Does Multiculturalism work?

[spartasman]

I've heard much in the media about multiculturalism, both negative and positive. I have a general idea of what multiculturalism is and what the goals of co-existing cultures are meant to be, but no source I have yet found has a concrete definition of what it truly is. I mean 'multiculturalism' as the process of having distinct and different cultures living in the same nation.

But that is rather secondary, what I want to understand is how a multicultural nation is supposed to be superior to a nation with a homogenous cultural identity. From what I have been able to understand, instances of multiculturalism rarely works, if ever, outside of local scenarios, with cultural identity at the national level inevitably leading to civil war/strife. Is there a study or essay on this somewhere that I could get a link to?


EDIT
TO MOD'S: Shit, meant to put this in SLAM, sorry!

[hongi]

What do you mean by 'work'? Without friction or any problems?

[spartasman]

I suppose I should have typed "function", that is what I mean; to function in that the nation isn't ridden with riots and strife and that most people in any given area function well together without tension.

[Zed]

Can you name a single state that has a homogenous cultural identity, reckoning with the differences of culture between different regions (e.g. North and South), the differences of culture between various classes (e.g. blue-collar and white-collar), the differences in culture between political entities (e.g. state-level and federal-level or House and Senate), etc?

[mr friendly guy]

Find me as many nations as you can, without ethnic minorities? No luck there. Ok, now find me as many nations where the ethnic minority culture is suppressed for whatever reason, and then look at how well are they integrated with the majority. I can think of Turkey off the top of my head, with regards to the Kurds.

Now lets do the opposite. Find me as many nations as you can where the ethnic minority culture is NOT suppressed, its either ignored or encouraged / promoted, and see how well they integrate. That's not to say they don't learn the majority language or adopt some of their customs, but the government doesn't force them to give up their culture.

Now compare the number of nations. You should have the answer to your question.

To go deeper, you can define multiculturalism as either i) the state that there are many cultures within a nation / region or ii) the policy that seeks to deal with i), with the view of integrating them into society while preserving aspects of their culture if those people should choose to keep it.

Now there are some aspects of culture which just don't mix. Lets use an obvious one. Lets say the Aztecs are resurrected and they want to continue their culture of human sacrifice. That is incompatible with modern society, and if they want to migrate to some other country, that aspect of culture will have to be not practicised in that country. However if they want to speak their own language as well as the lingua fraca, who cares? If they want to dress differently, who cares? I mean we had a reserve juror dressed up in a Star Trek uniform during Bill Clinton's trial, so its not big deal.

I believe if you adopt the above policy, retaining culture which doesn't threaten social cohesion, and asking them to adopt the majority cultural practices which promote it, eg speak the lingua fraca you should have a basis for policy which works.

[Simon_Jester]

But that is rather secondary, what I want to understand is how a multicultural nation is supposed to be superior to a nation with a homogenous cultural identity. From what I have been able to understand, instances of multiculturalism rarely works, if ever, outside of local scenarios, with cultural identity at the national level inevitably leading to civil war/strife. Is there a study or essay on this somewhere that I could get a link to?

Civil war is far more likely to break out when a different-culture minority feels oppressed than when they do not feel oppressed. Attempting to forcibly overwrite minority cultures with the Designated Majority Culture causes all kinds of problems: see the boarding schools forced on native Americans, or the Stolen Generations in Australia, for reference.

Given that minority cultures inevitably exist, because of class or regional divisions if not ethnic divisions, tolerating those cultures produces better outcomes than trying to suppress them by force.

[spartasman]

Find me as many nations as you can, without ethnic minorities? No luck there. Ok, now find me as many nations where the ethnic minority culture is suppressed for whatever reason, and then look at how well are they integrated with the majority. I can think of Turkey off the top of my head, with regards to the Kurds.

Now lets do the opposite. Find me as many nations as you can where the ethnic minority culture is NOT suppressed, its either ignored or encouraged / promoted, and see how well they integrate. That's not to say they don't learn the majority language or adopt some of their customs, but the government doesn't force them to give up their culture.

Now compare the number of nations. You should have the answer to your question.

