Contemporary
society, in the West, at least, has wrestled with the ideas of diversity,
pluralism, and multiculturalism throughout its entire history. On one hand,
countries like Canada and Australia want to encourage multiculturalism and
foster the growth of different cultures side by side. On the other side of the
argument is the idea that giving free reign to different cultures is harmful
and will erode the values nations hold dearest. At the heart of the issue is
the concept that Western thought and ethnocentrism, in this case, prevailing
Western ideology, is under threat by minorities, immigrants, and anyone else
who does not fit into the cultural mold. This debate over whether or not people
should preserve their own unique culture or just try to assimilate into one
homogenous nation-state has inspired two different approaches:
pluralism/cultural assimilation vs. multiculturalism. Advocates for assimilation
argue that immigrants and minority groups should consciously live by the
principles, idealizations, culture, and language of the predominant culture as
opposed to preserving their own unique individual cultures. Detractors of
multiculturalism in modern times assert that diversity serves to undermine the
traditional values and moral fabric of a society; but ultimately,
multiculturalism enriches societies by providing different ethnicities with
social inclusion, cultural integration, and opportunities for progress.
What even is multiculturalism? Multiculturalism
is not just another one form of ‘diversity’ in societies, rather it is a way of
implementing diversity within society. It is a philosophy and is encouraged
through policies in order to facilitate immigrant integration into society. Multiculturalism
as a philosophy holds that minority groups and immigrants deserve the right to
state recognition and protection. This concept in theory and in practice,
serves to diversify and enrich the nations in which it takes place.
Counterarguments regard multiculturalism as a threat rather than something that
has beneficial contributions to society. The main argument against
multiculturalism is that it effectively creates a segregated society and than
an ethnocentric worldview is compromised for mixed-ethnicities and various
perspectives on the world existing alongside one another. Building upon this,
people who don’t agree with multiculturalism are afraid that the lack of
cultural uniformity can lead to a societal collapse in the form of reduced
government programs for all citizens. However, multiculturalism can undoubtedly
lead to enriched neighborhoods, political assistance, and economic benefits
aside from the social and psychological.
Multiculturalism,
in my opinion, contributes much more to society than it has drawbacks. Though
it may not be an ideal solution to immigration and minority group issues, it
has benefits that range from economic and social all the way to psychological. It
can be a useful tool in helping minority groups integrate into a new society
while simultaneously being able to preserve their own unique cultural values
and traditions. Policies that allow people to integrate into a society while
still maintaining their own unique cultural flair are advantageous not only to
the marginalized groups being protected, but also to societies as a whole. Multiculturalism
allows people of different ethnicities to preserve their own way of life while
enjoying the benefits of an integrative society that encourages innovation,
sharing of culture, and a non-ethnocentric world view. In addition,
multiculturalist perspectives help to encourage people to do their best in the
workplace, innovate and create at their fullest potential. Multiculturalism
even has a host of economic benefits, helping entire societies advance. Despite
the fact that there are those who oppose multiculturalism because they think it
can be divisive and encourage discrimination and political backlash, I think
all the contributions it brings to the table are worth what critics think is
flawed with multiculturalism. Personally, I don’t see how an ethnically mixed
society will come to destroy values we as a nation cherish. Sharing culture
with one another is a beautiful thing that can fight against racism and
discrimination.
Multiculturalism
believes that American culture can be enriched through inclusion of diverse
peoples and cultures within its borders. Of the benefits of multiculturalism,
the most obvious is that it helps to smoothen out majority and minority
relations. Specifically, Berry discusses how government policies that stem from
multiculturalism help people to better integrate and provide a sense of
security for immigrants and minority groups. The Canadian multiculturalism
policy, in particular, reflects how normally marginalized groups and societies
as a whole benefit from becoming diversified. This policy has many benefits but
among the most agreed upon are that it demonstrates a social concern for the
human relations in Canada and that it fosters these relationships in a positive
way rather than waiting for problems to appear. Canada’s multiculturalism policy
ensures that minorities and new immigrants are not being ‘ignored’ and that
their individual and cultural needs are being heard in society’s larger
context. This in turn creates a sense of security for these marginalized groups
and a sense of belonging within society. The sense of security influences
immigrants and other marginalized groups to make advances in society. Kymlicka
explains that in multiculturalist societies like Canada, immigrants are more
likely to become citizens, to vote and run for office, and to be elected to
office than in other Western democracies. Also, the children of immigrants in
multiculturalist societies have better educational outcomes. It’s
clear that multiculturalist policies help immigrants to climb the social ladder
within the countries they decide to inhabit.
