To what extent can modern nation-states accomodate multicultural societies in the era of globalization?
My question is under what conditions can modern states accomodate multicultural societies?
My answers are as follows:
Under the condition of cultural homogeneity (Gellner)
Under the condition of strong multiculturalis/communitarians (Kymlicka, Taylor)
Under the condition of hands-off aproach (Kukathas)
It is not that multicultural societies did not exist before nation-states came into being, it is that multicultural societies started seeking their rights within the framework of modern nation-states with the advent of globalization. The conflict in my mind with regard to the multicultural societies is the extent that they can exist peacefully within the dominant culture. Perhaps, even the extent that the nation-state enables them not to exist only but to flourish and contribute to their environment.
It seems to me that all literature on multiculturalism focuses on how to manage, govern, and accomodate multicultural societies within the nation-state. I have yet to read an article on the contribution of these societies to the nation-state and perhaps on the extent that this diversity is a richness.
The strain of the democratic change brought about by the forces of globalization is felt in modern nation-states as the culturally diverse people are no longer striving for homogeneity with the dominant culture. And yet, there is another homogeneous culture emerging with the information revolution brought about by globalization.
One of the tasks of the modern state, therefore, is how to maintain social peace among the various cultures, identities, and subcultures which demand their voice to be heard and their rights to be recognized. The question of this work, therefore, is under what conditions can modern states enable their different identities and diverse cultures to flourish?
Most modern states today are, at least to some degree, culturally diverse. Trade, tourism, and the movement of labor – as well as migration – have ensured that few countries do not contain within them significant numbers of people from other cultures. Many societies today are multicultural because they are open to a diversity of peoples who come and go and, sometimes, stay.
I explore the following three answers to this question: Modern states enable different entities to flourish under the condition of imposing homogeneity on minorities. Modern states enable different cultures to flourish under the condition of the establishment of rights and duties for the minorities. Modern states enable a mixture of identities to flourish by holding to the principle of multiple loyalties within a liberal democratic political system – a system based on pluralism.
An impact of globalization is the enhancement of democratic rights in liberal states. This enhancement led, in turn, to the questioning of the conservative and traditional order upon which the modern nation is built. Earlier, one aspect of nation-state building was that one-identity was imposed on its citizens. Thisimposition, however, lost its meaning once the forces of globalization connected people of different identities, cultures, and languages worldwide. The modern state, therefore, is faced with the task of satisfying the needs of its multicultural societies, govern them while maintaining social peace.
When I talk about multicultural societies, I mean everything from ethnic to cultural identities. I am not only referring to differences based on religion and ethnicity, I am also referring to cultures of secularism vs religiosity, patriarchial societies vs open societies, agrarian vs urban cultures. Modern nations may face the challenge of having to manage multicultural societies, which do not share the same values, in order to maintain social peace.
Why is it important to explore the conditions under which a modern state can successfully manage a multicultural society without causing social unrest? I believe that a modern state, which does not provide social peace for its citizens is bound to break up. If Israel had successfully managed its multicultural society, perhaps a two-state solution would not have come up. If Serbia had successfully managed its multicultural society, Kosovo would not have demanded independence. What about Turkey? Is it successfully managing its multicultural society?
1) (Functionalist) Nation states can manage their multicultural societies only by imposing homogeneity. As Gellner says, in industrial societies, the changing nature of work demands cultural homogeneity and a high culture, therefore, pervades the whole of society, defines it, and needs to be sustained by the polity. According to Gellner, in the modern world, in contrast to pre industrial society, the nation state is functionally necessary and egalitarianism can be achieved through education, which defines the status of the individual. The state, which fulfills this need, fuses the state and culture together; in this way, national homogeneity enables political and economic development.
