Wednesday 25 July 2018

Multiculturalism or...

There are valid reasons for bringing liberal multiculturalism into question. While it proclaims diversity, it only ultimately wishes for all cultures to surrender their unique or fervent characteristics to take a place in a society governed by the mores of capitalist society. This multiculturalism seeks to manufacture a consensus between various cultures on the basis of their role in capitalist society. This is then represented as a faithful representation of their culture, although it is merely a culture reduced to an indistinguished moment of 'capitalist society.' There is much to object to in such multiculturalism.

However, what is to be opposed to 'multiculturalism' of this sort?

There is a recent trend of opposing Western multiculturalism in favour of some construct of 'white' or 'Western' culture. This is occasionally due to considerations like the theory of 'white genocide,' which confusingly involves little actual genocide. The term 'white genocide' is typically a term used by 'white supremacist' racists and fellow-travellers to glibly reclaim objections that they are genocidal or xenophobic - they appropriate the left's language of victimhood, and use it uncritically in their own favour, even though modern leftist rhetoric is not fit for any purpose other than extinction. These anti-Islamic and 'Western' ideas are less exotic than they seem: is it truly extreme to encourage the West to take measures against Islam and Muslim Arabs when the Middle East has encountered continual invasion for spurious reasons alongside the West's persistent support for Israel? Of course, despite the innocuous fear of 'white genocide' and claims that it is 'okay to be white,' this conceit might well surprise the Middle East where the 'white' Americans have considered themselves so far from oppressed as to freely bomb and pillage Middle Eastern cities. The 'alt-right' consider it radical and offensive to say 'deus vult,' when in truth the West's foreign policy in the Middle East has been invasive for years with or without orders from Pope Francis.

While multiculturalism can have its problems, it maintains the independence of politics as a field from any particular capitalistic culture. Politics is not used merely to serve as a bulwark for some 'Western' culture. Further, this act of not setting politics up as the mere functionary of culture would allow for serious discourse on the more fundamental matters of class, economy and political structure. To dedicate politics to some Western reactionary construct of 'culture' would be almost as much a regression as to dedicate politics to leftist identity politics and cancel culture. It also serves to distract from a serious comprehension of social and political issues. On this ground, liberal multiculturalism comes up wanting, and represents only the persistent tendency of capitalism to abstract from concrete differences and foist the homogeneity of money upon society.

Hence, it is important to be careful in condemning multiculturalism. It is important that in attacking some form of it we do not merely do so on behalf of one or other culture, but from a more comprehensively critical perspective. While there may be a 'culture war,' the real war is not on behalf of one culture or other, but against the rigged social system.

22 comments:

  1. That was a good overview of the issue. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Excellent, cautionary point! Thanks for posting. I also liked the previous post.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think it offers a fair account, which judges both sides on their intents good and evil. It's right that 'culture based politics' leaves no place for real class and economic analysis.

      Delete
  3. Thanks for this. Good post.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Good point. Hating on multiculturalism is really normie behaviour, like think about it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I was surprised by this post, but it ultimately makes sense. I guess politics should not be constrained to one cultures concerns

    ReplyDelete
  6. I also agree "because it does not dedicate the nation to a particular reactionary cultural trend" is a good summary and condemnation of popular anti-multi-culturalism.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I like how you mention that politics needs a sense of perspective. Never more so!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Would you say that multiculturalism can destabilise majority culture in hegemonic nations? I alwys wondered if that would be a problem even. Do you think so?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would suggest that multiculturalism can avoid the pitfalls of having a 'dominant' hegemonic culture in a capitalistic nation. Multiculturalism allows for a focus on central issues of politics and economics. It avoids a dominant capitalistic economic culture shutting out other concerns, and hence means that culture can be dynamic rather than a constricting force on politics. Further, the stabilising of culture in a 'hegemonic' society does risk things like xenophobia and the ideological attempt to unify the 'hegemonic' nation against the rest of the world.

      Besides, a culture like the alt-right demands - which is hegemonic in capitalism - is obviously problematic. It is already compromised, it offers no absolute solace.

      Multiple 'cultures' in capitalist society are nothing to marvel at. However, the situation is superior to one dominant capitalistic culture playing a co-ordinated ideological role in the nation. It's strange that people are shocked by 'multiculturalism' when life in capitalism is if anything too 'samey' due to the homogenising banality of capitalist ideology and concerns.

      Delete
    2. You're probably right hegemonic 'Western value' politics is kinda suspect.

      Delete
    3. That answer does ring true.

      Delete
  9. This was a good summary. Laughed at the Trump mention.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Trump is quite laughable.

      Delete
    2. That much is certain.

      Delete
    3. Wisdom cries out across the Mexican border, but Trump doesn't listen to it.

      Delete
    4. He doesn't seem very wise in his Middle Eastern warmongering, he only seems like another Zionist. I don't think he's that special, I don't get why 'extreme right' people would do that eithr.

      Delete
    5. He does make many left-wing populists, who actually bother with explicitly taking on radical mores and terminology, look like desperate romantics.

      Delete
    6. The 'far-right' used to be renowned as highly extreme, but apparently they're the easiest base to please.

      Delete
    7. That is weird. Good point.

      Delete