Finding unity in diversity
THE melting pot of cultures no longer applies to just America. Countries like the UK and Malaysia have been veteran hosts to ethnic minorities and immigrants. Dubai is a colourful pie chart which entertains more than 150 nationalities and 83 percent of the population is foreign born. Recent entries to the club are Australia and Canada, with 25 and 20 percent of the population born outside the country respectively. As of today, Canada has the highest per capita immigration rate in the world.
The ethnic and demographic make-up of societies is rapidly changing thanks to globalisation and migration, both internal and external. We have been congratulating ourselves over visions of pluralism and multiculturalism for a while now.
But the youth riots in France, attacks on Indian students in Australia, and conflict between Muslim Uighurs and Han Chinese can pose discomforting questions for champions of these values. Can we dismiss these events as pockets of xenophobia or are they undercurrents of a brewing discontent?
Multiculturalism has been at work for over a decade trying to bridge gaps in understanding between people. On the surface, we seem to have largely conquered our fear or ignorance of "the other."
Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and Whites freely interact with one another. Yet it takes but one event of conflict between dominant and minority groups to catapult sensitive issues of race, culture, ethnicity, and religion into the limelight. In those situations, differences between people, real or imagined, suddenly come to be acknowledged with more zeal.
Difference is good, considering we take British-style multiculturalism. Its multicultural policies have celebrated diversity with much success, but not without pitfalls. Under the cloak of "respecting difference," for example, we may have taken cultural relativism too far. Dreadful practices such as cases of female genital mutilation or domestic violence have gone unreported by social workers to avoid being seen as interfering in other cultures and thereby being labeled racist.
This live and let live attitude has also been blamed for disguising the existence of unequal opportunities in society. The lack of proper housing, quality education, and employment are frequently problems faced by minority groups. Their frustrations are often manifested through violence, reflecting the absence of appropriate channels to voice grievances. These events only embolden bitterness towards "foreigners." Multiculturalism can hardly be called a success if tolerance stops when these groups become vocal with their criticisms.
The practice of multiculturalism implies defining difference in order to transcend it, but in reality it has stopped at defining difference. And transcending difference can only be done by promoting unity through shared values and equal opportunities.
It is what French-style integration has attempted to achieve, with the exception that unity has been imposed upon immigrants. Being different in this case is value-less. The space and freedom for self-expression and cultural creativity is invisible. But think, dress, talk, and imitate everything about the dominant culture and it will buy you integration. Unquestionable assimilation is the order of the day.
Creating harmony amongst people is an ambitious project, but these laissez-faire and iron-handed approaches have disappointed in multiple ways. Celebrating diversity and promoting unity need not be mutually exclusive. A mature pluralistic society will know how to handle the visibility of differences among people who give allegiance to multiple identities.
It will also, however, form a common identity that unites people across colour, race and culture when time requires it. This unity must come through shared values of citizenship, which go beyond legal rights and passports, and extend to beliefs in democracy, fairness, equality, diversity, and rule of law.
This is easier said than done. The values and benefits of citizenship should ultimately be attractive enough for people to embrace them by choice, rather than by imposition. It will entail the right to debate and define the values of the nation. And it will entail legal, political, and economic arrangements for the equal participation of all cultures in wealth and social opportunity.
Minority groups have a duty to embrace what is good about the dominant culture. However, they should also exercise the right to be critical of any inconsistencies between values and policies. The hallmark of a pluralistic society is to entertain a diversity of views without doubting the loyalty of its citizens.
Lastly and most importantly, we cannot wish for harmony among people without knowledge about the other. This naturally means a concerted effort to educate ourselves in order to truly appreciate difference. Cultures are not static but are dynamic and ever-changing. To consciously incorporate different ways of being, knowing, and doing is to encourage a cross fertilisation of cultures that will only bring about enlightenment.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments