Multiculturalism

With only four days to go until the conclusion of the debate, we enter now into the last session where both debaters offer their concluding remarks. The voting statistics over the past two weeks and comments from the audience at the website as well as on social media seem to show us that there is little that separates the two sides. Nonetheless, the majority i.e. 56% so far believe that multiculturalism has indeed reached its limits in the West. Let’s see if the concluding words of our debaters change that.

The rebuttal session was definitely a lively and insightful one. Not just because it was the first time both debaters had the opportunity to respond to each other’s opening remarks, but also because we were fortunate to hear from three of our distinguished panel of guests.

For those of you who are just joining the debate, I will try my best to summarise what you may have missed so far. There’s a considerable amount of agreement between the two sides. Both debaters agree that multiculturalism is a reality and that cultural diversity is something that should be acknowledged and celebrated. They also agree upon the premise that ‘nation-states’ are essentially an invention rather than a natural “organization of human lives.” Moreover, both share the view that individuals of diverse multicultural societies “ought to exist and operate in such a way that they do not infringe on the rights of others.” However, within these agreements lay a number of disagreements, particularly when it comes to the motion itself: whether or not multiculturalism in the West has reached its limits. There’s also a great deal of difference when it comes to the idea of ‘identity’. For Professor Adib-Moghaddam, ‘identity’ is an invention itself. “We are made to think in terms of us-versus-them for political and ideological reasons,” he argues. The crux of his argument lies in the idea of ‘dialectal multiculturalism’ and deconstructing the individual identities. For Professor Wright, however, identity for an individual is “virtually inescapable” because we never interact with one another as merely individuals, “but almost always as subjects of institutions and members of given identity categories.” I encourage you all to read the full opening and rebuttal remarks of both debaters by navigating through the panel above.

We also had the honour to feature Professor Colleen Ward’s guest remarks in the rebuttal session, along with Professor Natasha Warikoo and Ambassador William Lacy Swing. Professor Ward very usefully identified the criteria for defining and achieving multiculturalism: “1) interaction among culturally diverse groups; 2) positive attitudes toward diversity and 3) multicultural policies and practices.” Analysing from this perspective, Professor Ward seemed to agree with our opening guest Professor Virginie Guiraudon, that not only multiculturalism in the West has not reached its limits, “rather … the West, while culturally diverse, has never become multicultural.” Professor Ward concluded by saying that, “achieving multiculturalism is a journey rather than a final destination. Some Western countries are still on the road; others have fallen by the wayside. None have yet reached its limits.”

Professor Warikoo argued that instead of getting into the debate about group identities, we should rather “consider more closely how ordinary individuals understand multiculturalism, group identities, and national identity.” She also mentioned that her research with American and British high school as well as university students concluded, among other things, that young people in both countries define their national identity as more or less multicultural. These views, she points out, differs to the political rhetoric among policy-elites in such countries. Hence, Professor Warikoo argued that, “by considering ‘everyday multiculturalism’ we can best understand the extent to which the different emphases on the individual versus group-ness of Adib-Moghaddam and Wright ‘work’.” “Without this empirical analysis,” she concluded, “the winners of a normative debate may never get the chance to implement their seemingly-righteous policy perspectives, nor win the hearts and minds of the people whose consent is necessary to do so.”

Ambassador Swing firmly argued against the motion. He also very usefully examined the motion of the debate by asking a number of questions such as: “Limits to what? Where? Is it the number of “outsiders” living in a community? What about those merely passing through? Would it be a matter of perception, a tipping point, say, when “everyone” realizes a limit has been approached and then breached? If so, how would we know?” He argued that as soon as one tries to “unpack” the motion along the lines of the questions he asked, there’s only one conclusion to be reached: that multiculturalism has not reached its limits. “From Alexandria more than 2000 years ago, to Istanbul in the 13th Century and London or New York today we have examples of cities that were built on and thrive on diversity,” he said. On the question of how to deal with challenges that comes with multiculturalism and diversity, the Ambassador said, “the answer to the challenges is not to seek to erase the differences but to work out how to develop understandings, values and perspectives can be common property.”

We also had a number of valuable and thought-provoking comments from the audience who have certainly contributed towards the quality of this debate. Professor Tahir Abbas from RUSI deconstructed the motion by pointing out the issues that relate to the definition and the politicisation of multiculturalism itself. Professor Jameson Doig from Princeton University also commented by saying that the best response to the challenges that multiculturalism might produce, is to embrace the differences and variety of cultural traditions rather than saying “Enough; let us have no greater cultural variety!” Ben Weissman also raised some interesting points by comparing and contrasting the European migration to the United States with the migration from the Middle East. Ian Simmons touched upon the complexities of an individual’s identity, how one determines his/her own identity, and what factors might affect or even bring about a change in identity.

I once again encourage everyone to read all the statements of our debaters as well as guests, and vote either for or against the motion. Please also comment with your thoughts, arguments and opinions as that certainly helps us in our objective to make this debate constructive and thought-provoking.

