[A version of this entry is published here: http://www.deccanherald.com/content/117822/measuring-up-multiculturalism-yardsticks-may.html]
“We are all multiculturalists now”, Nathan Glazer, the well-known social scientist from Harvard had called attention to the way of life in 1997 when Americans of all ages, shapes, sizes, colour, political orientation, sexual orientation, gender, race and religion of the contemporary post-civil-rights era subscribed. This society spoke the language of tolerance, and respected the mosaic in diversity. Now in 2010, in both of our capacities as active and passive observers of social reality, we have the options of weighing in declarations of multiculturalism being a workable policy or being an “utter failure” as asserted by Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany. Indeed, opinions on multiculturalism range from being the proverbial sweet carrot waved to attract and assuage immigrant settlement in a new country, to the attempt of putting a square peg on a round hole. Whether or not we are all multiculturalists, the concerned philosophy affects us all beyond having relatives living in Australia, U.S.A., Canada or Germany, in our existences of being citizens in a multi-ethnic country where ethnic diversity is not a recent consequence of immigration.
Stepping aside from debates on whether multiculturalism is an unachievable dream, an empty promise, an assimilationist garb or a cultural commitment to ethnic groups, it remains so that multiculturalism is a demographic reality. Demographic multiculturalism is and will be on the increase in the global north owing to extraordinary regionalization of population growth and global fertility, leading to an unequal and irreversible migration gradient. Based on this actuality, quite understandably, multiculturalism as an official policy promises an atmosphere to retain cultural integrity and heritage for migrating ethnic groups. However, the congruence between policy and practice does not align perfectly as evident in empirical evidences the world over, owing to willingness to accept demographic multiculturalism but dismiss right-based multiculturalism to ethnic groups. The age old debates of melting pot and assimilation, of recognizing and encouraging diversity that exists as an antithesis to integration lies at the heart of multicultural debate which surface in situations of banning the hijab in France, granting of minimalist rights to skilled workers in Singapore or even the murder of Theo Van Gogh in Amsterdam or bombings in trains and buses in London. As onlookers, populist views question the granting of equal and civil rights to new immigrant groups who fail to respect the “laws” of the new country, who do not follow the “original” cultural practices; in addition, these immigrants are found to engage in disruptive and non-integrative practices, many of which are derived from their ethnic lineage that stand in stark contrast to the “basic” culture of a country. A natural question follows: how far should one tolerate difference from other cultures that threaten to move cornerstones of preceding settlers? Moreover, how much multiculturalism is enough to maintain sustainable cohesiveness in contemporary societies? Answering these questions somewhat, a convenient and workable form of multiculturalism is entails active invocation of “tolerance”; even then, in spite of granting cultural rights to maintain one’s lineage, the multicultural festival manages to marginalize ethnic groups and turn them into exotic artefacts to be brought out and made visible when the time and demand is right.
Assimilation, rationally speaking, is offered under bated breath as the veritable survival strategy to escape being branded into specific identity markers and to blend in with the “mainstream”. This involves making simple choices in cuisine such as opting for pasta over curry, meatballs over falafel, making certain choices in dressing like leaving the turban, the hijab and salwars behind, not being overtly religious except when fashionably celebrating Christmas in the contemporary social climate and being able to pronounce in perfect accents, words such as “Wednesday” or “homogenous”. Put another way, any such showcasing that can keep people (migrants or immigrants) off from “blending” with the mainstream/dominant ethnic group is encouraged to be shed off. The tacit assumption remains that multiple cultures can exist together only when lineages intermesh, with differences having the least chance of being perceived in antagonistic terms. Homogeneity amidst heterogeneity or unity amidst diversity remains the covert agenda target of any society, multicultural or not. As they say, “when in Rome, do as the Romans do”; when in Bombay, do as you are told; when in Bangalore, be who you are but respect the locals who are tolerating you.
Worth noting is the fact that the use of tolerance as an idea points to a sense of a privileged position, a sense of superiority complex, a sense of hierarchical content, that allows others to exist, in fitting with the existing status quo. Moreover, the notion of tolerance comes hand in hand with a defined sense of boundary within which new entrants to a community or nation are accepted. As a Ph.D student staying in Canada and researching on immigrants and Canadian identity, I’ve often found that for “mainstream”/dominant Canadians (of British lineage) their sense of Canadian identity is often admittedly derived from the colonial history of ruling the world. This enables a mainstream/dominant Canadian to draw upon a common reference point and justifying the age-old sense of authority when perceiving, defining and categorizing people from different ethnic groups. The question of assimilation, tolerance and multiculturalism, thankfully or not, did not arise in case of colonizing nations when they captured different nations or when they came to settle in the lands of the aboriginals.
Logically speaking, there is a degree to which individuals could assimilate into a new culture. For example, immigrants coming from countries that are similar in linguistic, economic, political, cultural and religious aspects are found to integrate and adapt to the “host” society easier than those who are considerably different linguistically, religiously, culturally, politically and economically. An immigrant coming from England or France would assimilate, adapt and integrate better with the dominant Canadian society than those coming from China or India. Several immigrants to Canada have adapted and assimilated to an overarchical western notion of Canadian identity in terms of customs, views and perspective and have emulated western ways of socializing, dressing, speaking and the like, based on their interaction with mainstream/dominant Canadians. Simultaneously, they have also maintained another exclusive, “ethnic” life and navigating within these dual worlds complete their Canadian identity of being multicultural.
The crux of the matter remains that living with diversity does not necessarily entail a more accommodative or accepting standpoint. Whether multiculturalism remains a successful social experiment or a failure is dependent on whether we consider terms such as “tolerance”, “host society” and “original culture” acceptable and find them okay to live with or assimilate and bury them altogether in our quest for cushioned existence. As they say, there ain’t no easy way out.
No comments:
Post a Comment