I rarely post much political commentary here, because it would add little value as I have nothing distinctive to say in that domain. At Secular Right I am wont to do data analysis because I think data is something that needs to be injected into political discussions and commentary. But in any case, today I put up an essay, Religious diversity & its discontents. In it I make clear my distaste for multiculturalism, so if you are a reader who would find such opinions to your distaste, I invite you not to click! My own opinion is that multiculturalism as it is presented is not a noble lie, but a silly one.
- Log in to post comments
What's slly, sly or silly? Mind you, I haven't read the article yet.
A very sane argument.
I am deeply frustrated by the moral high ground taken by multiculturalists. It demonises rational debate and is entirely unhelpful.
I am deeply opposed to the ongoing process of multiculturalisation of the west, but I fear there is little that can be done to halt the process now.
Good article. The one thing surprising by its absence is any discussion of civic religion, i.e., the instillation of a particularly American set of notions about how the body politic is supposed to work: democratic representation, trial by jury, 1st amendment liberties, etc. This is sort of the common ground that was reached in the high protestant victory in that previous culture war, stripped of any religious content. Multiple religions are compatible with American society so long as they do not conflict too much with this civic religion. I think you're correct to point out that not all strains of religion do so.
BTW, that makes you conservative, but not "right," in the modern political landscape. The right is busy pushing a form of protestantism that wants to undo the American civic religion. Which is why they hate public schools with a passion.
This seems purposefully (but well) argued to suggest the "left" does not believe that "core cultural values" are important for nation-states. That's ridiculous, if it's what you meant. If you mean nation-states require a shared supernatural metaphysics or cosmogony, I find that just kinda weird and backward.
I'm not sure what different people mean when they use the term multiculturalism. I agree that immigrant communities can present a particular sort of challenge in balancing individual freedom with the common good, and I often find groups that define themselves by self-imposed exclusion from mainstream civic life troubling--foreign born or domestic. But freedom of (and from) religion is a "core cultural value" of this country, so we are obliged to be respectful and accommodating when possible. I don't think the cartoonish incident you describe with the restaurant is an interesting example, though...clearly it's the kind of behavior that demonstrates a desire for attention or pity, not respect. STFU, indeed.
And as mentioned above, some of the strongest attempts to undermine the "core cultural values" of the United States are coming from the religious faction of the right.
How far-reaching do you want a hypothetical country's shared value system to go, though?
Anti-multiculturalism does rather undermine debate.
And this putative 'Americanism/Indonesianism/Malaysianism' - this 'America as we know it would cease to be' - really obscures the fact that such a definition of countriness is subjective and utterly arbitrary. Countries are simply a collection of people. The concept of national identity is inherently pointless and in fact rather harmful, in my opinion.
This is why I think rightism is absurd: because it seems to be so uncomfortable with letting others simply go about their lives in whatever way they themselves wish.
I'm an atheist and a rational sort too. I think religion is inherently idiotic. At the same time, I would rather people came to the right answer through their own thought and rationality (if they possess them) and being exposed to the information rather than being forced to any extent into anything, which is the sort of attitude I got from your essay - institutionalized something-or-other and willful division of societies into groups.
People also need to learn to deal with others in different groups.
katharine's comment above is what i'm talking about. i'm not talking about eating stinky food, i'm talking about running your daughter over.
the whole thing about rationality is part of the problem. rationality is grounded on premises, and premises are what differ.
How far-reaching do you want a hypothetical country's shared value system to go, though?
this is something worked out through consensus. the reason multiculturalism is silly is because no one is multiculturalist, everyone has cultural presuppositions. the extent and variety of variance one is willing to accept simply varies from person to person.
This seems purposefully (but well) argued to suggest the "left" does not believe that "core cultural values" are important for nation-states. That's ridiculous, if it's what you meant. If you mean nation-states require a shared supernatural metaphysics or cosmogony, I find that just kinda weird and backward.
i don't believe in metaphysics. in any case, yes, i think a set of libertarians and leftists do reject the nation-state as anything but an arbitrary administrative unit. not all, but enough that i've tired of having the argument. on the non-libertarian right the argument doesn't occur (though like "rationalists" they often think there's a specific "right" way to arrange things which i don't).
