Are multicultural politics progressive?
In order to grasp the complexity of multiculturalism and its politics, this essay will be divided into two main sections. The first gives definition to what multiculturalism is. This will help to explore whether or not multicultural politics are progressive. Using the work of Stuart Hall (2000) ‘The multicultural question’ from ‘un/settled multiculturalisms: diasporas, entanglements’ I will question the integrity of the public understanding of multiculturalism.
The second section of the essay will refer to the work of Lalaie Ameeriar (2017) ‘Downwardly Global: Women, Work, and Citizenship in the Pakistani Diaspora’. The focus of her ethnography examines the transnational labor chain of migration on Pakistani women to Toronto. This analysis uncovers how the intersection of sex, gender, and race as well as the cultural differences within multiculturalism is a scapegoat, or better-said, a veil for the failing of multicultural politics with neoliberal policies.
During the discussions in both sections, I argue that multiculturalism and the politics it governs acts as a veil. A veil that ignores the economic disparities and social inequalities that are found in multicultural societies (as that in Canada and Britain that both Hall (2000) and Ameeriar (2017) discuss in their work) and stifles it from becoming a public discourse. This veil hides the non-progressiveness of multiculturalism and leads to the surface as an illusion that it is progressive. As briefly elaborated by Hall (2000), the discourse on race is under erasure, especially in political discourse and theory; ‘Race in a new configuration with ethnicity. This epistemic shift is one of the multicultural’s most transruptive effects’ (S. Hall 2000: 222). Here Hall suggests that in the discussion of ‘race’ and ‘ethnicity’ the two terms and their meanings become entangled, this leads to their definitions becoming confused and difficult to decipher. I will go on to discuss how multiculturalism is a cause of this confusion.
Definitions of Multiculturalism and questioning their progressiveness
The concept of multiculturalism is one that is in need of a refined definition. The use of the term covers aspects of social policies and ideologies. The complexity and breadth in its meaning ‘causes the notion of multiculturalism to be supported or criticized depending on its usage’ (M. M Raihanah 2009: 63). In the context of this essay, I will be using the term to criticize its position of ‘progressiveness’ in relation to multicultural politics.
The theories in contemporary anthropology on multicultural politics stem from ideas about culture being in a state of continual flux together with being creative, ‘internally contested as well as heterogeneous’ (Barnard, A & Spencer, J 2010: 483). Differing cultures are constantly influenced by one another, resulting in a hybridization. This unavoidable hybrid can be understood by analyzing the term multiculturalism. Hall (2000) posits that ‘multicultural’ ought to be an adjective describing the ‘social characteristics and problems of governance posed by any society in which different cultural communities live together’ (S. Hall 2000: 209). The key element of the definition is that cultural communities allow each other to maintain their ‘original’ identities, as opposed to multiculturalism which is substantive. Multiculturalism represents the philosophy and doctrine which sustains multicultural politics and strategies. These multicultural politics are applied in all manner of societies. Britain, Sri Lanka, Nigeria, and the USA are some of many that qualify in being multicultural societies and culturally heterogeneous.
By the same token, there are as many different ‘multiculturalisms’. Three of these definitions are stated by Hall (2000). He explains that conservative multiculturalism is an assertive assimilation of cultural differences into the dominant customs and traditions. This would suggest a non-progressiveness as it contradicts the nature of multiculturalism, which priorly stated is heterogeneous in nature, whereas this definition groups culture into a state of homogeneity. Liberal multiculturalism similarly to conservative multiculturalism is the integration of cultural differences between groups by merging them into the ‘mainstream provided by a universal individual citizenship’(S. Halls 2000: 210). However, unlike the conservative multiculturalism, it tolerates ‘only in private certain particularistic cultural practice’ (S. Halls 2000: 210). This could suggest a more progressive take on multiculturalism as it is ‘tolerant’ and ‘accepting’, but nonetheless still homogenizing cultural difference suggesting non-progressiveness. Pluralist multiculturalism enfranchises cultural differences amongst cultural groups, granting group-rights to some or many within a communitarian political order. This could be considered as empowering to certain cultures by celebrating some aspects of that particular culture, however, in doing so this also highlights a divide in cultures by looking at their differences, which is non-progressive.
These definitions proposed by Hall (2000) all follow a common theme where the difference is prevalent for multiculturalism to operate. Each definition demonstrating ‘forms of accommodation in which differences are not eliminated or washed away but to some extent recognized’ (T. Modood 2010: 159). The quality of ‘difference’ is managed through mobilizing, demobilizing and the exclusion of marginalized groups. This suggests that the politics of multiculturalism are non-progressive as the emphasis on the differences between cultures in a multicultural society creates a larger divide oppositely to the supposed aim.