To go deeper, you can define multiculturalism as either i) the state that there are many cultures within a nation / region or ii) the policy that seeks to deal with i), with the view of integrating them into society while preserving aspects of their culture if those people should choose to keep it.

Now there are some aspects of culture which just don't mix. Lets use an obvious one. Lets say the Aztecs are resurrected and they want to continue their culture of human sacrifice. That is incompatible with modern society, and if they want to migrate to some other country, that aspect of culture will have to be not practicised in that country. However if they want to speak their own language as well as the lingua fraca, who cares? If they want to dress differently, who cares? I mean we had a reserve juror dressed up in a Star Trek uniform during Bill Clinton's trial, so its not big deal.

I believe if you adopt the above policy, retaining culture which doesn't threaten social cohesion, and asking them to adopt the majority cultural practices which promote it, eg speak the lingua fraca you should have a basis for policy which works.

That seems to be less 'multiculturalism' as I understand it and more the standard of integration practices for modern countries. Perhaps it is simply that my understanding of what multiculturalism is is misinformed, but what I understand of it is that multiple cultures should be made to co-exist distinctly in a single country.

To address the other concern, regional differences in culture are generaly negligible as long as the major ideals and practices are uniform or easily recognized on the whole. I suppose that the same can be used when comparing different cultures with general similarities. But when you have two cultures with completely different values, co-existence is usually impossible, as you demonstrated. Still, perhaps I am too attached to the idea of the Nation-State, but it would seem to me that nations with general cultural hegemony (I.E - the U.S befoe the 1970's) have more social stability compared to nations with several cultures battling for dominance (I.E - Former Yugoslavia, the UK, ect.).

Now don't get me wrong, I am not saying that every nation should strive towards complete cultural hegemony, but it seems to be detrimental to any nation when more than one culture is battling for dominance within it.

[Phantasee]

As a citizen of a multicultural country, I have to laugh at your idea that multicultural countries are unstable. Canada has been doing pretty well for the last few decades.

[Todeswind]

By even raising the question of if multiculturalism can function it seems as though you've already made the assumption that multiculturalism will invariably lead to strife. Simply by virtue of having a multitude of opinions and varying cultural histories you are destined to have at least some unrest over time. Once you have some system in place by which stratification of society into "us" and "them" groups exists there are going to be moments of unrest, but it seems that unless you are suggesting the total homogenization of the entire world into a single unified culture (which in itself seems destined to a more Orwellian struggle) or you are suggesting totally cutting a nation off from outside cultural influences (which worked in neither pre perry Japan or in modern North Korea because it leads to stagnation) it's sort of a useless argument.

Pluralistic societies tend to have more tension between racial groups than non-pluralistic ones. They also tend to be substantially more successful nations as they are, by and large, more open to new ideas and systems.

[ray245]

By even raising the question of if multiculturalism can function it seems as though you've already made the assumption that multiculturalism will invariably lead to strife. Simply by virtue of having a multitude of opinions and varying cultural histories you are destined to have at least some unrest over time. Once you have some system in place by which stratification of society into "us" and "them" groups exists there are going to be moments of unrest, but it seems that unless you are suggesting the total homogenization of the entire world into a single unified culture (which in itself seems destined to a more Orwellian struggle) or you are suggesting totally cutting a nation off from outside cultural influences (which worked in neither pre perry Japan or in modern North Korea because it leads to stagnation) it's sort of a useless argument.

Pluralistic societies tend to have more tension between racial groups than non-pluralistic ones. They also tend to be substantially more successful nations as they are, by and large, more open to new ideas and systems.

But isn't Japan still a pretty monoculture nation today, in comparison to the Western states? The same can be said about China, as the Han Ethnic group are essentially the only ethnic group in large parts of China.

[Todeswind]

It's about the most blatantly Americanized country on the planet. It's certainly ethnocentric in the sense that most people don't have a clue that the Korean foods or the American brands they frequent are American or Japanese but the same could be said about a lot of the more ubiquitous western brand names.

Sure, the vast majority of the country only speaks japanese and a bit of broken English and they hardly try to be pluralistic but their rampant consumerism leads to greater foreign influence in spite of themselves.

It helps that in Japan the sheer expense of living guarantees that most people emigrating to the country are intellectuals who know in advance to simply go with the flow.

