MULTICULTURALISM: AN UTTER FAILURE October 19, 2010
Posted by wmmbb in Multiculturalism.trackback
Once multiculturalism was a concept that was not code for the integration of Muslim “guest workers” into a Christian culture, as illustrated by the post-war migration to Australia.
Chancellor Merkel has declared multiculturalism has utterly failed, and explicitly that failure was the fault of the immigrant rather than the host community. She alleges that the immigrants are not learning how to speak good German. Worst still, and I don’t think it was mentioned that now significant numbers of highly skilled Turks are now going back to Turkey.
All of which raises the question, what accounts for the relative success of migration in Australia, and for that matter, the United States? There are multiple factors, it seems to me, such as economic conditions, a tradition of tolerance (otherwise liberalism), the urgency of “populate or perish”, but also required a theory of multiculturalism embraced by government. Multiculturalism presumably requires the acceptance of other cultures, even if they spring from different religious templates, have value. Seen in this light, for example, the Germans and the British, share a common cultural heritage that sees hierarchical religious structures and state institutions as separate with implications for jurisprudence. While there are linguistic adjustments: it is not like driving on a different side of the road.
The larger question about multiculturalism is not about Germany or Australia it is about global society and solving planetary problems. In this respect, I think, the settler societies in the South West Pacific, that I just happened to be born into, have an important contribution to illustrate that multiculturalism is possible and practical. Although we would do well to reflect that among other ingredients we are outcome of Imperialism, which has been so detrimental to the development of the Islamic World.
ELSEWHERE:
John Quggin reviews the prospects for “Cosmopolitan Social Democracy” in the face of the ideology of market liberalism and tribalism, illustrated inconsistently by the Tea Party Movement. The odd thing is that the original Tea Party players dressed up as Indigenous Americans.
At Spiegel, Jan Fleischhauer suggest “the integration debate is making us dumber”.
The Germans especially have a long tradition of wanting everyone to walk in lock-step conformity, and adhere to social norms and customs without deviation.
“One nation, one people, one leader” was a popular slogan during the Nazi years, but the concept was typically German.
We all seem to have problems with individual and social differences, or we simply accept something that enriches us in one way or another. In retrospect, overcoming the White Australia Policy was a plus in that the issue of cultural and ethnic diversity had to be confronted, and I suspect (I don’t know) that they have not done that in Germany, bearing in mind the different social histories of East and West. Of course, Chancellor Merkel is no doubt playing to a portion of her base, with the way the electoral system works. I hope that it is not scapegoating, although that is the impression.
Thanks as always for comment Stan.
I don’t want to suggest that I think Merkel is wrong.
The Anthropologist Clyde Kluckhom said, many years ago, that all people are the same, and all people are different, and people are alike in some ways and different in others. As Yugoslavia showed so clearly, getting people of different cultures to live together is a complicated matter. We are now reaping the whirlwind of a shrinking world.
Yugoslavia and the consequences of its breakup is interesting. Going by anecdotal evidence given to me by other people and connecting the dots, it seems to me we can identify “relational” and “transactional” societies.
These are my terms. In relational societies, including tribal societies such as Afghanistan, extended family relationships are important. Thus a person with a position of influence is supposed to favour his relatives. Karzai’s bother gains influence because of his relationship with his brother. Transactional societies, such as Australia, are more individualist and exchanges are more impartial.
The better comparison I suspect is with Britain and Germany in terms of multiculturism. Perhaps superficially as far as I can observe Australia seems to operate well. Problems can arise when people become isolated within their own group, or when groups become subject to scapegoating, as seems to be the case with Muslims, although in the case of Australia the diversity of countries of origin thens to minimize the effect.
Still politicians, under the banner of populism, despite the defining cultural and social characteristics will seek to gain advantage by playing the ethnicity card.
I am simply astonished at the fact that people have learnt English here. They tell it is hard. I am full of respect for what they have accomplished.
PS: On reflection, I remember in various examples where ethnic cleansing and scapegoating have occurred, including the Yugoslavian examples, the media -radio and television – have played a critical role.