Critically analyse multiculturalism

Multiculturalism is the belief that no culture is perfect or represents the best life and that cultures can benefit from a critical dialogue with other cultures. Multiculturalism supercedes the often believed to be outdated view of monoculturalism which was the norm in countries which operated under the nation-state paradigm. The assimilation model of multiculturalism is the one adopted by the USA to deal with the large numbers of immigrants that the country had to deal with since the early 19th century. These immigrants were understood to be permanent residents in the new country and the absorption of immigrants from all over the world was a feature of the frontiersman mentality of this emergent nation. The central idea was the metaphor of the ‘melting pot’, where race was to be considered irrelevant with the eventual blurring of obvious racial distinctions, such as language, national traditions etc, into a homogenous American citizenry with American values “united to each other by the strongest ties, never to be split into a number of unsocial, jealous and alien sovereignties” (John Jay, First American Supreme Court Chief Justice). This variety of assimilation has been criticised as being realisable only for Europeans, and being apparently inapplicable to English-speaking, US-born black people who have been second class citizens in America until well into the twentieth century.
Multiculturalism has been implemented in many other countries since the assimilation model was used in the US. There are many mechanisms by which multiculturalism might operate. Under the pluralist model, citizens are viewed as members of groups based on various different factors such as race, ethnicity, religion etc. It is these factors that constitute a persons identity and race-based identity is not a necessary determining factor; this is in stark contrast to separatist models wherein racial groups such as African- and Native-Americans have been segregated from cultural inclusion as in the melting-pot example above.
Beneath the ideals of multiculturalism lies its philosophical ancestor and inspiration, the metaethical theory of moral relativism. Moral relativism comprises the empirical thesis that there are profound and widespread moral disagreements and a metaethical thesis that the truth or justification or moral judgements is not absolute, but relative to some group or community. Sometimes moral relativism is connected with a normative position about how we ought to think about or act toward a certain group of people with whom we disagree; it is this facet, along with Donald Davidson’s (1984) view that ‘disagreement presupposes considerable agreement’ that most informs multicultural theories.
Modern British Multiculturalism is, to an extent, based on the idea that diverse cultures have much to offer each other but that, as in the Melting Pot example, an overarching sense of cultural identity, namely Britishness, should pervade society and secure the cohesion of these disparate communities. This is a laudable aim that is unfortunately based on philosophical grounds that allows great injustices to be perpetrated when taken to its logical conclusion. Under such a relativistic system it becomes taboo to question the mores and values of a cultural group. In Britain recently there has been much discussion about the niqab (a Muslim garment that totally covers all parts of the invariably female wearer) and whether it is acceptable to wear such clothes. The discussion has become highly emotionally charged with many accused of racism for questioning the wisdom of such attire. Susan Moller Okin argues that multiculturalism is sometimes bad for women, especially as in the previous example, when it works to preserve patriarchal values in minority cultures. (Okin et al 1999)
Any discussion about clothing in a mature democracy such as our own might fairly be considered to be politically inert and quite unlikely to cause much distress, however, because the item of clothing in question is so closely tied to ideas of cultural identity and religious observance it has become something of a powder keg issue. Imagine now, if you will, if the discussions concerned something much worse. If the immigrant population were practising female genital mutilation, as is practised in some African countries, there would be a national outcry and the practitioners would rightly be vilified. However, on a strictly disinterested analysis and according to the moral relativist, the practice is a component of a certain culture, no more right or wrong than its other traditions. Although this is a rather extreme example, it does highlight the problem of attempting to integrate disparate cultures into one cohesive whole without making a value-judgement on the components of the separate cultures.
One example which is more realistic than the foregoing is the attempt by some sectors of the Muslim population to establish Sharia courts in the UK. (Daily Telegraph, 2006) This would require a separate judicial arm, with different laws that only applied to a sector of society that believed in a different exegesis of the abrahamic tradition. That this is unwise, likely to foster division and is deeply unfair ought to be obvious, yet it is difficult to see how the committed multiculturalist would argue against this as, according to moral relativism, one legal system is as valid as any other within its own particular cultural context. Paul Gilroy (2004) recognises the unease felt by some as they feel that their own cultural traditions are being subsumed rather than augmented and lays the blame at the feet of a post-imperial melancholy and denial about our previous colonial history. This leads, he asserts, to unjustify panics about asylum seekers; hostility to new Eastern European immigrants; fear of “black” gun crime; fear of infiltration by foreign or Muslim terrorists.
Further criticism of multiculturalism comes from Paul Cliteur (1999) who rejects all political correctness when speaking about the issue and openly condemns legal systems that are not the product of European Enlightenment thought, which he believes to be superior. He takes the absolutist position that other cultures are not merely different but worse than western cultures. He lists examples such as infanticide, torture and oppression of women as cultural imports that are not to be tolerated.
Multiculturalism is an attempt to reconcile the vast numbers of people who move not only across land but also across cultural divides. Indigenous populations often feel threatened when large numbers of immigrants arrive bringing with them strange religions, languages and ethical frameworks and it is often difficult to integrate these diverse values into society without leaving any particular group out in the cold. While this is a praiseworthy goal, and one which must ultimately succeed if society is to be peaceful, it can never be sustainable without one overarching ethical framework which does not become weakened by being too eager to accommodate the particular quirks of each sector of society. While moral relativism is at their base, multicultural societies will lack a firm idealogical basis from which all members may draw. It is this fact that makes the iterations of Multiculturalism so far implemented fundamentally unsatisfactory.