Comments on: Multiculturalism again

By: Matt Munro

Matt Munro — Fri, 11 May 2007 12:42:38 +0000

There is at least one case of a child in the UK dying because PC social workers (is there any other kind ?) refused to intervene in clear cases of child neglect/abuse because they felt to do so would be “culturally insensitive”…… UK law says the law must be applied equally, multiculturalism clearly says not.
In any event all cultures are demonstrably not equal. Leaving aside the intellectual argument that to demonstrate equality one must have some absolute concept against which to measure that equality (in which case the relativism on which multiculturalism is based collapses), if all cutures are equal then how do dominant cultures (either within or between nation states) acheive dominance if not through superiority and the operation of social darwinism ? (I appreciate that the logic behind that statement could lead to the invocation of Godwins law but inequality does not IMHO automatically equal persecution)
I think you misunderstand the “fear” (as you describe it) of multiculturalism. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence realises that culture is dynamic and change for the better (or worse) can only occur through the absorbtion of new ideas. However, to argue that this can only be acheived through muticulturalism is to take a very narrow definition of culture. Culture is driven more by science than by immersion in new food/drink/language/ideology. For example the internet has created a paradigm shift in global culture, it has not just enabled faster/better communication but has created new forms of communication and arguably a new language - 10 years ago I could not contribute to this blog, 20 years ago the words Google or ipod would be meaningless. It is difficult to argue that this would not have happened without an influx of migrants to the UK. Einstein developed the theory of realivity using his brain and a blackboard, he did not need to be exposed to new external influences, his existing culture provided all the tools required.
Culture has show itself perfectly capable of improvement “from within” and the argument that muticulturalism will cause a defacto improvement in the existing culture (however you define it) is not based on any credible evidence, it is also not without economic and social cost. That is why people baulk at being told they must celebrate/embrace it.

By: Robert

Robert — Thu, 03 May 2007 10:16:30 +0000

Indeed. I’ve touched upon some of the sticking points in a follow-up post. I would start by saying that cultures are not entities in themselves, but means - frameworks, perhaps - by which people can live and flourish. They are valuable because of what they can do for an individual. If the culture is causing harm for individuals it is not doing its job and should not be revered or respected.

The issue over who gets to define the culture is also a flashpoint. I think the advantage of the Pickled Politics/NGN approach is that the critiques come from within a group. It is noticeable that in the ridiculous, extreme examples such as those cited by Johann Hari, the arbiters of what constitutes the ‘authentic’ culture are actually not part of the group they are pronouncing upon.

By: Sunny

Sunny — Wed, 02 May 2007 22:43:15 +0000

Individual cases aside Robert, this is indeed a problem partly with multiculturalism. In fact I’m writing an article on it for CIF (surprise surprise!).

You may want to read this to get an idea on where I’m coming from:
http://www.catalystmagazine.org/Default.aspx.LocID-0hgnew0rt.RefLocID-0hg01b001006009.Lang-EN.htm

By: Armin

Armin — Wed, 02 May 2007 06:55:03 +0000

I don’t have all the details to hand, but as far as I know the first case Hari cites and on which he mainly bases his column is not painting the full picture. He omits quite a few details and what has happened since.

First of all the judge only denied an early/speedy divorce (there’s a rule you have to wait a certain number of months or something like that). The husband was actually given some kind of restraining order, keeping him away from his wife. It’s not as if she was still being beaten up because of the judge telling her she has to stay with him.

Then there has been a huge public outcry and discussion about the decision. The judge was taken off the case and has publicly apologised. I’m not sure about the latest status, but I believe the decision has since been reversed and she has been granted an early divorce.

So while this was a bad decision it is a quite bad example to use as a general trend and example. And another example of bad fact checking by the mainstream media. But I’m getting to used to seeing this as someone seeing both sides and trying to clear things up again and again (I’m German but live in England, I frequently find myself correcting nonsense the British press writes about Germany and vice versa).