Multiculturalist
policies, when put into practice, also have benefits on the individual
level. Feelings of security within a
society help to bolster the performance of minority groups and immigrants.
Bannerji even goes onto describe multiculturalism as ‘the heir to the deceased
civil rights movement’. Feelings
of security lead marginalized groups to feeling included within their society,
which subsequently leads them to perform at their best in society. Stevens et
al. propose that all-inclusive multiculturalism even helps workplace
productivity and performance. Minority groups who feel like they are included
tend to do better at work. Stevens et al. argue that when marginalized groups
feel included and respected within a larger societal context, it allows
individuals to innovate, flourish, and reach their fullest potential. However,
benefits in the workplace are not only limited to an individual basis. When
everyone feels included and respected, entire work organizations can have high
retention and attract the most talented people in that field of work. Multiculturalist
societies help overall worker productivity too. It isn’t just the immigrants
that thrive from multiculturalism. According to The Economic Value of Cultural Diversity: Evidence from U.S. Cities, a
more multicultural urban environment makes US-born citizens more productive. The fact
that inspired minorities do better in the workplace and as a consequence
inspire their native-born coworkers to perform better at work is a testament to
multiculturalism’s knack for smooth integration.
The
economic and political benefits of multiculturalism cannot be ignored either. The
biological systems theory argues that diversity within a society leads to a
great variance within that society, which in turn allows a society to deal with
changing circumstances more effectively.(2) Berry
highlights this by discussing how
societies with more varied populations have a wider range of alternatives when
something happens within their society. This is contrasted by more homogenous
societies, which tend to ‘lose its range of alternatives’ and succumb because
homogeneity within a society leads to a reduced capability to respond to
changes.(2) In
addition, multiculturalism can have unprecedented benefits on a country’s place
in the international scene. Diplomatic relations with various countries could
improve based on positive perceptions of a multiculturalist policy. Relationships
with other countries could be strengthened on a shared value placed on
maintaining cultural, linguistic, and religious diversity.(2) This
respect for promoting the inclusion of all could definitely appeal to other
countries and help to strengthen international relations and be a key aspect in
strategic maneuvering for our government. Taking into account that
multiculturalist policy has had an impact on Canada’s alignment with other
nations, I think the United States should take note and consider implementing
similar policies.
Multiculturalism
is seen as a movement that has not provided an orientation towards cultural
diversity strong enough to process the current conflicts and convergences that
make the problem of boundaries more acute than ever. Those who
are against multiculturalism are angered by the idea of their ethnocentric
worldview becoming compromised by the tides of immigrants and the ideas of
cultures different than their own. Generally speaking, the mentality this side
of the debate has is one of ‘moral monism’, they think that only one way of
life is fully human, true, or best. In fact,
the main argument against multiculturalism and multiculturalist policies are
that groups who want to preserve their own cultures and exist alongside Eurocentric
people are threatening the moral fiber of the country they inhabit. People on
this side of the multiculturalism debate are somehow convinced that people have
to assimilate into a Eurocentric worldview for society to have ‘order’. Douglas
expands on this idea and says that people who value assimilation over
multiculturalist integration believe that a core set of values unites all
Americans, creating one distinct culture that cuts through all ethnic
boundaries. The people who believe in the idea
of assimilation think that their way of life and traditional values will be
destroyed by multiculturalism. Essentially, they think that cultural diversity
will dismantle the principles that make America, America. This sentiment is
further discussed by Burayidi. The author tells us that exclusionists see multiculturalism
as an affront to Eurocentrism. In addition, those against multiculturalism
believe that minorities have benefited enough and should not be allowed to
undermine the American ‘common culture’.(1) It’s
so strange to think about how there are people who want to hang on to dated
sentiments that they consider make us ‘American’. Being more open to other
cultures can lead to cultural progress in so many different ways. It begs the
question: Why would we want to stay the same as we always have been? Change is
good.