Multicultural Politics: A Rhetoric For Exclusion
The common consensus about multiculturalism and the policies in practice orbits the idea of recognition for the various cultures in an area. Baumann (1999) puts it as ‘a hegemony of ten is better than a hegemony of one, the first thing about recognizing any culture is to recognize culture for what it is’ (G. Baumann 1999: 117). So for multiculturalism to be progressive, culture and cultures in a society should not be presumed as normalized fixed identities, but rather there should be a dialogical arrangement about cultural difference in a society. This is what multicultural politics struggle to do in practice and a veil is formed to disguise these issues. Therefore this potential progressiveness cannot be carried through.
The contradiction that is found from the focus of multiculturalism lies in its practice, as it concerns itself over matters such as clothing, cultural festivals, food, music and celebrates cultural differences. Consequently, it ignores the issues and difficulties of economic integration and facilitates otherness. This practice of multiculturalism is non progressive as it removes the recognition of social inequalities that can be found in multicultural societies, but most importantly conceals the established inequalities in worldwide capitalism.
Lalaie Ameeriar (2017) delves into the issues priorly mentioned illustrating the juxtaposed nature of multiculturalism using her focus on the celebration of cultural festivals. Every year during May in Canada, South Asian Heritage Month occurs with events ranging from exhibitions, dance performances, clothing and food stalls which span the city landscape. Here Ameeriar (2017) helps remove the veil, giving insight into how acts of celebrating difference reinforce ideas of Otherness.
Cultural festivals celebrating differences are used ‘to distinguish between appropriate and inappropriate moments to display Otherness.’ (L Ameeriar 2017: 96). When relating this to the idea of being recognized as “South Asian”, particular differences are accepted (for instances the music and food) as a sign of being legitimately South Asian. There is a demand for a recognizable difference, in the context of Ameeriars ethnography, and the Pakistani women she examines, the demand ‘renders them invisible as Pakistani and hyper-visible as South Asian’ (L Ameeriar 2017: 102). The politics of recognition that play out in multiculturalism still encompasses characteristics of homogeneity even though its nature is heterogeneous.
In correspondence, the public discourse enfolds multiculturalism recognizes the inclusion and creation of body politics that perceives itself as being tolerant and accepting to all cultures and their cultural difference. Yet in reality, these bodies are in a process of being racialized, sexualized and gendered and eventually excluded due to cultural differences, which encompasses another reason why multiculturalism is non-progressive.
Conclusion
The practice of multiculturalism acts as a method of further creating divides between cultures, ‘producing bodies as irrevocably Other through sensorial regimes’ (L Ameeriar 2017: 63), these regimes being prevalent in cultural festivals as those examed by Ameeriar in Canada during the South Asian Heritage Month. The issue of multiculturalism does not stem from the unassimilated minority but rather the multicultural politics of homogenizing the society despite the fact that society in our contemporary age is heterogeneous in nature. In addition to the local, regional and national acknowledgment, multiculturalism has developed into a global phenomenon against the pressures of national assimilation policies. Truly demonstrating the struggle for autonomy and a demand to share governance.
The themes discussed emphasized the points brought up about the deliberate overlooking of issues that underly the majority of the social inequalities and economic disparities found in a multicultural environment. The perceived notion of multiculturalism is understood to be a set of politics for ‘equality’. Yet, with the politics of recognition that multiculturalism produces, it is better understood as a competition for citizenship rather than equality due to what Hall calls ‘differentiated racialization’ (S. Hall 2000: 221). To summarise, multiculturalism overlooks these issues, therefore rendering multicultural politics as not being progressive.
Bibliography :
A. Barnard & J. Spencer (2010) The Routledge Encyclopaedia of Social and Cultural Anthropology, 2nd edn., London & New York: Routledge.
B. Hesse (2000) Un/settled Multiculturalisms: Diasporas, Entanglements, "transruptions", London & New York: Zed Books.
G. Baumann (1999) The Multicultural Riddle: Rethinking National, Ethnic, and Religious Identities, New York: Routledge.
L. Ameeriar (2017) Downwardly Global: Women, Work, and Citizenship in the Pakistani Diaspora, Durham & London: Duke University Press.
M.M Raihanah (2009) 'Multiculturalism and the Politics of Expression: An Appraisal ', European Journal of Social Sciences, 7(3), pp. 63-70 [Online]. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260908441_Multiculturalism_and_the_Politics_of_Expression_An_Appraisal(Accessed: 24th February 2019).
S. Hall (2000) 'The Multi-cultural Question', in B. Hesse (ed.) Un/settled Multiculturalisms: Diasporas, Entanglements, "transruptions". London & New York: Zed Books, pp. 209-236.
T. Modood (2010) ‘Multicultural Citizenship and Muslim Identity Politics’, Interventions: International Journal of Postcolonial Studies, 12(2), pp. 157-170 [Online]. Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1369801X.2010.489688 (Accessed: 21st February 2019).