Is Multiculturalism a threat to Liberalism?

As it stands, broadly speaking, there are two main positions on the subject of Multiculturalism:

"Multiculturalism is closely associated with “identity politics,” “the politics of difference,” and “the politics of recognition,” all of which share a commitment to revaluing disrespected identities and changing dominant patterns of representation and communication that marginalize certain groups (Young 1990, Taylor 1992, Gutmann 2003). Multiculturalism is also a matter of economic interests and political power; it demands remedies to economic and political disadvantages that people suffer as a result of their minority status."

"Multiculturalists take for granted that it is “culture” and “cultural groups” that are to be recognized and accommodated. Yet multicultural claims include a wide range of claims involving religion, language, ethnicity, nationality, and race"

Multiculturalism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

The two philosophers that hold such a position are Will Kymlicka and Iris Marion Young.

Opposed to such a position we have the Liberal egalitarian Brian Barry. Barry says:

"A fourth objection takes issue with liberal multiculturalist's understanding of what equality requires. Brian Barry argues that religious and cultural minorities should be held responsible for bearing the consequences of their own beliefs and practices. He contrasts religious and cultural affiliations with physical disabilities and argues that the former do not constrain people in the way that physical disabilities do. A physical disability supports a strong prima facie claim to compensation because it limits a person's opportunities to engage in activities that others are able to engage in. In contrast, religion and culture may shape one's willingness to seize an opportunity, but they do not affect whether one has an opportunity."

I've used the same link for both positions. Hopefully these two positions briefly survey the territory.

Philosophical Thoughts rather than polemics, please.

Paul

gunner said:

As it stands, broadly speaking, there are two main positions on the subject of Multiculturalism:

"Multiculturalism is closely associated with “identity politics,” “the politics of difference,” and “the politics of recognition,” all of which share a commitment to revaluing disrespected identities and changing dominant patterns of representation and communication that marginalize certain groups (Young 1990, Taylor 1992, Gutmann 2003). Multiculturalism is also a matter of economic interests and political power; it demands remedies to economic and political disadvantages that people suffer as a result of their minority status."

"Multiculturalists take for granted that it is “culture” and “cultural groups” that are to be recognized and accommodated. Yet multicultural claims include a wide range of claims involving religion, language, ethnicity, nationality, and race"

Multiculturalism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

The two philosophers that hold such a position are Will Kymlicka and Iris Marion Young.

Opposed to such a position we have the Liberal egalitarian Brian Barry. Barry says:

"A fourth objection takes issue with liberal multiculturalist's understanding of what equality requires. Brian Barry argues that religious and cultural minorities should be held responsible for bearing the consequences of their own beliefs and practices. He contrasts religious and cultural affiliations with physical disabilities and argues that the former do not constrain people in the way that physical disabilities do. A physical disability supports a strong prima facie claim to compensation because it limits a person's opportunities to engage in activities that others are able to engage in. In contrast, religion and culture may shape one's willingness to seize an opportunity, but they do not affect whether one has an opportunity."

I've used the same link for both positions. Hopefully these two positions briefly survey the territory.

Philosophical Thoughts rather than polemics, please.

Paul

Click to expand...

Why don't you answer first for your own country? How's it going with the onset of Sharia law in England? Any problem with Mohammed being the most common newborn baby's name in England?

Generally, the alleged conflict between liberalism and multi-culturalism is being created, exaggerated or inflamed by racists and conservatives to create a schism between allied interests. Under liberalism, cultures and religions are free to establish or maintain their own culture, beliefs and practices as long as the participants are willing and they are not imposed on outsiders. That is why no liberal would support using the law to officially recognize or impose cultural or religious practices. Very few members of these non-maintstream groups want to impose their practices on others, and they should not be allowed to do so. Some racists and conservatives get offended just by seeing unfamiliar cultural practices. They have no right to expect the law to reduce their offense.

Ray410 said:

Why don't you answer first for your own country? How's it going with the onset of Sharia law in England? Any problem with Mohammed being the most common newborn baby's name in England?

