Multiculturalism as a Dangerous Ideology that Threatens Social Cohesion - Essay Example

MULTICULTURALISM IS A DANGEROUS IDEOLOGY THAT THREATENS SOCIAL COHESION’ Name: Course Professor’s name University name City, State Multiculturalism is a hugely debated concept within the Western political and academic discourse. For instance in the British political sphere, multiculturalism is largely seen as a failed project that promotes inter- group segregation, academic discussion have concentrated in studying multiculturalism as a system of lay knowledge and a daily practice. In its basic form, multiculturalism can be interpreted as form of demographic condition, which results from an increased human inter- cultural contact and mobility. While majority of the scholars, believe that the rapid intensification of such intercultural exchange, mobility and super diversity is due to globalization. The notion that multiculturalism challenges social cohesion and local values has powered the political mileage of some right wing parties in certain Western European countries. (Bloemraad, 2011) asserts that lthough concerns regarding multiculturalism have been part of the greater political mainstream, German Chancellor Angela Markel, announced that the entire multicultural approach has utterly failed in the German society. Similar pronouncements were done by the French president and the United Kingdo)m Prime minister. Irrefutably, multiculturalism is not just a demographic issue, like the manner in which cultural diversity is mounted and addressed within the political platform, it has possess the intergroup interactions and the very existence of the political participation in contemporary democracies. (Barry, 2002) argues that cumulating diversity within the national societies and requirement to accommodate diverse sets of requirements by a number of cultural groups specifically, the question of cultural differences should be constrained to the private sphere and if this should be publicly and possess a place in the political life. Globalization is inevitable; the world is becoming more interconnected than never. No doubt, the pace for change will be interacted will be accelerated as social and economic networks become more interconnected and interdependent. However change will not be easy due to conflicts and tensions arising from the differences emanating from cultures, religions, social status and other global factors. The key issue is to foster a way in which travel and transition, smooth as well as permitting different populations to learn on how to live with each other in a harmonious manner. In the Eastern Europe, politicians have always stated that diversity undermines social cohesion. Even in the most advanced multicultural states for instance Canada, opponents, often say that multicultural policy degenerates to ghettoization, however what misses in this discussion is the term strong civil society. Canada is a unique country that has adopted the state initiated concept of multiculturalism, however it’s been argued that certain behavioral assumptions that are inherent in this state sponsored policy need to be ironed out. (Barry, 2002), believes that the central theory concerning the dynamics of inter-ethnic relations underlies the philosophy of multicultural policy and multiculturalism. Supporters of multiculturalism consider that one’s an individual maintain strong connection with their ethnic communities, there are positive effects for the psychological and social well-being in addition to their attachment to broader society. Thus diversity is considered to possess appositive influence on social cohesion. However (Bloemraad, 2006) denotes that for policy makers to design effective multicultural policy, it is crucial to understand whether the fundamental theoretical assumptions are reflected within the society in Canada. Multiculturalism has over the years taken diverse modes, starting with the early defensive mode. In this form of multiculturalism, the key focus was aimed protecting the communities from discrimination and racism. This was achieved through positive action programs geared at offering those communities with aspect of equal opportunities. Therefore multiculturalism has been ideally related to race. The context of multiculturalism in the 1950 to 60s made this almost impossible and the myriad of measures introduced in the early form of multiculturalism was almost entirely linked to the notion of racial discrimination. For instance, in United Kingdom, the concept of multiculturalism was set via a series of legislations called “race relations” acts. Social capital in the midst of multiculturalism is all about relationships build in trust. It means that provided that people are connected to one another within the close knit relationships, trust between people will always grow more. The consequences of diversity on the individuals’ identity is predominantly profound, with persons in most cases being able to distinguish between faith heritage and national identity to form a new hybrid individuality. The whole intent of multiculturalism is to produce a new hyphenation of faith nationality and ethnicity, the consequence of a population from diverse identity groups sharing identical societal identity thus leading to a multiracial groups. This is however partly for practical reasons, as the boundaries of the mixed group are just blurred and as such cover majority of different combinations of nationality and faith. This sometimes creates an overtone of racial purity, through which certain “superior races”, religious or ethnic are recognized to represent the interests of a particular constituency. In such levels of multiculturalism, wider and more dynamic patterns of identity, more ambivalent activities especially from the government and civil societies are necessary. In this intervention, the two bodies are likely to institute measures aimed at reinforcing the view of the national identity through the teaching of the national history as well as encouraging national identity and citizenship. On the other hand, this is likely to occur in the back drop of attempts of maintaining the homogeneity. As noted earlier, due to globalization, societies are embracing more multiculturalism thus becoming diverse- this is in the wake of the concerned states attempting to resist migration through the creation of hurdles for potential migrants thereby safeguarding the integrity of their borders. In this efforts the political leaders hope that they will not only control the adjacent borders, against the back drop of globalization, but also maintain significant influence over the lives of the citizens. Majority of host population object to the rising numbers as a result of migration. In most countries, the extreme right parties, which have gained huge support across majority of European nations, go to the point of demanding the repatriation of the migrants; this includes the subsequent generations. The ongoing debate over multiculturalism and diversity has “failed”. Although globalization has introduced a wide range of benefits through the opening up of social, commercial and cultural opportunities on a wider scale and this is bound to grow