[Skgoa]

I think a big part of the problem is the definition of multiculturealism he uses. I.e. strongly seperated cultures that fight for dominance. Why not define it as "everyone can live the way they want as long as we respect each other's rights to do this, too"?
In every insance of strife it has IMHO been the case that this basic principle had been broken. Furthermore, most of the time its seems to be the members of the "dominant" culture who start the problem out of fear, i.e. the american fears about muslims takng over and imposing sharia law.
But this tendency can also be seen regading new developements within cultures themselves. It boils down to conservative assholes being afraid of no longer being in the "in group".

[Todeswind]

The Han Ethnic group are essentially the only ethnic group in large parts of China.

Yeah, considering that there are a number of ethic sub groups within the Han that is hardly a valid argument. Its like saying that Europe or America is mostly made up of caucasians.

[hongi]

I suppose I should have typed "function", that is what I mean; to function in that the nation isn't ridden with riots and strife and that most people in any given area function well together without tension.

If by function you mean that there isn't any cultural tension, then no, multiculturalism doesn't work. But I'd rather have cultural tension than a policy of monoculturalism.

The fact of the matter is that in large parts of the world, most countries are already functionally multicultural. Once you start trying to enforce monoculturalism in the US, things turn out bad. Voluntary monoculturalism doesn't work so well either, since there will inevitably be people who stick to their culture, and you've got multiculturalism again in all but name. Unless you restrict immigration, like what we did with the White Australia Policy. But immigration has benefits that outweigh the risks of social instability.

For countries that are largely monocultural like Japan, they'll be forced to come to terms with it sooner or later.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

The Han Ethnic group are essentially the only ethnic group in large parts of China.

Yeah, considering that there are a number of ethic sub groups within the Han that is hardly a valid argument. Its like saying that Europe or America is mostly made up of caucasians.

There has been a general policy trend in China to suppress dialects etc. and force everyone to speak only mandarin. That is of course meeting resistance, but it has been the trend.

[Dooey Jo]

To address the other concern, regional differences in culture are generaly negligible as long as the major ideals and practices are uniform or easily recognized on the whole. I suppose that the same can be used when comparing different cultures with general similarities. But when you have two cultures with completely different values, co-existence is usually impossible, as you demonstrated. Still, perhaps I am too attached to the idea of the Nation-State, but it would seem to me that nations with general cultural hegemony (I.E - the U.S befoe the 1970's) have more social stability compared to nations with several cultures battling for dominance (I.E - Former Yugoslavia, the UK, ect.).

What cultures do you think are battling for dominance in the UK?

[Simon_Jester]

But isn't Japan still a pretty monoculture nation today, in comparison to the Western states? The same can be said about China, as the Han Ethnic group are essentially the only ethnic group in large parts of China.

On the other hand, it's hard to point to Japan as an example of a nation that's benefited from stability due to having a monoculture.

You can make a good case that traditional Japanese culture contributed to their disastrous decision to take on the world in World War Two (because of the way it played into the hands of suicidally overconfident militarists). And that it's contributing to their impending social and demographic problems (the behavior of Japanese men towards Japanese women, for instance; that's only now changing thirty to forty years behind the rise of gender equality in the West).

They might have honestly been better off if they were more willing to allow outside forces to affect their cultural mores. After all, the other side of the monoculture coin is that anything bad about your culture, any predisposition towards dogmatism or waste, will get exaggerated.

I think a big part of the problem is the definition of multiculturealism he uses. I.e. strongly seperated cultures that fight for dominance. Why not define it as "everyone can live the way they want as long as we respect each other's rights to do this, too"?

Heh. Yes.

This is a key point. Societies that identify themselves as multiculturalist are usually the ones smart enough not to reduce everything to a battle for dominance between the Butter Side Up and Butter Side Down subcultures. It's stupid to let that happen, and it never ends well.

So I'd be interested to hear why spartasman thinks this is the touchstone of "multiculturalism," when in practice it's more commonly associated with the nightmare you get when there are three different groups in the country who all think their culture should be the monoculture that runs the place.


