent special, self-sufficient cultures, it will be more relevant to talk about the coexistence of different societies within a certain country, but not about multiculturalism. The category of culture also presupposes certain system of knowledge. Single system of education and mass communication makes the representatives of different cultures share certain system of knowledge, that is why it is difficult to talk about multiculturalism. For this reason it would be more relevant to talk about subcultures instead of cultures. Besides, the notion of multiculturalism is based on identification of ethnicity and culture. It presupposes that different kinds of ethnic tolerance mean cultural tolerance as well. This is to some extent fair for traditional societies, but it certainly does not suit modern industrial and post-industrial societies. It is easy to assume that the notion of culture acquires compensatory function when used by multiculturalists. Power-deprived social groups, like the immigration of first and second generation, are positioned as the representatives of their own unique culture. It may sound presentable or even flattering, but it exerts no influence over their true position into economic and political hierarchy. It is possible to mention one more negative attribute relating to the ideology of multiculturalism. It promotes racialism and ethnicism of public discourse. Multiculturalists reconsider differences of social classes and groups within racial and ethnical terms. It factors into the establishment of discrimination and forms the tendency to disregard minority groups. Multiculturalism reinterprets the issues of interests (social, economic, political, and regional) into the issues of origin (ethnic, confessional). Thus, multiculturalism promotes ethnisation of social conflicts and makes them difficult to resolve. Taking this into consideration, it is possible to say that the project of multiculturalism, initially acclaimed by liberal countries of the West, is likely to exhaust its credit of trust very soon. The discourse of multiculturalism is currently gaining negative connotations. The history of this disappointment is rather remarkable too. It is possible to talk about two ways to criticize multiculturalism. Conservative approach is based on the purpose to substitute multiculturalism with monoculturalism. It supports the idea to give dominant cultural groups (religious and ethnic) privileges over minority groups. Nevertheless, such an idea is rather utopian for contemporary politics. It is also extremely conflictogenic, since it presupposes inequality of peoples and cultures. At the same time, liberal criticism of multiculturalism seems to be much more acceptable. It is based upon the idea that the preservation of cultural values is a vested right of all the people. Nevertheless, exercitation of this right sometimes comes into collision with rights of other people. It may contradict to the principle of equality and moral values of modern society. Liberal criticism of multiculturalism provides a number of arguments, which are rather difficult to question. First of all, the policy of multiculturalism provides government support to different societies and groups, but not to cultures. At the same time, it is easy to doubt the fact that these groups have a right to represent interests of the whole ethnos or religion. Secondly, government sponsorship of these communities stimulates the development of communitarian identity, which suppresses individuality. Such a policy consolidates the power of a community over an individual. At the same time, total prohibition of government intervention into the pattern of community life would turn an individual into a slave to community as well. In this case government would not be able to provide protection to community members. Thirdly, it is possible to say that multiculturalism impedes the integration of representatives of different cultures into the civil society. In other words, multiculturalism conserves traditional relationship within communities. It happens because government supports communities and their schools, clubs, theatres, sport organizations, and so on, but not culture. Finally, the greatest disadvantage of multiculturalism is the fact that it provokes segregation. It generates artificial bounds between different communities and forms some sorts of ghetto on a voluntary basis. At the same time, politicians are searching for the new strategy of cultural policy. The model of individual freedom and cultural choice seems to be one of the most promising models. Its basic principles were developed by Amartya Sen, an outstanding scientist and Nobel laureate in economics. The main idea is to weaken the group forms of identification in favor of individual choice. Sen insists that cultural freedom gives all the people right to live according to their own choice. It lets them appreciate all the available opportunities. Sen emphasizes that prospering injustices around the world will never be repaired unless its victims refuse to be its allies. People are just deprived of an opportunity to choose another trajectory of life. That is why all the ethnic, religious, and other group traditions may be regarded ascriptive, but not voluntary. In other words, they are imposed from birth. The main principle of cultural freedom encourages the weakening of such predestination. Its purpose is to develop individual multiculturalism. The concept of individual freedom was enthusiastically welcomed by the specialists in the field of cultural policy. Nevertheless, this policy has not become a standard practice in Western countries yet. At the same time, the current policy of multiculturalism aroused corresponding reaction. It is possible to observe increasing activization of nationalists. This issue is well elaborated in Harvard’s article Nationalism: Classical, Macro and Regional. He discerns three types of nationalism, but special emphasis is laid on regional, or local nationalism. According to Harvard, regional nationalism may lead to federalization or even fragmentation of certain European countries. Besides, Harvard underlines that the revival of nationalism may result in distrust of the European currency. The loss of control over national currency is considered to be an extremely serious threat to national sovereignty and state interests. If to take this into consideration, it is easy to assume that the popularity of nationalism will be constantly increasing. Despite all the attempts to advocate the strategy of multiculturalism, it would be right to acknowledge its collapse. Nevertheless, it is still pursued in Europe and many some other countries like Canada. There is no clear alternative for multiculturalism, though the issue of national identity is extremely urgent in Europe. Economic crisis and rapid growth of Islam in Europe provoke the reaction of right-wing parties. It makes European future blur and unpredictable. There are more and more evidences proving multiculturalism to be just a historical episode. It seems to be a small-scale back wave, which have terminated the cycle of industrial modernization. This wave arose due to external cultural impulses, but their power is currently weakening. It should be taken into consideration, that social and economic opportunities of immigrants are usually lower in comparison to the opportunities of local population. The aim to make immigrants a part of certain society is very difficult because of cultural distance. Such notions as language, behavior skills, and religious values cannot be disregarded. Thus, if the aim of society is promote the integration of immigrants and prevent their communities from ghettoization, government is to provide real, but not only formal equality of opportunities. In order to ensure such equality it is necessary to take a number of measures providing the protection of social and cultural rights of immigrants. Works Cited Barry, B. Culture and equality: An egalitarian critique of multiculturalism. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001. Print. Crumley, B. “Why European Conservatives Are Bashing Multiculturalism”. Time. Web. 23 Feb 2011. Harvard, W. “Nationalism: Classical, Macro and Regional”. Discourses on Liberty. Web. 20 Sep 2011 Sen, A. Development as freedom. 1st ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. Print. Read More