Ruminations on "Multiculturalism" in Germany & Australia
I have just read this post concerning "Multiculturalism" by Jason Stanley on Leiter Reports.
While some Australian readers might think that the events of Peter Schneider's report are rarely paralleled here, I suspect that there are many who would beg to differ. I think many Australians would particularly relate to the "befuddlement about what it meant to live in a genuinely multicultural society", that the author encounters.
When the ideals of tolerance, assimilation and pluralism interact (and not always in a friendly manner) it seems appropriate to ask how democracies (liberal or otherwise) can, and more importantly should cope with this.
Should we do as Naturalism.org suggests? The author of this article recommends that we act as "this-world empiricists when arguing for policy, citing facts potentially available to all parties to the dispute, and using shared canons of logic and evidence." whilst at the same time trying as much as possible to accomodate all views, even if they threaten pluralism and tolerance, "so long as they limit themselves to trying to persuade us." (And of course taking 'coercive' action against those who cross this line.)
Some might argue that this view is itself giving an unreasonably elevated status to a certain worldview and set of ethical norms, and is therefore itself ideologically tainted.
To these detractors I would put forth this challenge: Show me a situation where no worldview, and its associated ethical practices & theory are elevated above others in this way.
I doubt that this condition can be met
It seems then if we are to admit that it is at least possible that we are wrong, and that this goes for most people about most things then the only reasonable course of action is to work towards a situation where the maximum diversity of beliefs can be maintained peacfully, and then defend it. (How we defend it should, as with so many things in an open society, be open to debate. )
This solution would be hard for some groups to accept. In Australia, it would require that Christian groups finally accept that they are just one of a range of views, rather than Christianity being 'The Religion of Australia'. Other groups who might, (for whatever reasons, valid or not), desire the destruction, or radical overhall of current society by extra-legal means, would have to accept that 'liberal-pluralist-democracy' is that which allows them to exist, rather than the thing that holds them back, and to therefore be mindful of what they advocate.
Or is there another solution?
While some Australian readers might think that the events of Peter Schneider's report are rarely paralleled here, I suspect that there are many who would beg to differ. I think many Australians would particularly relate to the "befuddlement about what it meant to live in a genuinely multicultural society", that the author encounters.
When the ideals of tolerance, assimilation and pluralism interact (and not always in a friendly manner) it seems appropriate to ask how democracies (liberal or otherwise) can, and more importantly should cope with this.
Should we do as Naturalism.org suggests? The author of this article recommends that we act as "this-world empiricists when arguing for policy, citing facts potentially available to all parties to the dispute, and using shared canons of logic and evidence." whilst at the same time trying as much as possible to accomodate all views, even if they threaten pluralism and tolerance, "so long as they limit themselves to trying to persuade us." (And of course taking 'coercive' action against those who cross this line.)
Some might argue that this view is itself giving an unreasonably elevated status to a certain worldview and set of ethical norms, and is therefore itself ideologically tainted.
To these detractors I would put forth this challenge: Show me a situation where no worldview, and its associated ethical practices & theory are elevated above others in this way.
I doubt that this condition can be met
It seems then if we are to admit that it is at least possible that we are wrong, and that this goes for most people about most things then the only reasonable course of action is to work towards a situation where the maximum diversity of beliefs can be maintained peacfully, and then defend it. (How we defend it should, as with so many things in an open society, be open to debate. )
This solution would be hard for some groups to accept. In Australia, it would require that Christian groups finally accept that they are just one of a range of views, rather than Christianity being 'The Religion of Australia'. Other groups who might, (for whatever reasons, valid or not), desire the destruction, or radical overhall of current society by extra-legal means, would have to accept that 'liberal-pluralist-democracy' is that which allows them to exist, rather than the thing that holds them back, and to therefore be mindful of what they advocate.
Or is there another solution?
posted by Samuel Douglas at 9:20 am
4 Comments:
Quick clarification – the solution you are proposing is a thoroughly open liberal democracy where no minority is excluded from the public-political discourse, possibly with the clause that any minority that crosses the ‘acceptable persuasion line’ can be ‘excluded’?
More or less. Though I would be unwilling to commensurate the 'acceptble persuasion line' with straight legality. For example, I would accept non-violent protests and the like (which may be technically illegal), but not actions that are viloent infringments on the rights of citizens to go about their lives (such as being blown up by car bombs). I wouln't want an illegal nuisance to be put in the same category as a profoundly violent event.
Where exactly the 'line' would be is something that needs to very careful consideration, but overall you are interpreting me correctly.
The hard part of this idea for some groups will have to accept that no matter how strong their conviction that they are in fact right, they are not allowed to 'do what ever it takes', or even advocate such action, in order to reach their goals. from my perspective this has alot to do with the possibility that any given opinion could be wrong, and hence we need to do our best to not hold one up over the others, or allow one to supress others. But the only way to do this is to supress a few inherently destructive opinions. The down side to all of this is that they might be the right choice. On the balance of probabilities, I'd say that the chances are against it. I am quite willing to risk being wrong in this case.
Did I actually answer your question?
Yes, thanks, you did answer the question.
What has come to mind, thinking about your comments, is the conflict between the normative schema of something like open liberal democracy and (for want of a better term, and a better example) ‘Islamofascism’. An open liberal democracy has a schema of norms that it needs supported for it to function, but these are different in various ways to the norms of, say, Islamofascism. Where the two are forced to co-exist there is going to be conflict (which may or may not involve car bombs). Without due consideration, it seems as though an open liberal democracy can only function when its core norms are – am struggling to find the term – ‘privileged’ over all other normative schemas in the society to the point where all other schemas are subject and concede to open liberal democracy …
I get the feeling that this is the problem you are contemplating, seen from a slightly different angle … Has it been any assistance?
Is it time to make the claim that multiculturalism, like the Enlightenment, has failed as a project, and that a new project needs to be developed?
Post a Comment
<< Home