The fear
of losing long-standing traditions and an overarching dominant culture is not
the only thing anti-multiculturalists are afraid of. Critics of multiculturalism
assert that immigrants fail to integrate and effectively dissolve the bonds
that hold the country together. Bloemraad, in Unity in Diversity, discusses that people fear the idea of
multiculturalism because celebrating the distinctions and color lines between
ethnic groups can cause societal fragmentation: people can end up living wholly
separate lives within a single society. This doesn’t sound problematic at
first, but anti-multiculturists are afraid that multiculturalism will
inadvertently cause a splintering between ethnic groups, effectively
segregating a society. Those against multiculturalism state that these
inclusionist policies and mentalities create ‘cultural enclaves’ where people
who fail to assimilate into a homogenous culture establish separate in-groups
where they are sheltered from and deny the predominant culture of the land.(10) Those
who are against multiculturalism assert that it can create a situation in which
immigrants/marginalized ethnic groups can be separated from the dominant
culture and can become an underclass. Part of the main premise that
anti-multiculturalism sympathizers have is that it is divisive, can cause
decreased national unity, and has the potential to let ethnic and racial
discrimination take root.(2)
The
economic repercussions of multiculturalism are also discussed by those who are
against it. Objectors to multiculturalist ideals believe that multiculturalists
help to create false boundaries between socioeconomic groups on the basis of
preservation of culture and this has tangible effects on a country’s economic
system. Anti-multiculturalism believers
firmly agree on the idea that it contributes to a scaling back of public
resources and redistribution efforts by the government.(8) This
argument revolves around the fact that governments establish welfare states based
on shared values of its citizens. They believe that multiculturalism shifts
focus onto very particular populations within a society, dissuading the
government from supporting universal social policies. This ‘fragmentation’ is
seen as one of the biggest problems of multiculturalism. Also, there is the
argument that multiculturalism will waste government spending on programs that
help to maintain languages and cultures.(2) These
programs are intended to help equalize the playing field for immigrants and
minorities, and help to ensure their culture and language is preserved. Research
has shown that the majority of the ‘economic’ arguments are simply bigoted
perceptions shrouded in rationalism and economics.(2)
In sum,
central critiques on multiculturalism practices hold that multiculturalism can strengthen
false boundaries between groups of people and can discourage holistic governmental
assistance programs. I think this is an overly pessimistic perspective on the
immigration issue and the inclusion of minority groups in anglicized nations. As
opposed to being strictly based in fact, I think the majority of attitudes that
argue against multiculturalism are mostly tainted with opinion and are born out
of fear and other emotions instead. This idea is explained further by
Verkuyten. In Support for Multiculturalism
and Minority Rights, he states that a variety of theories suggest that fear
and perceptions of threat play an important role in generating prejudice
towards out groups in general and specifically, immigrant groups/minorities. These viewpoints stem from both
realistic and symbolic threats. Realistic, as the name suggests, is rooted in
the fear that immigrants/out groups are taking up resources and have clashes
over material interests with a main population. Symbolic, on the other hand is
based off of perceived group differences in values, norms, and beliefs.(11) This
type of fear is the one that manifests itself as the majority in group fearing
that immigrants will ruin their way of life.
The fear
of a culture different from your own displacing your Eurocentric world view is
in my view unsound. I think fear that is based in symbolic threats is
unjustified because it isn’t based in reality. Fearing ideas just because they
are dissimilar to your own is a one-way road to bigotry and narrow-mindedness. The
idea of symbolic threats and fearing that one’s life style is under threat just
because another culture is thrown into the mix is not based in an objective
action or reality and instead plays more on the anxieties of a majority group. In
fact, Verkuyten even explains that many studies have shown that perceived
threats to in-group values by immigrants and minorities predict more negative
attitudes towards these groups.(11) Besides,
even if multiculturalism does have some noticeable downsides, it would be
foolish to ignore what comes out of multiculturalist policies and
idealizations. Multiculturalism contributes to society on almost every level: political,
social, and psychological. In principle, multiculturalism is a way to provide
an ethical framework to work towards equal human rights and social conditions.