But freedom of (and from) religion is a "core cultural value" of this country, so we are obliged to be respectful and accommodating when possible.
the "when possible" is mileage is that varies. how do you define a "burden"? people are allowed to believe whatever they want, the problem with many religions & cultures is that they make demands on practice & action. compromise is something that emerges through debate. for example, there are many religions that have dietary restrictions. public schools can accommodate these restrictions, but there's a limit in how many restrictions you can accommodate or track, so you just pick the most "numerous" religions. so how "free" you are to practice your religion has always been partly contingent on your numbers and activism. not all religions are treated equally. catholics used wine during prohibition, native americans can use peyote, and christian scientists can abuse their children. this all occurred through legislation.
as an example, sky-clad jainism is not going to be feasible as a public religion in most of the world. it is an old and venerable tradition with its own internal logic, but most people object to full frontal nudity.
And as mentioned above, some of the strongest attempts to undermine the "core cultural values" of the United States are coming from the religious faction of the right.
i agree. that's why multiculturalism is silly, it isn't real. everyone knows there's a culture war, and everyone knows that living in a region where there are cultural conflicts between evangelicals and the rest of society can be a pain in the ass.
(in the future of religion stark & bainbridge show that conservative protestants differed behaviorally from everyone else, from mainline protestants, catholics to non-religious, in their core cultural activities)
Thanks razib, for an opinion not too often see in the America-sphere. It's kind of like in universities that pride themselves of "diversity" in a racial sense but in the end, they're all Harvard students. Put together a Japanese fisherman, a Protestant politician, a Cuban national and see how that works out.
BTW, that makes you conservative, but not "right," in the modern political landscape. The right is busy pushing a form of protestantism that wants to undo the American civic religion. Which is why they hate public schools with a passion.
Not sure what you mean by this. I'm an atheist who has lots of social contacts with Assemblies of God-type Protestants, and I see no evidence that any of them wants to push anything. Gay marriage? It's one of the silliest things imaginable because
A) When given the option very few gays actually exercise it
B) Monogamous marriage developed to reconcile differing male and female sexual patterns. In other words, it was a social technology with a very specific function that related to combining the divergent interests of men and women.
Would I vote for gay marriage? Eh, sure why not. Is it silly? Yes.
Silly, silly, silly, little people.
Abortion? Well, I have no desire for the state to make significant efforts to prosecute people engaged in that action, but it was mostly prohibited for most of US history. It's not like proscribing against abortion is some new-fangled idea that just came along.
Look, the socializing concept of the American civic religion is long dead, which was mostly the the project of the Left. It's dead. Now everyone is just fighting for supremacy, although lots of people don't yet realize it.
I find it difficult to understand what public schools have to do with fostering a civic American religion, given that the main theme in public schools today is that America is a horrid, nasty, vicious place.
You're just a weirdo.
Interesting article.
I agree some interpretations of multiculturalism (when beyond simply polite toleration) run into serious problems especially when there is a special respect given to religion.
But I think it is a mistake to think that the Protestant ethic is the core of the US cultural framework. Far more, I believe is outside any religious source: the Constitution (with its evolving interpretations), the history of the US independence, the defining structural changes with the Civil War and Lincoln's policies, the civil rights era. These are the US 'mythology' as you will, the shared culture, the national identity.
Enjoyed reading this and agree with much of it, but whenever one tries to make our complex political landscape conform to the single dimension of right versus left, or conservative (fiscal or social or both?) versus liberal...or is it progressive again?...there's bound to be distortion, much of which will be taken seriously by those whose perspectives have been distorted for the sake of the arguement. Added to that is the general confusion which equates ideologies with political parties. One is to promote ideas and the other is to win elections. As long as we confuse the two, as is certainly going on now in the media dominated public forum, the only winners are the corporations making money by selling the tickets (or in this case "advertising", both commercial and political). There are better ways to map out the political landscape which gives a truer picture of where one stands in relationship to another's view besides simply right or left. Maybe examining multiculturalism using one of those two dimensional systems that graphically portray a person's perspectives using both an X and a Y coordinate would help.