There continues to be agreement between Professor Wright and myself. Similarly, the guest writers are largely supportive of the crux of the argument that I have made. However, at the heart of what I have been saying is a rather more radical approach towards deconstructing “collective identities” which ensure that minorities are not coerced into subservience, for instance to the national narrative. This is not about individualism as Prof. Warikoo implies; it is about protection from overbearing grand narratives that are full of violence and discrimination, from capitalism to psycho-nationalism. There are differences of course, but even in Canada mosques were torched in the name of authenticity. It is this quest for “origins” and firm “rootedness” that is part and parcel of nationalised politics pursued by contemporary states with their huge administrations and disciplinary power systems. Now this doesn’t mean that we should (or can) do away with nation-states. But it does refer to a form of thinking that goes beyond them.

My North American colleagues speak of pragmatism, they want policies. A dialectical approach towards multiculturalism proceeds from the bottom-up, from civil society towards the state. It is anchored in movements that are locally organised, yet globally spirited. Thinking multiculturalism as dialectics, is not without precedence. The counter-culture of the 1960s and 1970s is a good example for a globalised spirit. Equally, the Arab revolts and the ensuing occupy movements were instances of such non-violent civil activism. Alas, they were not institutionalised as such, or even picked up by political elites for obvious reasons. A progressive, pluralistic, radically federal and democratic state, then, requires a densely networked, administratively liberalised (by the central state) and locally organised civil society, that is connected enough to pursue a peaceful global agenda. In western and eastern philosophy, the great thinkers of human history have thought about this “happy city” for millennia. For the Muslim scholar Farabi, happiness was all about social connectivity of the individual within a wider, global human chain. These ideas have been around for a long time, and they have been contemplated as “policies” that accentuate global harmony. The challenge is to create inclusive institutions of global governance that allow individuals directly affected by their decisions to have a real input in them.

Alas, the problem that we are facing is not that we have too many abstract ideas in favour of cultural understanding, minority rights and pluralism. Rather, there is movement in the opposite direction. The hymn and the flag are back with a vengeance. Who would have thought that an individual such as Donald Trump could become the President of the United States? This is the “stock” of truly uneducated politicians that are currently building separation walls, and openly pursue racist and discriminatory policies. It is not the time, therefore, to hair split about realistic policies that would bind in the state, when the educational and cultural foundations of many societies are under threat from a new form of psycho-nationalist bigotry. Let intellectuals think. There is not enough of that, especially in the highly “professionalised” academic corridors in Europe and North America. There is a reason why there are no Edward Saids, Michel Foucaults and Jean-Paul Sartres around anymore. And where are the Shariatis and Iqbals in Asia these days? Visions of the future have been bulldozed by hyper-realism.

In the absence of a political culture that fosters a “loving” approach to the idea of community, it is art, poetry, and philosophy that continue to speak to rather more appealing opportunities for the future. So allow me to end with an example of dialogue between East and West that I have often cited in lectures all over the world. There lies 600 years between the German poet Goethe and Jalaledin Rumi who wrote in Persian. And yet their poems show a meeting of minds that defies locality and strict cultural affiliation. In his “West-Eastern” divan published in 1819 as an ode of love to the Iranian poet Hafiz, Goethe writes:

When People keep themselves apart

In mutual disdain,

A truth is hidden from the heart

Their goals are much the same

Almost six centuries earlier the Muslim poet Rumi had a very comparable disdain for the politics of identity when he proclaimed: “What can I do, Muslims? I do not know myself. I am neither Christian nor Jew, neither Magian nor Muslim, I am not from east or west. My place is placeless my trace is traceless.” As indicated there are 600 years between the two poets who lived under very different circumstances and cultural conditions. Yet there is meeting of minds within the aesthetics of poetry. This is a poetic dialogue that defies time, space. geography. On an abstract level it accentuates a deep cultural conversation which highlights connections, mutuality, interdependence, hybridity between subject and object. As such it exemplifies the spirit of what I called “dialectical multiculturalism”. Self and other, us and them are seen as a complex mosaic where everything is connected even within the contours of difference. This poetic dialogue stands against seemingly coherent “identities” encapsulated in false dichotomies such as West against Islam or a clash of civilisations. It defies geographical determinism and merges (rather than divides) categories such as east and west, north and south or us and them, self and other which are at the heart of problematic ideas about eternal cultural wars which stand against multicultural communication.

Disciplines such as global history, comparative philosophies, global thought have picked up this new form of writing history and explaining the world. They are busy rooting eastern civilisation in the west and vice versa, to write history as a dialogue rather than a clash. Differences do exist, but they should be considered as a part of a common human experience, a form of negative dialectic that does not yield to the final reconciliation of opposites in the Hegelian sense. Such a mindset yields a dialogical communication in which self and other, object and subject talk to each other to understand and to create empathy. This can be easily institutionalised, for instance in “houses of multi-culture” funded as community projects by governments, in particular in Europe and North America.

