Multiculturalism is the way to go?

Great Debates
1

I am curious about this one and sometimes a bit passionate.

Easy question, when reading newspapers and also forums and following the media.
It makes it feel like this is a settled question. there is only one answer. Multicultutarism is the direction. The more diveristy the better. Maybe not always this explicit but there is an undertone that this is Right.

Being of the sceptical breed myself I sometime find myself questioning this “basic fact” (to the dismay of many of my close friends).

I am basing these assertions from endless magazines, newspapers, etc. They all have this worldview as a kind of dogma (in my opinion). Of course everybody likes everyone to like eachother and noone likes to see another fellow being treated badly. GIVEN. Everyone should be treated alike, that I think most people would agree on.

Heres my question: Multicuturalism, why is this something to thrive for? is there an in-built good into this? Does it enhance society?

Of course nations should help refugess/war prisoners alike out. NOT the question. BUT question being, in many media multiculturalism is something to thrive for something positive. I am looking for cite for this and also examples were this hasnt come with a wave of violence before “homeostasis” settles in.

Reading most papers today this seem to be a non issue, Im not convinced this is the case in reality.

Opinioins and facts are most welcome!

2

not sure if it enhances society, but it makes eating out a whole lot more interesting.

3

Well, as with most things, there is a balance, which I think the current love of multi-culti ignroes. But there are some larger issues. America was never a monocultural society, but it was somewhat more unified than it is now. And it has beenmuch more divided (Civil War, cough). This has serious impacts on social stability, which is also a Very Good Thing ™.

Today, multiculturalism is being set in opposition to the Melting Pot ideal, and is bound up with Identity Politics, a concept I absolutely have no truck with. This is aproblem, because while America was always diverse, the concept was that many peoples would become one (whether they likied it or not); And to a great degree this still is working, despite the multi-culti .

There is another, subtler problem with it. It paradoxically reduces real diversity. Sure, you may have ten thousand different places - but if the people aren’t allowed to choose or change (and it must always be done by force in some form), the cultures will stagnate and die.

Now, all that being said, I understand the desire. For a lot of people, the idea of the world becoming more alike also makes it less interesting. In the 20th century, we saw most nations picking up similar styles of buildings, city layouts, and clothing. Americans watch Japanese anime, British watch American tv, and Japanese kids go wild over Harry Potter. But that’s what people are like, and there’s probably no changing it. Diversity has no value of its own sake.

4

Secular western humanism is the way to go, based on what I value. Beyond that, yeah multiculturalism is good.
Does multiculturalism enhance society? I have read that companies with more women in senior positions do better financially.

http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/career/?p=1004

Wealthy, white, christian heterosexual males who are 6’ tall or taller don’t always have the best ideas. However, they tend to make up a very large % of the people who end up making major decisions in how our society is run.

As an example, 30% of Fortune 500 CEOs are 6’2" or taller, despite only 3.9% of males being that tall.

There are tons of other factors too. Past criminal records, odd behavior, etc. can basically destroy a person’s social and career prospects, even though they may have some great ideas.

But suffice it to say, about 1% of the population (well connected, financially secure white males who are tall, heterosexual, etc) tend to be dramatically overrepresented in how our society is run, which is a problem because other people have good ideas too. In that regards, multiculturalism is a good thing. Obama would be a shoe shine boy 60 years ago, now he is president.

The 5’3" hindu woman who is morbidly obese might have amazing ideas to share. But you never know.

But is inviting religious extremists who oppose women’s and children’s rights, or inviting in people who oppose liberal democracy a good idea? No. There are certain tenets of secular humanism that should always be followed.
In the book ‘whose your city’ Richard Florida talks about how certain cities are magnets for people who have live and let live attitudes, and are more tolerant to diversity (NYC, SF, etc). As a result people from diverse backgrounds move there and end up setting up entrepreneurial companies that do well because such a wide range of talent and personality is allowed to grow and feel welcome.

So multiculturalism is good in the sense that various personalities are free to live and let live, and develop their own talent pool. But there should be a list of ground rules everyone follows based on secular humanism (which by sheer coincidence is the philosophy I believe in).