Click to expand...

I was hoping for a response based on Philosophy.

Paul

gunner said:

I was hoping for a response based on Philosophy.

Paul

Click to expand...

I was speaking about philosophical changes in law and culture from the traditional as a result of multi-culturalism.

Hard Truth said:

Generally, the alleged conflict between liberalism and multi-culturalism is being created, exaggerated or inflamed by racists and conservatives to create a schism between allied interests. Under liberalism, cultures and religions are free to establish or maintain their own culture, beliefs and practices as long as the participants are willing and they are not imposed on outsiders. That is why no liberal would support using the law to officially recognize or impose cultural or religious practices. Very few members of these non-maintstream groups want to impose their practices on others, and they should not be allowed to do so. Some racists and conservatives get offended just by seeing unfamiliar cultural practices. They have no right to expect the law to reduce their offense.

Click to expand...

I think what you speak of is 'difference blind' Liberalism. Here, rules in which cultural, ethnic and religious identities are ruthlessly privatized. This account is summed up in 'A theory of Justice' (John Rawls). This account is criticised on the basis of its failure to cope with the particularities and importance of those 'privatized' identities. I feel, there is some weight to such criticisms--especially when viewing communities that have politicised the 'private sphere' to some extent.

Paul

I'm not a fan of multi-culturalism. It creates a lot of minority groups vying for power. It diminishes common beliefs, traditions, values within a given nation.

Thanks...

It's almost like you designed a thread with today's modern gardener in mind, Paul!

I'm sure you already know how I will answer, but for everybody else, here is how I approach the subject:

In order to address multiculturalism, one needs to evaluate its purpose and place it within the proper context as far as what it hopes to accomplish. One of the very most basic distinguishing characteristics that separates conservatism from liberalism has to do with social justice vs. social order. What is being "conserved" in conservatism is culture -- and all the mores, habits and institutions that come along with it. Liberalism, on the other hand, evaluates the social dynamic with a greater regard for social justice -- the notion that all people deserve the same basic rights and opportunities to express themselves and live free from unnecessary coercion.

So, where does multiculturalism fall? Since it is a political philosophy that seeks to conserve culture and conserve the social institutions that come with it, it is most certainly NOT a liberal political philosophy. The only difference between it and ultra conservatism is that it is only concerned with conserving OTHER cultures, rather than one's own. In practice, it is little more than a convenient excuse for hypocrisy in that it allows a person to support one value for one's own group, but disregard that value for another. As far as I'm concerned, this amounts to a form of racism, since it devalues the rights of people who happen to have been born into another culture, especially in regards to women's rights, gay rights and any of a number of other issues where the institutionalized nature of the lack of opportunity is ingrained within a culture.

Liberalism is predicated upon universal valued applied to all fairly and without prejudice. . Multiculturalism says that there are no universal values, and morality is entirely normative to a culture. As such, it undermines liberalism due to the fact it operates upon a different set of principles -- principles that are hypocritical, applied selectively, and displaying no true understanding of morality.

A true Multicultural approach does not necessarily see all cultures as equal, but sees them as first existing (as in the opposite of the so-called color blind society), and then judges them by the same standards as others. That is the universal value of multiculturalism. It doesn't just say all cultures have value we should adopt. Unlike some conservatives who want to force others to become exactly as they are, a multicultural approach sees value in other cultures and understands at times cultures will clash. But if the result of the clash is learning and understanding as opposed to violence then that is a good thing. However for a nation or really an collectivity to exist there will always be a shared set of overarching values. Some that have always been there as in the case of a country that is taking in a new immigrant population or a university that is become more open to diversity. The rights of the new cultural group stop at the point where they will inflict harm on the existing groups or violate some strongly held principle. That is the battle. We have seen time and again where that is done well and also done poorly. Now specific to England and Islam, well the country has some history with religious diversity and it is not good. But it is trying to find a way to be better at incorporating the diverse population. We will see how it develops.