Without such efforts we may soon reach the state, when radical approaches are rooted out entirely because of “political correctness”. There is already a lot of self-censorship in academia. Funding pressures have aided and abetted a system which rewards political conformity and punishes radical ideas, especially on sensitive subjects such as immigration. I continue to believe that multiculturalism acts as a prophylaxis against this violence of psycho-nationalist currents carried forward by the New Right. Let’s nurture and protect cultural diversity in the name of our individual freedoms within a global collective. Here I dance the tango with Prof. Wight’s emphasis on mixophilia in a common world and line dance with the guest writers as well. Let’s be romantic for once; let’s be audacious enough to think a new politics of love and empathy towards the “other”; let’s celebrate our perfect imperfections. Do I seem utopian? Well, thank God I am not the only one.

The featured guests continue where Adib-Moghaddam and I left off, namely troubling and providing different views on what the very concept of multiculturalism means. Colleen Ward usefully points out that we ought to consider multiculturalism a journey rather than a destination, an exhortation that dovetails well with my assertion that multiculturalism is pliant and evolving rather than given and static. Natasha Warikoo eschews what she describes as the age-old debate between individual versus group consideration of diversity, difference and rights and while I endorse her consideration of how people are positioned in relation to ability to live out their lives well in society, I would assert that this does not escape the individual versus group considerations as such, which I would characterize as perennial (rather than simply age-old). That said her indication of the importance of “everyday multiculturalism” is clearly useful and gets us looking at (or better yet, for) the best conditions that make for people to flourish in community and society. And to my mind the notion is akin to what we might call “multiculturalism from below;” the everyday, local interactions between people across difference, whether or not there is the guide (or imposition) of official multiculturalism in place.

It is William Lacy Swing who troubles that other part of the question which we have all for the most part taken for granted, namely, what constitutes “limits,” which is what makes his contribution particularly interesting. Is limit about numbers, about settled others (which raises the question of increasing presence of the transient other) or about the number of categories or types of diversity? Are nations to consider themselves lifeboats that cannot take on too many others without danger of capsize and disaster or fairgrounds that are almost endlessly accommodating, each addition only further enriching life for all? In fact I would pick up his questions “Limits to what? Where?” to say it is curious that we are only considering the limits of multiculturalism in western countries when countries elsewhere have also taken up multiculturalism, in some cases (e.g. Singapore) not only as discourse but as official policy. Furthermore, multiculturalism’s alternatives are in place and engaged much more robustly elsewhere than in the West (e.g. consider Peru’s official policy of interculturalism in comparison with Ireland’s flirtation with having interculturalism as an influence on how cultural diversity is considered). And the where of multiculturalism can be asked quite legitimately with regard to European countries. As Virginie Guiraudon attests, multiculturalism as policy has not been implemented in a serious, sustained manner in Europe. As she rightly concludes “There is something surreal about debating a policy that never was in Western Europe - multiculturalism.”

Even as we debate whether multiculturalism has reached its limit, we should remember that there have been those who have gone much further and pronounced it dead. In fact there was at one point in the late 1990s to early turn of the century, a veritable death of multiculturalism cottage industry- the death of multiculturalism was proclaimed in everything from British academic journals like the Durham Anthropology Journal to US newspapers like The NY Times and Canadian ones like the National Post and Dutch based worldwide online newspaper, Project Syndicate. Despite these firm pronouncements of its demise, multiculturalism is still very much alive and operational.

How to conclude? How about geographically? For nation-states such as Canada which have official multiculturalism, the question of whether it has reached its limits is not academic but rather has quite substantial consequences in terms of policy, practices and even national identity. Luckily for such countries multiculturalism is thriving despite the critiques. For those countries that have merely flirted with multiculturalism, including and especially those in Europe, they might want to actually take multiculturalism on seriously and in a sustained manner before declaring it a failure (as successive leaders of conservative ruling national parties in Western European countries did in somewhat startling succession: Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany in October 2010;  President Nicolas Sarkozy of France and Prime Minister David Cameron of Great Britain in February, 2011). Multiculturalism is variously a philosophical outlook, a policy, a discourse and a practice of conviviality aimed at addressing identity, diversity and the politics of difference. It is not fixed but pliant, not given but always in process, not politically static but open to the political spectrum. Almost all the contributors are in agreement that the answer to the question “has multiculturalism in the West reached its limits” is some version of William Lacy Swing’s firm “Of course not!”

All this said it is not multiculturalism I wish to defend as such but the evolution of an urgently needed discourse and policy that has the best chance of conceptualizing and utilizing identity, diversity and the politics of difference to full representation, equity and social justice as community, social and global ends. If another discourse emerges which is more efficacious to achieving those ends, I will be the first to abandon multiculturalism. But this has not happened and rather than eschew multiculturalism without a superior replacement, the praxis oriented worker in me puts energy into the cause of improving a flawed and inadequate multiculturalism, having in my conscience no clear answer to the question posed Nick Pearce posed to Parliament at the backlash to the 7/7 bombings in London back in 2005, namely, “goodbye to multiculturalism but welcome to what?”

Debaters, guests and users’ statements and comments are their independent thoughts, opinions, beliefs, viewpoints, and are not necessarily that of MUSLIM Institute's.