2) (strong multiculturalism) According to Kymlicka, cultural diversity generated by a plurality of national groups within one state should be accommodated, minority and self-government rights granted to national groups. Kymlicka notes that the liberal state should take active steps to ensure that groups have the resources they need to sustain themselves. This means not simply subsidizing their activities but also ensuring that legal and political arrangements do not discriminate against or disadvantage cultural minorities. Kymicka prefers that the state take stronger measures to ensure that minorities can be secure in their effort to maintain their cultural independence.
3) (Taylor, Laitin) Diversity should not only be tolerated but also fostered or promoted, and supported – both financially (if necessary) and by special rights for minority cultures. A good polity ought to welcome diversity by admitting outsiders readily; but it ought positively to encourage them to preserve their own traditions. Far greater recognition needs to be given to the importance of cultural identity to minority groups struggling to maintain a worthwhile life in modern political society. Such groups need to be included as members of political society, but also helped to preserve their identities as independent cultural communities.
Taylor: Charles Taylor's recent account of multiculturalism is based on what I shall call the cultural recognition thesis, which claims that cultural recognition is an important and necessary constituent of the value of treating individuals with equal respect.[3] Taylor stresses the fact that cultural identities are things we negotiate through dialogue with others. Thus, he says, cultural recognition is important because its "refusal can inflict damage on those who are denied it, according to a widespread modern view...The projection of an inferior or demeaning image on another can actually distort or oppress, to the extent that the image is internalized." On this view, to withhold recognition from others, or to impose misrecognition on them, "can be a form of oppression."[4] For Taylor, socio-political and educational policies must evince cultural recognition because cultural misrecognition, or withholding recognition altogether, may prevent individuals from being capable of finding value in their identity. And when it does, cultural misrecognition constitutes a form of disrespect to the extent that it prevents others from being able to have a sense of self-respect. So respecting others requires that we recognize the cultural identity that constitutes them.
It follows from this view that a liberal society dedicated to the value of equal respect must also recognize the multiplicity of cultural sub-groups that constitute it. That is because multicultural societies are made up of a range of distinct cultural groups, whose members' identities are constituted by the particular groups to which they belong; and thus members of each sub-group require cultural recognition.
According to Taylor the need for cultural recognition requires state support for multicultural education programs designed to foster cultural survival and flourishing. For example, he says that the aim of multicultural policies, including policies of multicultural education, is "to maintain and cherish distinctness, not just now but forever. After all, if we're concerned with identity, then what is more legitimate than one's aspiration that it never be lost."[8] It follows that Taylor's version of the cultural recognition requires support for cultural survival in a particularly strong sense. It entails the conclusion that the value of equal respect requires a state to preserve not just the cultural structure that is available for existing cultural members, in the way that a group of people might wish to have their local community swimming pool maintained as a facility for themselves. Rather, Taylor says that "[p]olicies aimed at [cultural] survival actively seek to create members of the community, for instance, in their assuring that future generations continue to identify as French-speakers. There is no way that these policies could be seen as just providing a facility to already existing people."[9] Thus, according to Taylor's view, the value of equal respect demands state support for multicultural education policies to the extent that those policies are effective and necessary means of assuring the ongoing survival of an existing group's cultural identity.
So far, I have tried to show that Taylor's version of the cultural recognition thesis is based on two claims. First, cultural misrecognition can be a form of oppression when it causes individuals to internalize a demeaning image of their ancestral cultural identity. Second, rectification of cultural misrecognition and its demeaning effects on personal identity require educational policies aimed at ensuring the survival and flourishing of the ancestral culture.
4) Kukathas, in turn, solves this question by arguing that the diversity problem can be solved by adopting a hands-off approach to cultures as the extent to which anyone assimilates should be determined by the desire and capacity of each individual to do so. This approach is even willing to accept that, in a multicultural society, there may be groups or communities of people whose basic traditions or beliefs or practices are not only disapproved of by the majority but are even hostile to liberal values. In short, this approach is even tolerant of illiberal values. His main contention is that a free society is an open society whose fundamental principle is the principle of freedom of association. A society is free to the extent that it is prepared to tolerate in its midst associations which differ or dissent from its standards or practices (classical liberalism)
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Modern States and Their Challenge: Multicultural Societies
My question is under what conditions can modern states manage their multicultural societies?
