Why multiculturalism is a contested concept - Essay Example

? Why Multiculturalism Is a Contested Concept Why Multiculturalism Is a Contested Concept Abstract Since time immemorial, many people have been interacting freely across the world. Cultural beliefs and practices have been also seen all over the world with every group of people having its beliefs and practices. Multiculturalism has been of great importance in recent times. This is because it has led to increased developments across the world. Multiculturalism has changed perspectives through which people used to view and approach issues. However, multiculturalism has also had adverse impacts on certain groups of people all over the groups. Due to its significance and impacts, multiculturalism has created different opinions and beliefs among the people. As a result, there has been an emergence of pro and anti-multiculturalism groups who have contested seriously. The two groups have been contesting strongly about multiculturalism with each of them citing many reasons of why they are supporting or against multiculturalism. It is therefore due to these facts that this study is aimed at analyzing reasons as to why multiculturalism is a contested concept. Introduction Multiculturalism refers to communities with numerous cultures; it is a body of thought in political philosophy that talks about the appropriate means to act in response to religious diversity and cultural diversity. Multiculturalism has been a contested concept and policy all over the world since its foundation with detractors usually criticizing it as a discordant concept and a policy that was purportedly lacking in substance and precision (McLaren & Farahmandpur, 2005, p.8). Government and other services established under policies of multiculturalism have served an important role in easing the settlement of immigrants and numerous elements of infrastructures have withstood in spite of the disagreement surrounding the idea. The concept of multiculturalism has come under a lot of criticism in the past decades or so in a number of famous immigrants obtaining nations like North America, Europe, and all over the world. Debate on the benefits of integration and assimilation has reemerged in both government and public arenas. Public conversation on the idea and policy of multiculturalism, and ethno cultural diversity more widely have changed differently according to certain historical and political bases on many countries across the world (McLaren & Farahmandpur, 2005, p.12). Spectrum of philosophical Orientations According to McLaren & Farahmandpur (2005, p.24), social protection on the political right is the most leading challenger of multiculturalism and comprise of two elements including classical liberalism which is referred to currently as neoliberalism, and religious fundamentalism. The political centrism of liberal multiculturalism that consist elements of social conservation but seeks to administer and accommodate multiculturalism in the existing structures of a liberal nation-state, a type of governing that is based on personal rights is the second major strand. Politically left of these positions is an essential multiculturalism, which declines particular fundamental suppositions of liberalism, and focuses on how power relations in a stratified society impact multiplicity. People in real practice may change their orientation among these groups depending on their personal material and cultural interests in relation to a certain multiculturalism concept even though a typology is presented by these three strands. Social conservatism Social conservatism prioritizes the private sphere and protects personal interests and personalities against infringement from the public sphere. A belief in a uniform common culture for a nation-state is held by this orientation and disputes that social cohesiveness and the foundation of western civilization can be undermined by the specter of demographic and economic heterogeneity. Social conservatism demands for public recognition and redistribution rights from diverse groups (Glazer, 1997, p.26). As a result, the symbolic and material dialogue of multiculturalism is regarded as an antisocial trouble that prevents social development. Prioritization of the private over the public Glazer (1997, p.33) states that prioritization of the private over the public is accounted for by how liberalism customarily advantaged both the personal and private sphere of life. Conservatism considers efforts to publicly declare multicultural group identities claims, and perspectives as misguided and harmful because classical liberalism focuses on personal other than the group as the main social unit of significance. The logic of conservatism can explain the differentials in living standards or educational achievement based on personal value because all people are assumed to an equal chance to prosper. It is assumed by social conservatism that private tastes of a business or a person should not coercively be challenged by the state publicly in response to public claims of gender and racial discrimination. In addition, proof of discrimination is regarded as an irregularity from a neutral liberal democracy (Glazer, 1997, p.48). Thus, multiculturalism and cultural diversity are viewed as elements to be managed or disheartened in schools and workplaces, and are comprehended in accordance to cultural preferences and languages of consumer markets and trading associates. Common exclusionary culture Multiculturalism groups are usually perceived suspiciously as potential traitors to a common culture viewed as potential threats both externally and domestically. This is an outcome of conservatism’s influential conceptualization of multiculturalism when expressed in public. For instance, when representing this concept, a general in U.S.