Does Multiculturalism work?

[madd0ct0r]

and as this tangent continues, here is quite a good article destroying their thesis: http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2000 ... print.html


I think, like most of the purported behavior genes from the noughties (the policeman gene, the gay gene, the gamblers gene) it's been scaled back (smashed back?) in it's claimed scope. Think of it as giving somebody a slighter higher chance of a certain action under identical conditions to somebody else.

And yes Straha, this can be construed as giving somebody zero power of self-determination. It's not.

Humans override biological drives all the time (waiting till you find a toilet to go for a crap for eg). Doing so is one of the base blocks of society. Just because I have a biological tendency to being a violent drunk doesn't excuse my actions, and in fact makes it morally incumbent on me to restrain myself when drunk (or better yet) refrain from drinking heavily.

This is all a bit of a tangent though, because I was never arguing that Middle Eastern men (as a whole, or as an immigrant sub-society) have a genetic tendency to rape.

EDIT: If require, could a mod merge these three posts? I'm on site at work, and so only get chunks of time between inspections.
Futhermore, multiculturalism should also cover things like Goths, mormons, pagans and other sub-cultures that have definetly not got racial baggage attached. I would prefer to avoid things like http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/engl ... 291985.stm happening again.

[Dooey Jo]

I think, like most of the purported behavior genes from the noughties (the policeman gene, the gay gene, the gamblers gene) it's been scaled back (smashed back?) in it's claimed scope. Think of it as giving somebody a slighter higher chance of a certain action under identical conditions to somebody else.

They never "were" at all, outside popular science journalism and probably in the minds of evolutionary psychologists. Can you recall any of those claims having actual, you know, genetic evidence behind them? Of course not. At best they have heritability studies, but they don't tell you about whether some arbitrarily defined trait is caused by some assumed "gene", only about to what degree variations can be attributed to heritable causes (sometimes). With the "rape gene" they didn't even have that. It was literally some guys sitting around getting the idea that "maybe rape can be an adaptive behaviour because it can lead to offspring", then concluding that since women in America are raped (with a rather atrocious understanding of what rape means, a "politically correct" "leftist" may note), their idea must be correct. That's a massive fallacy, but since it made for juicy news, the popular press reported the "finding" largely without question, because it "made sense". Score one for science journalism. Or something.

If you have a bigot arguing for primary correlation (Middle Easterner's are more convicted of rape, therefore get rid of them to save our women) you can't just ignore the statistic and call racism. You have to look at the stigmatized group in more detail, see if there are OTHER causes that stand out and then point them out to the bigot, preferably with some suggestions for solving them.

Does the problem always only lie with the stigmatized group? If a group is stigmatized, it seems likely they would be more prone to be reported for something, and also more likely to be convicted. Likewise, other groups could be under-represented. This could in turn be a causative factor, if members of the group know they will always be treated as just that, members of that group with associated statistics, rather than individuals in their own right. That means the statistic may only be as meaningful as you say it is, in which case it may turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy. Causes for pretty much anything are stupidly complicated like that, but if you point this out to a bigot you'll probably be called a leftist or something equally horrible to them. Ignoring reality. Or something.

[madd0ct0r]

"To what degree variations can be attributed to heritable causes (sometimes)" is a rather more elegant way of putting it, thankyou.

Your second point could be used to construct an argument against multiculturalism.

Unless stigmatisation and negative stereotyping can be avoided*, it would be better for sub-cultures to integrate into main-stream society.
Otherwise, their members risk being socially pressured into conforming to the negative view that society has of them.
This in turn reinforces the stereotype, increasing pressure on other members of their sub-group.

[anecdote]
(A example would be an Indian friend of mine, daughter of two doctors, whose Indian relations and friends were overwhelmingly doctors. She felt huge pressure (much of it self-imposed) to go into medicine, despite preferring journalism. Her get out clause in the end was going to Oxford University. Being an Oxford student trumped being a medical student for herself and her family )
[/anecdote]

I would counter the above argument by saying that even within main-stream society there is stigmatisation and negative stereotyping ( Lawyers are opportunistic, Builders are crude, Rich are idiots, Welfare Claimants are lazy ect ect)
Realistically speaking, I'm not sure this tendency can eliminated; it's too useful in everdyay life - see the 'Why are we so gullible' thread.
Better education and social mixing should reduce the power of the broadest and most damaging stereotypes though. Active Multiculturalism is one approach to do that, by encouraging people to learn about and be sensitive to other cultures (within my previous limits, ie basic human rights). Where you simply have two or more culture co-existing, but with minimal mixing or education you get distrust and a negative feedback loop. See Northern Ireland for one example.

[madd0ct0r]

Ghetto Edit
I am not saying you are using that point to argue against multiculturalism, but I am trying to explore the options.

[madd0ct0r]

Is it ok to keep posting in this thread?

I'm still obsessing over this a little, mostly because I'm not entirely happy my position is water-tight but I haven't found a better place to stand yet.

[Spoonist]

Is it ok to keep posting in this thread?

Some other poster posted in it 4 days ago, why would it not be OK? Did a mod PM you asking you not to? Otherwise go ahead.

[madd0ct0r]

No, it just seemed to be becoming a monologue, which are normally frowned upon.

OK. I've been considering Straha's point 3 in more detail.
Roughly paraphrased it runs as:

"One of the evils of multiculturalism is that it offers a way to understand, then judge, then 'fix' minority cultures"

with the general argument running

1)Understanding is never perfect due to the complexity of the problem and the significance of individual actions.
2) Imperfect understanding means corrective action is imperfect
3) cue the law of unintended consequences and a real risk you do more harm then good
4) Historically, the above argument has been demonstrated repeatedly. I can't actually find a counter-example.

How much of multiculturalism is 'fixing' though? how much of it is basic education so people avoid accidentally offending each other?

Depends how far your idea and definition of it runs I suppose.

On a similar theme, and attacking the problem from the other end:

What is integration? When is somebody integrated into society?

is it "The adoption of the countries main customs, language, values and culture?"
is it "A long-term commitment to a role and contribution to the larger society?"

can you do one without the other? Would one particular combination equal a model of workable multiculturalism?

[Akkleptos]

Bah!
The whole enchilada actually boils down to some fairly intuitive points....
(notice that by "intutive" I mean "historically tested to be the thing that works")...
"Human Rights"... It's no surprise that precisely the most developed nations (and/or cultures, if you wish) are the ones that first came up with the idea of Universal Human Rights. Rights that can be neither ignored, nor transferred. Rights that are inherent to the very condition of being HUMAN.

This concept can be grasped by a variety of people, from a spectra of many different populations or "cultures".
And if you do abide by it, fair enough.
If you don't, then there's something seriously wrong with your take on the world, and the way it works.

Simple and plain.

For me, that's the limit of multiculturalism (especially when taken to the extreme called "cultural relativism").

You go over somebody else's human rights, you're going to be held accountable for it.
No matter the background, the colour of your skin, your ancestor's beliefs...

You believe what you believe, okay, that's your business.
You HURT OTHERS, that's EVERYONE'S (the State's) business.

And statistics... They are neutral, when properly managed. Just numbers. If it turns out that red-headed, Harry Potter-reading librarians are mostly responsible for rapes, then it's time to take a closer look, race bias or not... Wouldn't you say?

EDIT:
Some things MUST be universal, otherwise, we all ride the merry go-round to hell, sooner or later.