Under the condition of striving for homogeneity
Under the condition of (Kymlicka, Taylor)
Under the condition of no management?
Nation-States and Their Challenge: Open Society
The strain of the democratic change brought about by the forces of globalization is felt in the modern nation-states. Nation-states are no longer nation states as they contain a mosaic of different identities, cultures, and affiliations. It seems that in the 21st century, therefore, one of the tasks of the modern state is how to maintain social peace among its various cultures, identities, and subcultures.
One of the impact of globalization was the recent enhancement in democratic rights that led, in turn, to the questioning of the conservative and traditional order upon which the modern nation is built. Earlier, one aspect of nation-state building was the identity is inculcated in its citizens. That is, the one-identity it imposed on its citizens. This identity, however, lost its meaning once the forces of globalization connected people of different identities, cultures, and languages under one roof. The modern state, therefore, was faced with the task of satisfying the needs of its multicultural societies, manage them so as to maintain social peace.
I would like to start from the beginning:
The goal of the modern state is ensure territorial integrity, social peace, and sound economy.
The nation-states, which emerged in the 20th century, sought to achieve all the above by imposing one identity, one culture, and one loyalty to its citizens. That is, homogeneity and a unified society were considered the path to a successful nation-state. The 20th century also witnessed the break-up of nation-states into even smaller parts, which are also striving for homogeneity. It seems as though the more break-up into small parts of a once large nation-states, the more parts are left waiting to break away. It seems that there is an endless number of identities waiting to spring up once the umbrella of an all-encompassing identity is lifted. The question is whether the break-up of nation-states into even smaller entities is the solution for nations, identities, and cultures to achieve social peace? The question is whether a modern state will always have to manage another different culture and identity within its own entity. Most probably, yes. I will take up this sidenote of whether break-up of modern nation-states and seeking of independence is the answer to s0cial peace. I am not saying that nations should not strive for independence, I am just saying that establishing another modern state based on the concept of natio, homogeneous society, and one identity may not necessarily be the answer to violation of human rights, massacres, or even social unrest as there are always smaller particles waiting to emerge. I wonder if it is it time to look for a more global answer to this challenge of how to deal with these many different groups. Yes, I will come back to this question later.
So, let me go to the beginning, to my question. Under what conditions can modern states manage their multicultural societies?
After having discussed modern states and the challenges they face, I would like to talk about multicultural societies. When I talk about multicultural societies, I mean everything from ethnic to cultural identities. I am not only referring to differences based on religion and ethnicity, I am also referring to cultures of secularism vs religiosity, patriarchial societies vs open societies, agrarian vs urban cultures. Modern nations may face the challenge of having to manage multicultural societies, which do not share the same values, in order to maintain social peace.
Now I am questioning my question
Under the condition of striving for homogeneity
Under the condition of (Kymlicka, Taylor)
Under the condition of no management?
Nation-States and Their Challenge: Open Society
The strain of the democratic change brought about by the forces of globalization is felt in the modern nation-states. Nation-states are no longer nation states as they contain a mosaic of different identities, cultures, and affiliations. It seems that in the 21st century, therefore, one of the tasks of the modern state is how to maintain social peace among its various cultures, identities, and subcultures.
One of the impact of globalization was the recent enhancement in democratic rights that led, in turn, to the questioning of the conservative and traditional order upon which the modern nation is built. Earlier, one aspect of nation-state building was the identity is inculcated in its citizens. That is, the one-identity it imposed on its citizens. This identity, however, lost its meaning once the forces of globalization connected people of different identities, cultures, and languages under one roof. The modern state, therefore, was faced with the task of satisfying the needs of its multicultural societies, manage them so as to maintain social peace.
I would like to start from the beginning:
The goal of the modern state is ensure territorial integrity, social peace, and sound economy.
