Multicultural solutions

Feb 10, 2013 Features / Columnists, Ravi Dev

---

With Mashramani nigh upon us, there are the seemingly obligatory pronouncements about ‘multiculturalism”. But upon closer examination, those pronouncements go little farther than glibly announcing that we’ve arrived from various and sundry parts of the globe and that we brought our “cultures” with us. The “multicultural” policy goes little further than encouraging us to “express our culture” at various stipulated times of the year, such as Mash. And this is typically confined to food, music and clothes. Is this what multiculturalism is really all about?
Essentially the notion of “multiculturalism” includes three premises. Firstly, that we are each born into a culture. Unlike other animals, human babies do not revert to instincts for their survival: they have to be taught. What they are taught is their “culture”. While all humans have some physiological needs such as hunger, sex, etc., that must be fulfilled, how they are satisfied is culturally determined. The Portuguese may see roast pork as a very good meal but many Indians will remain hungry if pork is their only choice. Our attitude towards sex is similarly socially influenced.
Many have remarked on the “stability” of the Indian family as a prime reason for their success. Much of this drive for “stable” family life came out of their cultural norm that sex was only approved within marriage. So, all in all, we receive our orientation towards life from the culture into which we are born. Now this does not mean that we are so structurally bound that we can’t change our practices. Again, culture isn’t instinct. The burgeoning numbers of Indian “child fathers’ should disabuse us of this idea.
The second point about multiculturalism is that we are each born into world-views that may differ from those of others. And in some ways these differences may be significant. For instance, as Guyanese, we all expect that the political system will deliver the “good life” to us. But do we all agree on what is that ‘good life’ or how to achieve it?
If we answer this question honestly we will find out that this question is the source of much of the disagreements we have in Guyana. How do some end up with more wealth than others, for one? Some save – others spend. Some assert that this is the problem with multiculturalism – it creates all sorts of divisions. But it is not multiculturalism that creates the division – it was already there. Multiculturalism, as a point of fact, offers a perspective on how we should handle a reality that has often been a source of conflict.
Namely, that first we must accept that our idea of the good life is only that – our idea of the good life. And that we ought not to assume that what is the “good” for us is the good for everyone else. Multiculturalism offers us the view that maybe our lives would be enriched if we were to examine the world-views of others in a non-judgmental fashion.
For instance in the modern world, there may be certain values that have to be imbibed to obtain what is now considered necessary to live aspects of the ‘good life’ we hold in common. If the values of one culture make it easier for some to acquire those appurtenances, then maybe we ought to practice those values. As such, multiculturalism suggests that cultural diversity is an asset to the human condition.
The third point about multiculturalism is that it does not hold that any one culture is undifferentiated and monolithic. It starts from our own experience that within our own cultural group there exists at any and all times, a range of expressions and positions on any given issue. This is a truth that we cannot deny. We may struggle and dispute with other members of our group as to who is “right” or who is “straying” but we recognize our commonality.
Multiculturalism, then, accepts pluralism within our cultures. And in what may be its most important contribution to the modern world, forces us to accept that we should by extension, accept plurality in our wider national community and by extension, the world. This does not mean that “everything goes” and that “everyone is right”. But it suggests that at a minimum we cannot take dogmatic positions on what ought to be the “correct” response to a particular exigency based only from our own point of view. Multiculturalism insists that we have to assume that the other person may be right, and that we examine the views of the other seriously and with respect.
And this brings us to the implications of the multiculturalist perspective on politics. Our needs, and certainly our wants, are to the greatest degree shaped by our cultures. Thus there can be no one silver bullet that will destroy all the demons that entrap us. Multiculturalism suggests that we have to engage in a continuous dialogue with one another to work our way out of our morass.

---

---