Whereas segregation, separation, assimilation, and marginalization reduces the
social and psychological well-beings of individuals within a nation, multiculturalism
and integration promotes these attributes.(2)
Though
some may think that multiculturalism is inherently divisive, it is quite the
contrary. It helps bring about relations between socioeconomic and ethnic
groups that normally are divided to begin with, commonly seen in our ‘melting
pot’ culture. Besides improving relations on a small, individual scale, it can
catch the attention of other countries whose multiculturalist principles align
with one’s home country and improve a nation’s standing on the international
level. Its perceived drawbacks are so worth what it brings to the table. It
increases a country’s open-mindedness to cultures that are different from its
own predominant culture and helps people be more accepting of one another. Where
some may see it as divisive, I see multiculturalism to be inclusive in more
ways than one. Instead of seeing multiculturalism as a way to splinter
different ethnic groups and something that can cause further dissension and
segregation, I think we should look at it with more curiosity than fear.
Fearing other people’s cultures isn’t productive and can keep us in the dark
about the positive contributions foreign cultures can provide to our country.
It provides a stable framework for cultural inclusion to take hold and fights
back against bigotry and cultural misunderstandings. It helps people from
foreign cultures better integrate and provide what they think is best for
collective society. It gives people more equality and is enriching in every
sense of the word.
At its
heart, multiculturalism is a set of beliefs and policies that encourage
foundational and integrative changes within societies. Though opponents of multiculturalism
are adamant about it being a threat to a culture that they deem to be
‘superior’ and ‘universal’, multiculturalism enriches countries socially,
economically, and politically. Its integrative nature is instrumental in giving
immigrants and other marginalized groups a platform on which to voice their
opinions and concerns, and become productive members of the society they
inhabit. The security they gain from societal inclusion influences them to
become heavily involved in the communities they live in, contributing their
knowledge and living to their fullest potential. Multiculturalist societies can
foster the growth of strong economies with a well educated workforce that can
have strongly improved relations with other countries on an international
scale. Steering societies away from a
narrow-minded and ethnocentric worldview is imperative in advancing social
relations between ethnically different groups of people. Shying away from a
wider scope of understanding will pull our society backwards instead of pushing
it forward. Multiculturalism is a tool that can push for diversity and consequently
create a more equal society where people can hold onto their cultures and
traditions while pushing to be the best they can be within their respective
societies. It is vital in creating a society where people can live side by
side, preserving their own ideals yet being able to develop understandings of
other cultures, pushing for a place that is not only tolerant of differing
perspectives, but fully accepting.
References
Bannerji,
Himani. The dark side of the nation: Essays on multiculturalism, nationalism
and gender. Canadian Scholars’ Press, 2000.
Berry,
John W. "Social psychological costs and benefits of multiculturalism: A
view from Canada." Trames 2.3 (1998): 209-233.
Bloemraad, Irene.
"UNITY IN DIVERSITY?" Du Bois Review, vol. 4, no. 2,
2007, pp. 317-336. doi:http://dx.doi.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1017/S1742058X0707018X.
Burayidi, Michael A. Multiculturalism
in a Cross-national Perspective. University Press of America, 1997.
Douglas, George, and George
Yancey. "Taking Stock of America's Attitudes on Cultural Diversity: An
Analysis of Public Deliberation on Multiculturalism, Assimilation and
Intermarriage*." Journal of Comparative Family Studies, vol.
35, no. 1, 2004, pp. 1-19. ,
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/232582665?accountid=14749.
Hollinger, David A. Postethnic
America: beyond multiculturalism. Basic Books, 2006.
Kymlicka, Will.
"Multiculturalism: Success, Failure, and the Future."Washington
DC: Transatlantic Council on Migration. Accessed 20 (2013).
Ottaviano, Gianmarco IP, and
Giovanni Peri. "The economic value of cultural diversity: evidence from US
cities." Journal of Economic geography 6.1 (2006): 9-44.
Parekh, Bhikhu C. Rethinking
multiculturalism: Cultural diversity and political theory. Harvard
University Press, 2002.
Stevens, Flannery G.,
Victoria C. Plaut, and Jeffrey Sanchez-Burks. "Unlocking the benefits of
diversity all-inclusive multiculturalism and positive organizational
change." The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 44.1
(2008): 116-133.
Verkuyten, Maykel.
"Support for Multiculturalism and Minority Rights: The Role of National
Identification and Out-Group Threat." Social Justice Research,
vol. 22, no. 1, 2009, pp. 31-52.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.1007/s11211-008-0087-7.