The nation-states, which emerged in the 20th century, sought to achieve all the above by imposing one identity, one culture, and one loyalty to its citizens. That is, homogeneity and a unified society were considered the path to a successful nation-state. The 20th century also witnessed the break-up of nation-states into even smaller parts, which are also striving for homogeneity. It seems as though the more break-up into small parts of a once large nation-states, the more parts are left waiting to break away. It seems that there is an endless number of identities waiting to spring up once the umbrella of an all-encompassing identity is lifted. The question is whether the break-up of nation-states into even smaller entities is the solution for nations, identities, and cultures to achieve social peace? The question is whether a modern state will always have to manage another different culture and identity within its own entity. Most probably, yes. I will take up this sidenote of whether break-up of modern nation-states and seeking of independence is the answer to s0cial peace. I am not saying that nations should not strive for independence, I am just saying that establishing another modern state based on the concept of natio, homogeneous society, and one identity may not necessarily be the answer to violation of human rights, massacres, or even social unrest as there are always smaller particles waiting to emerge. I wonder if it is it time to look for a more global answer to this challenge of how to deal with these many different groups. Yes, I will come back to this question later.
So, let me go to the beginning, to my question. Under what conditions can modern states manage their multicultural societies?
After having discussed modern states and the challenges they face, I would like to talk about multicultural societies. When I talk about multicultural societies, I mean everything from ethnic to cultural identities. I am not only referring to differences based on religion and ethnicity, I am also referring to cultures of secularism vs religiosity, patriarchial societies vs open societies, agrarian vs urban cultures. Modern nations may face the challenge of having to manage multicultural societies, which do not share the same values, in order to maintain social peace.
Now I am questioning my question
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Global Government & Multicultural Societies by Miriam Rodrig Farhi
when taken in its extreme idealized form, globalization may eventually draft the global population into the global community whose features are vague and emerging as had been evidenced by the simoultaneous unorganized protests worldwide to the Iraq war, before the war and to the worldwide support to reduce global warming during the Bali Summit in DEcember 2007. in such a case, members of the global community though mostly living within local communities will have global considerations. these global considerations may be diversified but they will be global and every individual will have to solve her problem - the tension between the attention paid to global problems and the attention paid to local problems. if the global community is governed by a democratic global government with moving centers - big cities, capitals, institutions etc.- than there will be as many high cultures as one may think of and as many local cultures as one may think of. to the extent that not only global institutions but also regional, communitarial and local institutions are democratic, then multiculturalism will cease to be a problem. the role of the global government is to democratically facilitate global trade of goods, cultures values etc...I think that betrand russell, albert einstein, joseph stiglitz, amartya sen, dani rodrik, david held and a few other thinkers will agree with this piece of fantasy,after all even if something is not realistic for the moment (the conflicts wordwide, global terrorism etc) it may be instrumental in enlightening a new architectural design...MRF
Managing a Multicultural society
Decided that I will use multicultural society instead of multiculturalism. I relate better to a multicultural society, which is a fact in almost all nations and countries I know of.
The question is under what conditions can a nation-state manage a multicultural society without causing social unrest. Why is this important? Because a nation-state needs to maintain order within its territory to prevent a possible breakup. Because, in order to prosper and achieve economic progress a nation-state needs to maintain some kind of balance within its borders. What about Israel? No peace, no tranquillity, social unrest, and yet economic progress. Actually, a sort of break-up did occur in Israel when the two-state solution was accepted by all sides. If Israel had successfully managed its multicultural society, perhaps a two-state solution would not have come up.
If Serbia had successfully managed its multicultural society, Kosovo would not have demanded independence. What about Turkey? Is it successfully managing its multicultural society.
Let us look at Turkey. Let us just say that at present Turkey's multicultural society is composed of seculars and moderate Muslims and both are facing the Islamic headdress issue. So the question will be, under what conditions can Turkey manage the headdress issue without causing social unrest.