-occupied Afghanistan described that practices of an enemy necessitated the use of culture as a weapon system to knowledge of culturally diverse (Gutmann, 2004, p.96). However, under conservatism, multiculturalism is extraneous because group recognitions are believed to be a false construct that undercuts the supremacy of independent people situated within a patriotic common culture. Group declarations of marginalization are dismissed as discordant because people are supposed to assimilate into a common culture. The fundamental conservatism of neoliberalism and religious fundamentalism can boost each other’s cultural and economic orientation. Religious fundamentalism traverses with neoliberalism’s market fundamentalism in support of a common, exquisitely motivated culture that ought to be guarded from cultural differences within liberal democracies (Gutmann, 2004, p.112). The legality of other economic and moral systems is barriers to the democratic growth of a common culture that led to the emergence of capitalism and Protestantism, framed via a Judeo-Christian tradition is excluded by this worldview. Liberal multiculturalism According to Juteau (2008, p.45), the philosophy of liberal multiculturalism tries to moderate social conservatism by its acknowledgement of diverse group identities. Diversity is brought out of the private specialty and into the public to celebrate diversity with an acknowledgment of cultural groups, with a preservative beginning of multiculturalism to a stated homogeneous nation-state common culture. This feature of liberalism focuses on multiculturalism as being grateful for cultural variations among groups, and observes cultural open-mindedness as a base to a liberal democracy. Moderation of the private and inequality Autonomy is tempered by appreciation of an individual’s location in public sphere while individualism remains a major value. From this course freedom can necessitate public intervention for the liberty to lead certain lifestyle (Juteau, 2008, p.63). Liberal multiculturalism admits a need in selected cases for public policies that can permit groups to express their liberty not only to exist, but to take part publicly in a broadminded society other than denying the legality of multicultural identities. Hence, liberty is not limited merely to personal cultural practices, though can be defense for various public expressions. Liberal multiculturalism differs from neoliberalism by saying that moderation of group disparities developed by a state’s political economy may be needed for some diverse groups to sustain personal freedom. However, equality of chance remains philosophically privileged over diversity because inequality disparities are generally viewed as exceptions to liberal democracy’s doctrine of egalitarianism. Thus, liberal multiculturalism articulated in practice struggles with the ongoing predicament of whether to safeguard a democratic model in the current absurdity of socioeconomic stratification that liberal democratic systems allow (Juteau, 2008, p.74.) Common inclusionary customs Tolerance for culturally different groups as basic to a common culture of a moderate nation-state is accepted by liberal multiculturalism. Nonetheless, it is indicated by empirical research that multicultural is supported gently at best among them including United States, Europe, Canada and Australia. For instance, the liberal Council of Europe called for tolerance and dialogue in an effort to calm conservative discernments that multiculturalism is threatening major moral and economic interest (Juteau, 2008, p.79). Group identities have been recognized generally by liberal multiculturalism as fixed and regard diverse cultures as comparatively the same. Multiculturalism becomes the recognition and respect of cultural diversity as the larger society’s shared value. Acknowledgment of multiplicity is founded on the supposition that groups will assimilate into an existing common culture in spite of the public accommodation of disparities. Civic distinctiveness in which through which cultural groups can share in seeking the common good of a liberal democracy while also pursuing their own personal objectives have been endorsed by liberal multiculturalism. The liberal multiculturalism’s position views the fact that religious fundamentalism supposes that the origin of the current nation-stated is founded on Christian values that are not supposed to be opposed publicly, as a violation of the idea of separating church and state, and challenges that truth can exist in other religions and other, diverse cultural systems. This position advocates inclusion so as to crease diverse beliefs into an existing common culture even though liberal multicultural tends to privilege Judeo-Christian moral beliefs over those of other religions (Juteau, 2008, p.146). Critical multiculturalism Critical multiculturalism rests in general opposition to the incorporated domination of social conservatism and liberal multiculturalism and brings to the front position concepts like knowledge construction, emancipatory actions, ideology, cultural politics, power, class and resistance. It is assumed by critical multiculturalism that wealth and economic accomplishment gaps among social class groups are intrinsically unequal. Hence, critical multiculturalism talks against the acceptance of hierarchical variations (Minami & Ovando, 2004, p.76). A multiethnic and gender-equality society in which the tensions of variations are primary to what creates a society’s culture common is supported by this position. Diverse educational practices and individualities are described as fluid other than fixed and reducible to a market product. Diversity concepts of ethnicity, gender, class and race are examined for intersections in association to freedom and authority. According to Minami & Ovando (2004, p.79), historical perspectives are emphasized by critical multiculturalism as being essential to comprehend current debates regarding diversity. Thus, conventional declaration of an end-of-history where a governing narrative claims that there are no alternatives to neoliberalism’s scheme of privatization of public services in the name of development is rejected by this orientation. For critical multiculturalism, diverse group histories of inequity serve as a major foundation for modern claims for recognition and redeployment rights like aboriginal autonomy with liberal nation-states. Equity over equality Critical multiculturalism addresses contestations over diversity in regard to how recognition, wealth and authority are practiced and distributed among groups start to pursue egalitarianism from unequal starting points, the concept of equity as equality of outcomes is emphasized more than equity of chances. Critical multiculturalism diverts its focus away from liberalism’s personal principles of meritocracy and equal chances and in its place seeks to claim for fairness, community and equity by historically marginalized groups (Minami & Ovando, 2004, p.84). Diversity conflicts are accepted by this view as an essential section of political struggles over authority and permits democratic equalities among different group demands without trying to eliminate variations. Liberal debates regarding civil society when cultural diversity is presented by leading forces as a distraction from an important material and cultural disparities and marginalization is countered by critical multiculturalism. People identified by some diverse groups are