Asher writes:
When independence was declared, abortion was almost completely unregulated. The states started banning it in the mid-19th century. So it was mostly prohibited for about half of US history.
In one sense America is an ongoing culture war. What is valuable in all this is that it is a process of inquiry in which many good ideas "win" and then are taken in by most of the culture as a whole. So I'd disagree with the "work ethic" not being Protestant. Most of what survived in general American culture was severely de-Calvinized. But there is that strong Calvinist sense throughout a lot of America. Held even by people who find Calvinism absolutely horrific and repulsive.
Now these ideas winning doesn't mean they are right in some "truth" sense. But the idea that anyone can be successful and that you are a kind of chosen person if you are successful does breed a kind of entrepreneurship which is helpful. Regardless of the ethical value of the idea let alone its absolute truth value.
I definitely agree though that the Evangelical Right holds to a lot of ideas that simply aren't found in traditional American culture. But it's a battle of ideas that started at least in the early 60's. Many of those ideas were rejected but the rejection went too far the other way and so the religious right made a comeback. But I think it safe to say, by all indications, that sexual mores have permanently been changed and aren't changing back to the pre-1960's period. However the excesses of the 70's and 80's (along with AIDS and Herpes) have also meant that many of the push from the 60's have been rejected.
So contrary to some who decry the culture wars, I see them as inherently valuable and a necessary part of the growth of cultures. What's so valuable in America is that we are able to do this so well. I just don't see that level of social conflict handled so amicably (all things considered) in many other countries. Either inquiry and conflict is simply cut off or things get nastier than they have any right to be.
clark, i would agree with much of what you say.
I just don't see that level of social conflict handled so amicably (all things considered) in many other countries.
if one may use an analogy from evolution, american cultural change is rather gradualist, while other nations have had a more "punctuated" history. much of europe was religiously "sorted" between 1500-1700. the uniform lutheranism of scandinavia, the catholicism of italy and spain, were obtain in large part by near total exclusion of other religious traditions until the 20th century by law and/or custom.
What you describe as "Protestantized" is the process of becoming moderate, tolerant and progressive. It just so happened the the main-line Protestant denominations were among the first to go through this process.
yes. i don't think there's anything necessary or sufficient to these groups. right time, right place.
The existence of socioeconomic factors that cause conflict will always divide us, no matter how much you strive for cultural homogeny. If economic opportunities were uniform and there was no particular trend in competition, the population would homogenize itself. Converting everyone to Protestantism would only serve to diversify Protestantism even more than it already is.
Well, to be fair, there have been "excesses" in the American culturewars as well. I think the violence in the 60's was pretty minor relative to Europe at the same time, mind you. But the Civil War was nothing to sneeze at. And before that was the Utah War which obviously has a history close to my heritage. And one could see the issue of African American treatment being quite violent up through the 60's. So it's not all rosy down south of the 49 parallel.
notice that two of the issues are tied to disturbances south of the 39th parallel.
Thinking about the Civil War makes it very tricky to disentangle what are cultural values and what are economic or political circumstances. (Parallels to genes/environment? As in your punqeq/gradualist dichotomy, Razib, sometimes it seems like everything is evolutionary genetics in disguise.) In the context of civil war, certainly values and ideology played a role, but these seem like they were used for emotional emphasis in a conflict that stemmed from economic and political discord between people with a shared culture.
I disagree that there is a significant "left" in the U.S. that sees the government as an "arbitrary administrative unit." Perhaps they are over-represented in the blogosphere, along with all paranoids. The neoconservative attack on the concept of governance is the closest thing to this kind of political nihilism we've seen in recent decades--and I don't think they represent anything like mainstream conservative values. The connotation seems to be the common one that the "left" is somehow less patriotic. The left and right differ over which civic values they are passionate about, but I think for those who are honestly engaged in politics the passion is equally felt.
but these seem like they were used for emotional emphasis in a conflict that stemmed from economic and political discord between people with a shared culture.
i disagree that the culture was really shared. see albion's seed. by 1860 the partisans of slave power and semi-industrialized north had diverged much further than they were on a host of questions and values from 1800. it took air-conditioning and desegregation to bring them closer together....