The issue here is that the AKP is not really imposing its values on the society as it is only an emissary of all the young women, who are seeking to make a statement by wearing the headscarf. Who is putting the pressure on whom? Could we say that the headscarved young women are searching for their democratic rights? Are they under pressure from the menfolk? The fact that they are attending universities show that the pressure may not be for the men in the family but from a sense of belonging of these women themselves. They have just created a subculture -- headscarved university students.
The question is under what conditions can a nation-state manage a multicultural society without causing social unrest. Why is this important? Because a nation-state needs to maintain order within its territory to prevent a possible breakup. Because, in order to prosper and achieve economic progress a nation-state needs to maintain some kind of balance within its borders. What about Israel? No peace, no tranquillity, social unrest, and yet economic progress. Actually, a sort of break-up did occur in Israel when the two-state solution was accepted by all sides. If Israel had successfully managed its multicultural society, perhaps a two-state solution would not have come up.
If Serbia had successfully managed its multicultural society, Kosovo would not have demanded independence. What about Turkey? Is it successfully managing its multicultural society.
Let us look at Turkey. Let us just say that at present Turkey's multicultural society is composed of seculars and moderate Muslims and both are facing the Islamic headdress issue. So the question will be, under what conditions can Turkey manage the headdress issue without causing social unrest.
- By imposing its values on the whole of the society
- By introducing the changes with small steps
- Turkey will no be able to manage its multicultural society and this will cause unrest and maybe even a breakup.
The issue here is that the AKP is not really imposing its values on the society as it is only an emissary of all the young women, who are seeking to make a statement by wearing the headscarf. Who is putting the pressure on whom? Could we say that the headscarved young women are searching for their democratic rights? Are they under pressure from the menfolk? The fact that they are attending universities show that the pressure may not be for the men in the family but from a sense of belonging of these women themselves. They have just created a subculture -- headscarved university students.
Multiculturalism & Popper
Multiculturalism and the 'Open Society': a Popperian approach
Marcello Pera, president of the Italian Senate, will speak on Multiculturalism and the 'Open Society': a Popperian approach on Tuesday 10 February at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE).
Alongside its great impact on philosophy, Popper's celebrated two volume work The Open Society and its Enemies has influenced a number of politicians and political movements. Marcello Pera brings the insight of both the philosopher and the practising politician to bear on the issue of how multiculturalism should be viewed from the perspective of an 'Open Society'.
Marcello Pera, president of the Italian Senate, will speak on Multiculturalism and the 'Open Society': a Popperian approach on Tuesday 10 February at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE).
Alongside its great impact on philosophy, Popper's celebrated two volume work The Open Society and its Enemies has influenced a number of politicians and political movements. Marcello Pera brings the insight of both the philosopher and the practising politician to bear on the issue of how multiculturalism should be viewed from the perspective of an 'Open Society'.
Question
Under what conditions can nation-states balance a multicultural society with a common sense of belonging amongst all its citizens?
Rethinking Multiculturalism - Cultural Diversity and Political Theory by Bhiku Parekh was published on 20 July 2000. For more information about the book, or to order it, see www.palgrave.com
Rethinking Multiculturalism - Cultural Diversity and Political Theory by Bhiku Parekh was published on 20 July 2000. For more information about the book, or to order it, see www.palgrave.com
Multiculturalism Readings
Gellner: Nations and Nationalism
I M Young, Justice and the Politics of Difference;
J Tully, Strange Multiplicity;
D Miller, On Nationality.
I M Young, Justice and the Politics of Difference;
J Tully, Strange Multiplicity;
D Miller, On Nationality.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Some Thoughts on Need for Belonging
I immigrated to Israel in 1969 for personal reasons and not because I wanted to belong to the Israeli nation, or to the Jewish nation for that matter. The sense of wanting to belong to the Jewish/Israeli nation started many years later after I started studying Jewish history and later Israeli history. At first, I felt a belonging to the Israeli nation and a sense of pride in it. Later, I started my democracy studies and that process was an eye-opener for me.