limited in practicing their full citizenship rights when a homogeneous application of citizenship is used by a society separated hierarchically by status groups of variations but that operates within a liberal ideology of equal chances (Minami & Ovando, 2004, p.88). Critical multiculturalism hypothesizes that separated rights can be a foundation for the removal of historical inequities and unfairness to decline this second-class treatment where the legality of diverse identities become contested. A common multiculture of differences Wuthnow (2005, p.28) states that critical multiculturalism overlaps to some degree with liberal multiculturalism in that both of them envisage a unified culture through which diversity thrives. Nevertheless, it is assumed by critical multiculturalism that people are indivisible from society and can obtain freedom via the social union of a multicultural society that has a foundation on equal redistribution of privileges and rights. In addition, it is contended by this position that financial policies of conservatism lead to the exploitation of diverse minor groups for material benefit and that inadequate liberty from discrimination and presupposed equity before the law is not provided by liberalism. A society that integrates variations obtained within and between diverse cultures is envisioned by critical multiculturalism. Conservative and liberal development of identities is opposed by this orientation eventually envisaged according to a nation-state’s dominant description of an ordinary culture. It is contended by critical multiculturalism that cultural systems are an expansion of belief systems and that no one group can create an a priori allegation that one cultural orientation is supposed to dominate others (Wuthnow, 2005, p.45). International cultural hybridity is stated above neoliberal versions of internal homogeneity that reflects market fundamentalism. The objective here is to reimagine an ordinary culture where hierarchies of freedom and acknowledgment are diminished and ultimately eliminated so that many cultures can flourish together. Critical multiculturalism assumes the stand that a fair society can be achieved only if only material inequities intrinsic to capitalism are reined in or removed, not willingly via resolutions regarding private actions though using strong public rules entrusted to equalities. Critical multiculturalism is against an oligarchy of privatized free enterprise that can decide the material destiny of diverse populations, and promotes public regulation of an economy’s resources to be used in the wellbeing of all citizens in the country (Stotsky, 1999, p.89). It is assumed by this orientation this kind of actions can consequently serve the common interest for the huge majority of all individuals including ones from diverse groups who have not encountered equality in the material profits obtained in nearly all liberal democracies. Cultural people diversity assimilation There are many practices hat may fall clearly under the rubric of multiculturalism even though this concept has not enjoyed a big deal of academic consideration in Africa. To start with, there was an intensive effort to de-ethnicize population and to develop a unitary beginning of the nation in the nation-building process after independence (Vavrus, 2010, p.97). Secondly, multiculturalism is applied in dealing with minorities, particularly native minorities in Africa. Thirdly, it may be significant in the different attempts at coping with and dealing with assortment in the workplace. Lastly, multiculturalism plays an important task in education. The official oratory was bestowed to building of the nation despite the fact that ethnicity had a strong influence in Africa. These attempts have been disgraced thoroughly because of the generalized financial and political failures of the postcolonial state in Africa. The means have been opened up for a highly open declaration of ethnic variations as a foundation of financial and political declarations in the outcome of postcolonial state in Africa (Vavrus, 2010, p.133). The subject of ethnic clashes have obtained substantial research consideration from social scientists since the identified variations may form the foundation of violent, genocidal at times, clashes among people. The major section of contest is how to make the citizens of everyone under circumstances of this type of diversity and with a lot of subnational forms of belonging. This is associated directly to the need of constructing legal polities in Africa through which all individuals have a sense of involvement and national devotions do not oppose cultural pluralism. Conclusion In general multiculturalism has many reasons as to why it is a contested concept. It has many factors that contradict themselves. This is because while it is aimed at improving living standards of all people in countries where it is practiced, it has led to a sharp differentiation of the people living there. It is also encouraging inequality which it fighting. Thus, multiculturalism will remain to be a subject of debate due to its nature. Countries should use other policies and strategies to address the problem of inequality and unfairness because multiculturalism has failed to address this issue successfully and need more improvements. Bibliography Glazer, N, 1997, We are all multiculturalists now, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press. Gutmann, A, 2004, “Unity and diversity in democratic multicultural education: Creative and destructive tensions,” In J. A. Banks (Ed.), Diversity and citizenship: Global perspectives, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass. Juteau, D, 2008, “Multicultural citizenship beyond recognition,” In E. Isin (Ed.), Recasting the social in citizenship, Toronto, ON, University of Toronto Press. McLaren, P, and Farahmandpur, R, 2005, Teaching against global capitalism and the new imperialism: A critical pedagogy, Lanham, MD, Rowman & Littlefield. Minami, M, and Ovando, C, 2004, “Language issues in multicultural contexts,” In J. A. Banks & C. A. M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass. Stotsky, S, 1999, Losing our language: How multicultural classroom instruction is undermining our children’s ability to read, write, and reason, New York, Free Press. Vavrus, M, 2010, “Critical multiculturalism and higher education: Resistance and possibilities within teacher education,” In S. May & C. E. Sleeter (Eds.), Critical multiculturalism: Theory and praxis, New York, Routledge. Wuthnow, R, 2005, America and the challenge of religious diversity, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press. Read More