" I just don't see that level of social conflict handled so amicably (all things considered) in many other countries. Either inquiry and conflict is simply cut off or things get nastier than they have any right to be."
Thats not my external view of the thing. America seems nastier than say France. If, say France never had universal health care and was about to introduce it now. The debate would be conducted on serious media, including serious television, replete with statistics and dull economists and professors, as well as politicians. The right wing opposition would use the cost to derail the proposals, the left would plead morality.
There, would, however be no mention of death panels.
The American culture wars seem like a cold war to me, and the US seems to have been in cultural cold war from its beginning - originally the slave issue. Do these things end up in hot wars or seccesion? I would not rule it out. The American far left is nuts too, of course. Its genuflection at the altar of multicult is not practiced in Europe ( although the UK and Ireland are influenced by it).
The US is not as old as the house I rent at the moment. It really is not that stable. In economic decline will the centrifugal forces tear it apart? In 200 years, in a thousand?
Surely.
Interesting that quite a few people seem to focus on the common Protestantism part of US society being the work ethic part of it. It seems to me that razib was talking more about the Protestant notion of religion being a matter of personal belief and exploration (within some norms) as opposed to having many communal rituals. And it just so happens that that particular form of religion tends to lead to alot less problems with other religions of the same type, even if the details of them are quite different.
In any case, it is certainly true that a society needs some "core values" that people agree on, and I don't think there's all that many smart lefties who disagree (although I'll grant that it's something we don't like to acknowledge much). But I think that one of these "core values" for the US is actually the very notion of freedom of religion and multiculturalism (relative to other societies at least, if not as an ideal). It's one of the things we can feel all superior about - and even with some justification.
Lastly I think the article focuses a bit too much on only one side of the issue. It's true that a society can get into alot of trouble by having too many minorities with views that are too divergent and incompatible. However, there is a price to be paid for being a society that becomes too homogeneous and does not allow enough diversity. In reality this is a balancing act - from the multiculturalist ideal extreme where the lesbian Anglican bishop is supposed to coexist with the father who beheads his daughter for kissing a boy, to the other extreme where any slight deviations from social norms are heavily punished (i.e. totalitarianism or whatever you want to call it). Neither option makes any sense, and where in the middle you draw the line is a complicated issue.
I agree that a lot of academic multiculturalism is just plain silly. But could it be less of a threat than you imagine? Maybe you are overvaluing some arguments that are really peripheral to the culture war they are supposedly part of (maybe these arguments reflect deeper trends but not necessarily the way their protagonists think)? the real mechanics being far too messy and convoluted to be accurately mapped by the debate taking place in the academic world? I guess I am trying to say that more potent processes (like everyday economic activity and local politics) determine the outcome more than the broad argument about multiculturalism? That all this sound and fury plays a very small role in the evolution of society? Just a thought..
"If, say France never had universal health care and was about to introduce it now. The debate would be conducted on serious media, including serious television, replete with statistics and dull economists and professors, as well as politicians."
I'm sorry, but you are clearly a complete idiot who has never spent any time in Europe. The grass is always greener, yes?
"The reason multiculturalism is silly is because no one is multiculturalist, everyone has cultural presuppositions."
Even adherence to multiculturalism is just an aspect of white, upper-middle class dominated English and American culture. It's certainly not a part of, say, Japanese or Italian culture. So logically, the true multiculturalist would end up undermining his own creed by accepting that cultures that do not value multiculturalism are in no way inferior to his own.
"I'm sorry, but you are clearly a complete idiot who has never spent any time in Europe. The grass is always greener, yes?"
Razib probably left that ad hominem in so I could point out that I am, in fact, European. ( right Razib?)
( A hint may have been in the part where I said my house was older than the US. There is housing stock in the US older than the State, but its pretty rare. Also. my name.).
Anyway, to re-iterate my point. The debate on healthcare would be handled more intelligently across Europe. Not just France. The culture wars are nowhere near as strong.