http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=455
Although, as an American, I tend to be most frustrated by the right-wing lunatics who seem to be abundant here (backed so enthusiastically by Fox News), I certainly recognize that there are lunatics on the far-left, too. And in any discussion of multiculturalism, it really makes a huge difference where you are. Europe's "multiculturalism" isn't America's. Nevertheless, aren't there general principles that should apply everywhere? Leach does a great job of examining just that question.
But every once in a while it is incumbent upon honest people to go back to the drawing board and remind themselves what ideologies represent and what words really mean. Nowhere is this more necessary than in the debates surrounding group rights and multiculturalism.
This is really refreshing. What does "multiculturalism" really mean? And how can I be so disgusted with the opponents of multiculturalism in America, while being equally disgusted by its proponents in Europe?
I think it all boils down to tolerance, and an active respect for diversity, vs the idea that groups, instead of or in addition to individuals, can have rights. Individuals have rights, not groups, not cultures, not religions. And cultures are not inherently equal, either. You can respect other cultures, and acknowledge the value of diversity, but that doesn't mean that you can't criticize them. Individual rights are paramount, but that doesn't include the freedom from getting your feelings hurt.
Basically, this is a liberal position, despite the efforts of the right-wing to stake their own claim to it. Well, if we let extremists on the left have their way, the right will have it given to them on a platter.
It is my goal to defend liberal political theory from these particular enemies: namely, those who subscribe to multiculturalist or group rights theories. Admittedly, liberalism has many enemies, most of whom, including the most belligerent culturalists, are on the right. But the conflict of these thinkers with liberalism is obvious enough. My goal is to argue against those who consider themselves liberals or leftists but who nevertheless embrace culturalist assumptions. Hypocrisy is, we would all admit, more irritating than honest cruelty.
First of all, let it be said that I do not mean to attack a certain variety of multiculturalism and pluralism which has always been a part of liberalism. Liberalism itself was born out of cultural conflicts: namely, conflicts between rival religious sects. If people were all similar or held the same beliefs, liberalism would not be necessary. But because people have different cultures, practices, and worldviews, the only thing a fair society can do is allow each individual as much freedom to pursue any one of them as is consistent with the freedom of everyone else.
Note that he is not attacking "a certain variety of multiculturalism and pluralism." This is the kind of multiculturalism we tend to have in America, the kind the lunatic right, the racist right, generally opposes. In America, our respect for Freedom of Speech is far too high to accept, in any but a tiny minority of us, anything else. But the term "multiculturalism" can be confusing, because it seems to be a very different situation in Europe.
I'm really struggling here to say what I mean, but Leach does a great job of making the issues clear. I recommend that you read his entire article, but here are a few excerpts that will give you the basic idea:
Are there really any such things as “group rights?” I think not, at least within a liberal conception. Rights belong to individuals for the obvious reason that an individual is made up of a single mind in a single body. This mind is either free to think what it wants or it is not. A group cannot be either free or unfree in quite the same way, because whatever condition it may be in as a whole, there may still be unfree individuals within it.
...
Individual rights are not Western prejudices; nor can they be thought of as simply one more culture among many. They are a way of transcending culture, including Western culture. Historically, Western traditions have been just as opposed to human rights as any others, and liberal humanitarians still struggle to see rights and equal treatment realized in Western societies. People all over the world are capable of responding to demands for human rights, because such demands appeal to primal moral concerns we all share: concerns about weakness, vulnerability, and unrestrained cruelty.
...
Only liberalism and human rights allow one to freely practice one’s culture and tradition (as well as to abandon those cultures and traditions with which one no longer wants to be associated). The only limit on liberal freedom is that one respect the freedom of others. This is really a very small claim to make; and yet it is amazing how much cruelty and suffering it helps us avoid.
In America, "multiculturalism" has become a buzz-word of the far-right. And since they're against it, it's very tempting for us rational people to support it. But I think that's a mistake. I think we should abandon the word entirely, since it seems to mean different things to different people. Let's not talk in buzz-words, let's just say what we mean.
All cultures are not equal, but we can tolerate people who are different from us. Groups do not have rights, and if they did, it wouldn't include the right to be safe from criticism. But we can still try to get along, despite our differences. And no, that does not mean that you can't express your own opinions.
Diversity is a good thing, but if I think that you're wrong, I can still tell you that. Free Speech is a very good thing, too. Integration does not mean that we can't have our differences, but there's nothing inherently valuable in a different culture, either. Cultures change as they interact together, and the extinction of a culture is not necessarily bad, and certainly not tragic. It is individuals who matter, and it's each individual's rights that are important.
Can't we use those fundamental principles to decide on specific issues on a case by case basis? We might not always agree - in fact, we almost certainly won't - but it won't be a disaster if difficult decisions, those that could go either way, are decided in one way or another. And a certain amount of goodwill can smooth over the difficulties. We are all trying to do the best we can.
No comments:
Post a Comment