5

It assumes different is inherently better. Bahh.

Minority groups always love to tout how they are just like everyone else.

Yet, when the multicultural horn toots, now all of a sudden they are different and different is better.

Well, which one is it?

And if you ARE different, there are situations where your differentness is NOT going to be an advantage.

6

A lot of good points, maybe with some tunnel vision of an American though. Nothing wrong with that though. You are however representing probably the most diverse and also most violent country in the western world (cite???). However maybe not the most confortable example. US is a lovely country but also a country with a lot of problem when it comes to violent crime. Again it would be easy to make an anecdotal argument on US where the melting pot is put to test. Compare it to other western states, with much less violent crimes. I wouldnt do that of course because there are so many varibles. I would not however use USA as some kind of successful experience.

That would be desperate and also misleading

7

So you would, but you don’t, because you could but you won’t.

Wuss.

8

No. Countries that have significant cultural and ethnic differences have more strife. People are stupid and get along less with people who they view as different. Societies that are comparable in other ways except one is culturally and ethnically homogenous have less crime than their peers. “There’s strength in diversity” is dogmatic bullshit - where is this strength supposed to come from? Oh, you have slightly different holidays than us? Wow, I sure feel like our society is stronger now!

Which isn’t to say that anything should be done to enforce cultural homogeniety. Whatever solution you’ve come up with is probably more evil than the cost of living in a multicultural society. But you shouldn’t enforce forced multicuturalism either as if it were inherently advantageous.

But the whole “there’s strength in diversity!” bullshit is just annoying.

9

[quote=“scamartistry, post:6, topic:546983”]

A lot of good points, maybe with some tunnel vision of an Americans situation though.

Nothing wrong with that You are however representing probably the most diverse and also the most violent country in the western world (cite???).

It might not be the most confortable example. US is a lovely country but also a country with a lot of problem when it comes to violent crime. Again it would be easy to make an anecdotal argument on US where the melting pot is put to test.
Maybe other countries have more crimes than any place in the US. Not really interesting. The interesting bit would be were the self proclaimed melting pot gave rise to harmony within the city. My bet would be the compete opposite, the more cultures/ethnicities the more problem. But, Hey, thats not the way it Should be, You are right , thats just the way i feel.

And believe me I could be wrong

10

… Around here, usually people provide cites for their own arguments, not demand other people cite for them. And if I am focused on America, it’s because I am American and have little direct experience of multiculti outside the United States. I could tell you a tale or two about Germany, but that’s a story for another day.

OP or not… this is an utterly irrelevant topic, or only tenuously relevant.

11

Not just on the national level; even more diverse communities have lower levels of social cohesion, controlling for income. (I have a feeling that a lot of this is due to cultural differences, with self-preference accounting for another chunk.)

I agree that cultural uniformity shouldn’t be imposed, but we shouldn’t prop up multiculturalism either, which is closer to what’s happening in real life. Let different communities experiment with different levels of cultural diversity, and see which ones end up outcompeting others.

12

What is the definition of multi-culturalism? If we’re going to debate the goodness or badness of a thing, we should define what that thing is.

13

I agree with most of what you’ve said, but do you think that for a people to selectively decide whom they allow to immigrate into their country is more evil than the cost of living in a multicultural society? Because I don’t think it’s evil at all.

14

Creativity is often birthed by chunks of different ways of thinking bumping up against each other, exchanging small parts of their bits and gestating new concepts that go in unpredictable directions.

From The Great Ideas of Thought of the world, to new music, to new food, to new art - the hodgepodge stew of cultures influencing each other has often been a key factor. OTOH, homogenous insularity often results in the stagnation of creative thought.
And let’s test out that thesis that multiculturalism tracks with violent crime. Murders per capita in different countries. Columbia #1. Not particularly multicultural. Yes there are different regional groups but they mostly each stay separated by geography. South Africa #2. Is most of the violence there based on cultural diversity or within ethnic groups? Jamaica, Venezuela, Russia … also not exactly the leading edges of diversity. United States pretty middle of the pack and most of the murders are within same cultural groups, not crossing over. True some very homogenous cultures are at the bottom - Qatar, Saudia Arabia, and Japan - but overall there seems to be no consistent pattern.