In every insance of strife it has IMHO been the case that this basic principle had been broken. Furthermore, most of the time its seems to be the members of the "dominant" culture who start the problem out of fear, i.e. the american fears about muslims takng over and imposing sharia law.
But this tendency can also be seen regading new developements within cultures themselves. It boils down to conservative assholes being afraid of no longer being in the "in group".[/quote]

[cosmicalstorm]

The problem with multiculture here in Sweden is that the politicians and the intellectuals who "sold" it to the population made it sound like the most wonderful thing that could possibly happen. And anyone who had (or have) even the slightest criticism or skepticism in regards to it are routinely ignored, compared to nazis or shouted down in the public debate. (Though Internet has changed this)
Any change to society this big (i.e influx of tens of thousands of people/year to a country of nine million, from third world countries who lack education and work experience and have different views on womens rights, religion etc) is obviously going to bring about trouble as well.

[ray245]

Yeah, considering that there are a number of ethic sub groups within the Han that is hardly a valid argument. Its like saying that Europe or America is mostly made up of caucasians.

But the differences within the Han ethnic group isn't as big as the differences between the various European ethnic group. The Han ethnic group has shared centuries of unified political and social history as compared to Europeans.

There has been a general policy trend in China to suppress dialects etc. and force everyone to speak only mandarin. That is of course meeting resistance, but it has been the trend.

Yeah, but places like Guangdong and Shanghai manage to resist the dominance of Mandarin pretty well.

Any change to society this big (i.e influx of tens of thousands of people/year to a country of nine million, from third world countries who lack education and work experience and have different views on womens rights, religion etc) is obviously going to bring about trouble as well.

On the other hand, we have various East Asian nations being very willingly to accept westerners into their societies. I can't remember any major cases of conflict between migrants from Western nations and local East Asian communities.

[hongi]

On the other hand, we have various East Asian nations being very willingly to accept westerners into their societies. I can't remember any major cases of conflict between migrants from Western nations and local East Asian communities.

That's not a big achievement. Call me when East Asian nations stop being racist against black people.

[ray245]

On the other hand, we have various East Asian nations being very willingly to accept westerners into their societies. I can't remember any major cases of conflict between migrants from Western nations and local East Asian communities.

That's not a big achievement. Call me when East Asian nations stop being racist against black people.

Not saying it is an achievement.

I'm just saying that such thing are reversed in East Asia, where a white man or woman don't really need to worry about discrimination towards them. Simply being identified as a person coming from a rather successful "ethnic group" usually result in less discrimination than a person from an ethnic group that is viewed as unsuccessful and poor. Probably the same reason why East Asians usually face less discrimination in Western nations as compared to people from other regions.

[Dooey Jo]

The problem with multiculture here in Sweden is that the politicians and the intellectuals who "sold" it to the population made it sound like the most wonderful thing that could possibly happen. And anyone who had (or have) even the slightest criticism or skepticism in regards to it are routinely ignored, compared to nazis or shouted down in the public debate.

None of this is true, really. There has been ample debate about the issues. That no cared what the extreme right thought doesn't mean the debate didn't exist, though I note that's the narrative they want to construct: "Dey are trying to hide teh TROOOTH!" It's a myth, like the myth perpetuated by the same crowd that people who fly the Swedish flag are supposedly called racists on a regular basis.

(Though Internet has changed this)

No, but it has become a place where idiots can discover other idiots that share their opinions, giving them an undeserved sense of confidence in their idiocy. The above bullshit, about a big medial and political conspiracy to hide the truth about immigration, spreads on the internet for the same reasons that all the 9/11 bullshit does.

[mr friendly guy]

That seems to be less 'multiculturalism' as I understand it and more the standard of integration practices for modern countries. Perhaps it is simply that my understanding of what multiculturalism is is misinformed, but what I understand of it is that multiple cultures should be made to co-exist distinctly in a single country.

I have a feeling the word multiculturalism has different meanings from different people and hence it can be used as a buzz word for politically correctness gone wrong. However... from my observation those anti multiculturalism side usually go as far as being racist and bitching about <insert ethnic group here> speaking their language, while I don't remember anyone on the pro multiculturalism side saying that ethnic minorities should not have to follow our laws ( a common complaint by the anti multiculturalism side).