continuously. However, it has introduced an eon of super diversity through which people from diverse background have become dynamic and more developed. Multiculturalism as is mostly understood is very different from its initial form. While is it conspicuous that majority of people are now exposed to multiplicity in all aspects of their lives- either through their workplace, schools or media there appears to be diversity paradox. As societies become more diverse, more and more people are being subjected to diversity and have become accustomed to it. In the contrast to this policy, it has been established that the common identity is viewed as challenging. For instance in UK, there has been an emphasis of common values for citizenship, for instance the suggestion that English to be pervasive and thus demanded as an essential condition of a shared society. This was consequently seen as a threat to the identity of the minority community. In reality, the minorities, the critics believe are not well prepared to willing to trade their well understood identity for an unclear concept of citizenship within an ever rising secular identity. The agenda in this case is to build common stable communities, identity, norms and diverse groups with the view of adapting into the British organizations, institutions and processes. Some academicians have indicated that the demographic tendency as a result of multiculturalism is not towards segregation however greater diversity and where the issue is left alone, the natural processes of integration is likely to take its course and the intervention is not required. It is suggested that there is reduced spatial segregation ion faith and race lines, as multiculturalism tends to take Centre stage (Joppke, 2010). Majority of multiculturalism has been founded in the physical and special separation of identifiable communities with less attempts to classify this in a number of layered terms, for instance in respect of belief, education, lifestyle and social structure. Academic reviews of the notion have been majorly confined to the investigation of the demographic trends and the physical separation of diverse communities with concepts of social and cultural norms (Koopmans, 2010). (Ceobanu, 2010) believes that, the discussion of multiculturalism often fails to reflect the realities of societal and economic scenario. Multiculturalism as applied in minorities, in particular is often restricted in this regard and must recognize that the areas are the most heavily affected by poverty. This means that the discussion of segregation often does not reflect the economic realities. Due to multiculturalism as applied to minorities, and based on the where people live; in most cases does not provide the nature and extent of segregation. There are some evidence which show that even where opportunities, as a result of multiculturalism are available, social and interaction networks are less diverse as the society in which they migrate to and that the culture of sticking to ones own culture prevails over what is offered by the employment, education or neighborhood. Although in most cases social mobility is limited, more and more people are working and getting education in diverse rare away from their places of residence and thus having a wider association with people from diverse backgrounds. People have mentioned about individualism and fragmentation. Although people have become married to innovative forms of individualism. Such understanding of the multicultural injustice has far reaching implications or political participation (Kymlicka, 1995). Although the philosophical and normative conceptualizations of multiculturalism has an important price of policy making. This defines the efforts of translating of local, educational and national policies concerning the cultural diversity into more positive intergroup interactions, more effective if rooted into systems of people in their day to day life understand multiculturalism and how they see the successes and failures. In conclusions, while the multiculturalism concepts assist in developing the frameworks for optimal participation in the cultural diverse population, there notions are ideal: in that they target to develop frameworks on how things “should be” and thereby overlooking the tensions, dynamics and meanings relating to multiculturalism as it is indeed lived. It is therefore imperative to create in-depth understanding of the manner in which multiculturalism is carried out in practice so as to advance the necessary policies that are grounded in the actual experiences of the population. Conclusion The notion that multiculturalism challenges social cohesion and local values has powered the political mileage of some right wing parties in certain Western European countries. Although concerns regarding multiculturalism have been part of the greater political mainstream, German Chancellor Angela Markel, announced that the entire multicultural approach has utterly failed in the German society. The same pronouncements were done by the French president and the United Kingdom Prime minister. The theory advanced by multiculturalists suggest that by accommodating and recognizing minority culture, community members are feeling attached to the engagement of the larger polity. Multiculturalism critics reply that increased emphasis on diversity exaggerates differences, thereby undermining socially cohesive collective identity, and thus hinders common political, economic and social benefits. References Barry, B., 2002. Culture and Equality: An Egalitarian Critique of Multiculturalism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bloemraad, I., 2006. Becoming a Citizen: Incorporating Immigrants and Refugees in the United States and Canada. Berkeley: University of California Press. Bloemraad, I. 2011. “We the People” in an Age of Migration: Multiculturalism and Immigrants’ Political Integration in Comparative Perspective. In Citizenship, Borders and Human Needs, ed. Rogers Smith. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Ceobanu, Alin M. and Xavier Escandell. 2010. Comparative Analyses of Public Attitudes Toward Immigrants and Immigration Using Multinational Survey Data: A Review of Theories and Research. Annual Review of Sociology 36: 309-328. Joppke, C. 2004. The Retreat of Multiculturalism in the Liberal State: Theory and Policy. British Journal of Sociology 55(2): 237-257. Kesler, C., & Bloemraad, I. 2010. Does Immigration Erode Social Capital? The Conditional Ef1fects of Immigration-Generated Diversity on Trust, Membership, and Participation across 19 Countries, 1981-2000.Canadian Journal of Political Science 43(2): 319-347. Koopmans, R. 2010. Trade-Offs between Equality and Difference: Immigrant Integration, Multiculturalism and the Welfare State in Cross-National Perspective. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 36(1): 1-26. Koopmans, R., Statham, P., Giugni, M., & Passy, F. 2005. Contested Citizenship: Immigration and Cultural Diversity in Europe. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Kymlicka, W. 1995. Multicultural Citizenship. New York: Oxford University Press. Miller, D. 1995. On Nationality. New York: Oxford University Press. Read More