Oh, I wouldn’t argue that having different groups within the same society, all with official rights and protections to fully participate, is perfect without conflict and risk of out-groups, but not so much a recipe for violence either.

15

Anecdote time: As an undergraduate majoring in history I found that a diverse class was good because people would often ask questions that it didn’t even occur to me to ask. i.e. They would look at the same thing but their perspective differed from mine and they would come up with a different interpretation. Whether I would agree with them or not made no difference as it encouraged me to think about a subject in a way I didn’t think about it before. Even a complete idiot in my composition class said of a poem “it sounds like a drunk guy answering a question” and it really changed the way I looked at the poem.

16

That is an enhancement of society. The same principle applies in many areas.

It does not. It assumes, rather, that uniformity is a weakness.

It’s not that any one culture is better, or that there necessarily is any “better” when comparing one to another. It’s that the combination of many is stronger than any one alone, or several in isolation from each other.

This.

Practically everything that is really valuable about the broader American culture is a cross-cultural adoption or amalgamation of some kind or another.

The trick is, for the dynamic to really work, we need a kind of permeable insularity, in which different subcultures are recognizable and have physical territories of their own–and have shared borders with other subcultures, and the legal, practical and social freedom to mingle.

17

Perhaps the OP should post some specific examples of what he finds offensive, instead of citing “endless magazines, newspapers, etc.” The reality is that the USA has always been a multicultural society. The mix of subcultures keeps changing, but that mix makes us stronger.

Oh, yes, there have always been troublemakers threatening the “melting pot.” (Is that melting pot supposed to serve up a spicy gumbo, with different flavorsome morsels? Or something like Campbell’s Cream of Celery Soup made with skim milk?)

18

By the fact that millions of people who don’t agree on everything are much less likely to all make the same stupid mistake at once. Such a society is less likely to go collectively insane over one religion, one leader, one ideology. It’s a lot easier to, for example, set up a Christian theocracy if Christian Dominionists are the overwhelming norm.

And as said, more variety simply makes society more interesting.

In other words, crush everyone who is different. Without multiculturalism being “propped up”, that’s what inevitably happens. Crushing everyone who is different is the norm; it’s how people tend to behave unless forcibly prevented from doing so.

Your idea is also logically contradictory, since allowing different communities to experiment IS a form of multiculturalism.

19

I was playing around in my head with the analogy to biologic diversity - about how diverse ecosystems with broad species diversity are more robust than ones with few species or monoculture stands - when I read what DT said

And while I do not completely agree with that statement, I think that that is what some are afraid of, in an unsaid form - in the terms of my biologic metaphor, that an invasive alien species will be so successful that it will outcompete and crush the extant (“native”) species.

And I am not sure how to answer that. American culture is the archetype hodgepodge stew, stronger for the creativity birthed by its diversity, but one must admit that it did crush the native culture of North America and that it is eliminating some of the world’s cultural diversity as invades and outcompetes (through movies, television, fast food, etc.) many of the cultures native or at least extant traditions. I personally think that some of the world’s conflicts are a reaction to that very fear, that American/Western cultural norms are an invasive species that must be culled out of their local environments lest extant cultures be crushed, most specifically as a root fear of many in the Arab world, who react to the threat they perceive of modern multiculturalism with an attempt to impose a homogenous insularity as they try to eliminate what they experience as the Western invasive weeds that may overgrow and choke off the rest.

And to some degree that is why some “propping” needs to be done - lest the culture that owes its success to strength birthed from diversity does crush the very global diversity that it owes its strength to.

20

Question: How diverse is the US compared to other countries?
If Uniformity is weakness, then Diversity lacks at least that weakness so you could argue that Diversity is Strength if you’d like.

There is no question that without immigration and the cultural influences that brings, Sweden would be a much poorer and less successful nation. There’s a misconception among non-Swedes that Sweden is a homogeneous nation. That is far from the truth, 13% of our current population was born in another country. Many many more are second, third or fourth generation immigrants.