To address the other concern, regional differences in culture are generaly negligible as long as the major ideals and practices are uniform or easily recognized on the whole. I suppose that the same can be used when comparing different cultures with general similarities. But when you have two cultures with completely different values, co-existence is usually impossible, as you demonstrated.

I have certainly used a very extreme example, ie resurrected Aztecs with human sacrifice, however I am interested in what you consider negligible differences. Language? Religious beliefs? Views on gender equality?

Still, perhaps I am too attached to the idea of the Nation-State, but it would seem to me that nations with general cultural hegemony (I.E - the U.S befoe the 1970's) have more social stability compared to nations with several cultures battling for dominance (I.E - Former Yugoslavia, the UK, ect.).

I am afraid you might have to give me a marker for social instability. I mean how many "battles" or protests before you consider a country not stable.

Now don't get me wrong, I am not saying that every nation should strive towards complete cultural hegemony, but it seems to be detrimental to any nation when more than one culture is battling for dominance within it.

If you define a multicultural situation where they are battling then of course its unstable and detrimental. However if I have a situation where they get on reasonably well, then I can say it works. The minority culture brings some of their aspect and their skills (eg skilled migrants), and the majority "hybrid" culture becomes richer for it. For example in the 1950s Australia would have limited experience with Italian / Greek cuisine before those ethnic groups emigrated. Also add Asian and Middle Eastern cuisine to the list. Now look at the eateries available to us.

You should also ask yourself WHY these cultures are battling for dominance? Is an integral part of different cultures, or other factors. Look deeper and I bet you most of the time its not the former reason.

But isn't Japan still a pretty monoculture nation today, in comparison to the Western states? The same can be said about China, as the Han Ethnic group are essentially the only ethnic group in large parts of China.

Hang on a minute. Are you saying that is a nation's ethnic minorities don't make up a certain percentage of the population, that country isn't multicutura? Because frankly some of those ethnic minorities outnumber some countries in their own right, and I am not talking about small countries like the Vatican. Add the top two ethnic minorities and they outnumber my country. Some of them outnumber small European countries (by population) like Sweden, or small Asian countries (by population) like Mongolia.

[SCRawl]

Moved.

[cosmicalstorm]

The problem with multiculture here in Sweden is that the politicians and the intellectuals who "sold" it to the population made it sound like the most wonderful thing that could possibly happen. And anyone who had (or have) even the slightest criticism or skepticism in regards to it are routinely ignored, compared to nazis or shouted down in the public debate.

None of this is true, really. There has been ample debate about the issues. That no cared what the extreme right thought doesn't mean the debate didn't exist, though I note that's the narrative they want to construct: "Dey are trying to hide teh TROOOTH!" It's a myth, like the myth perpetuated by the same crowd that people who fly the Swedish flag are supposedly called racists on a regular basis.

(Though Internet has changed this)

No, but it has become a place where idiots can discover other idiots that share their opinions, giving them an undeserved sense of confidence in their idiocy. The above bullshit, about a big medial and political conspiracy to hide the truth about immigration, spreads on the internet for the same reasons that all the 9/11 bullshit does.

I don't think it's a problem that defines our society but I'm still of the opinion that there exists a mentality among many journalists, politicians and so on here in Sweden which basically boils down to: Immigration can only have positive side-effects. If anything negative happens it should be explained using their class, their gender, the architecture of their suburb, discrimination coming from Swedish people and so on.

Take the Oslo rape investigation from last year, almost every single case of rape where a woman was literally assaulted and forced to have sex that went to court was committed by a person born in the middle east or in Africa, and Norwegian police is not exactly known for being Gestapo which rounds up immigrants at a whim.
Take the fact that ambulances routinely have to wait for armed police-officers to escort them in many parts of Swedens larger towns.
Why do some people campaign for issues like "no human is illegal"? (i.e turn over responsibility for the immigration-politics to the human smugglers)

I just cant believe that all the trouble and insanity I've seen in relationship to Swedish immigration should be caused by my own far right delusions. And I can't agree that everything said on the internet on the subject can be compared to "9/11 bullshit" (though a lot of it can).