During my studies, I learned about the different democratic systems and human and civil rights. I learned about the extent that a country can deprive its citizens of democratic rights. I started seeing the manipulation in the use of terminology in writing and broadcasting. My work also contributed to see the differences and nuances in terminology.
My next encounter through my good friend Miriam was Karl Popper and his philosophy of life -- his small adjustments and readjustments, his view that mistakes are good as you can correct them and that you learn through them. His 'Open Society' made me realize to what extent I was brought up in a closed society, which sort of served as a safe haven. No challenges in a closed society as traditions and rules and regulations make it easy to behave.
All the papers I wrote during the course of my studies (B.A. & M.A.) are on different subjects but all focusing on democracy from bottom to top, perhaps smmbolizing my own growth from bottom to top, my own progress from a safe haven to facing challenges. I wrote about civil society, rights for Kurds, people leading their leader, unemployment, etc. Looking back, it seems that I always started with the underdog and explored the conditions under which it can pave its path to be the master....
And now comes multiculturalism. I want to write about nation-states and multiculturalism.
Under what conditions can nation-states be multicultural?
or better still
Under what conditions can nation-states balance multiculturalism with sovereignty?
Why am I writing about this?
Because, everywhere I look I see differences, variety, and diversity of people, beliefs, color, race, and creed. I do think that regardless of their differences, most people strive to live harmonious lives. On the other hand, most also want to feel a sense of belonging to a nation, society, and community. The more the impact of globalization is felt everywhere in our identities, the more there is a search for individualism and to describe ourselves through an identity. This is why multiculturalism interests me. In this global village with multiplying cultures, how can a democratic nation-state maintain sovereignty? Will it impose its own uniform national culture on all its citizens to maintain social order? Will it give more rights and recognize and promote all the cultures it contains with the hope that its content citizens will recognize its sovereignly willingly and not go against it? Or will it, let the citizens decide for themselves to what extent they want to promote their multucultures.
During my studies, I learned about the different democratic systems and human and civil rights. I learned about the extent that a country can deprive its citizens of democratic rights. I started seeing the manipulation in the use of terminology in writing and broadcasting. My work also contributed to see the differences and nuances in terminology.
My next encounter through my good friend Miriam was Karl Popper and his philosophy of life -- his small adjustments and readjustments, his view that mistakes are good as you can correct them and that you learn through them. His 'Open Society' made me realize to what extent I was brought up in a closed society, which sort of served as a safe haven. No challenges in a closed society as traditions and rules and regulations make it easy to behave.
All the papers I wrote during the course of my studies (B.A. & M.A.) are on different subjects but all focusing on democracy from bottom to top, perhaps smmbolizing my own growth from bottom to top, my own progress from a safe haven to facing challenges. I wrote about civil society, rights for Kurds, people leading their leader, unemployment, etc. Looking back, it seems that I always started with the underdog and explored the conditions under which it can pave its path to be the master....
And now comes multiculturalism. I want to write about nation-states and multiculturalism.
Under what conditions can nation-states be multicultural?
or better still
Under what conditions can nation-states balance multiculturalism with sovereignty?
Why am I writing about this?
Because, everywhere I look I see differences, variety, and diversity of people, beliefs, color, race, and creed. I do think that regardless of their differences, most people strive to live harmonious lives. On the other hand, most also want to feel a sense of belonging to a nation, society, and community. The more the impact of globalization is felt everywhere in our identities, the more there is a search for individualism and to describe ourselves through an identity. This is why multiculturalism interests me. In this global village with multiplying cultures, how can a democratic nation-state maintain sovereignty? Will it impose its own uniform national culture on all its citizens to maintain social order? Will it give more rights and recognize and promote all the cultures it contains with the hope that its content citizens will recognize its sovereignly willingly and not go against it? Or will it, let the citizens decide for themselves to what extent they want to promote their multucultures.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
