Multiculturalism as a concept that associate with western society especially Europe, appear to be a solution to create a social cohesiveness in a multi ethnic, religion, and cultural society. The main idea was acknowledgment of minority groups within a dominant political culture. Despite the noble purpose of this idea, multiculturalism still have criticism by it's practice, instead of creating balance in society, multiculturalism it self portrayed as something that create divisive society. This paper are written with purpose to show the critiques of multiculturalism by some scholars, and give my responses towards their argument.
As for, the main argument of this paper is I don't agree that multiculturalism as idea has failed but I also don't neglect that multiculturalism policy to some extent have potential in undermining the social cohesiveness like the critics said, even though it doesn't mean that multiculturalism has failed like some European politician said. If the conventional policy through state instrumen has gone to failed, so I suggest we must seek another policy that goes beyond the existing policy, a policy that makes the society as the center of the gravity. Before I explain my argument, firstly I would like to show why the notion of "failed multiculturalism" appear by showing the critiques of some scholars towards multiculturalism, and at the end this paper are going to close by my argument and conclusion.
The so-called 'death of multiculturalism' had became a media discourse in Western Europe in the past decade, especially after the 9/11. Public discourse on anti-multiculturalism has grown, largely because it has been fuelled by act of terror like Madrid bombings in 2004, the London bombings in the summer of 2005, and in Canada by the alleged terrorist plot in 2006. The similar discourse of anti-multiculturalism also appear in academic sociological discourse since 9/11. This discourse has produced the term "post-multiculturalism" that suggests the need to move beyond current policies of multiculturalism and different approaches regarding ethnic integration. The term were meant to be a call to seek an alternative that foster social cohesion and promote assimilation and a common identity.
Here are three major arguments by the critics, they said that [1] multiculturalism leads to ethnic marginalization and ethnic stratification particularly when there is unequal distribution of power in society. [2] Multiculturalism has emphasizes differences, hence it is divisive and subverts social cohesion in development of national identity. [3] Multiculturalism creates cultural relativism which potentially causing clash of culture and clash of civilization.
Based on John Porter, ethnic pluralism potentially keeps the mosaic vertical, a condition in which multiculturalism emphasize the ethnic difference that produce loyalty to ethnic identity, but not to national identity. As consequences the cost of multiculturalism would be the perpetuation of the ethnic stratification. This argument came in the context when Canada was experiencing a time of tense English-French relations, Quebec nationalism, and political violence.
Moreover, Porter's worries was strengthen by Reginald Bibbly who argue that an over relativism could lead to mosaic madness that produce divisive society, vitiates moral consensus, and creates mosaic fragment in society. Cultural relativism is dangerous because it leaving the society with no authoritative instruments with which to measure social life. The society only get the standards of local cultural and religious domains and not anything more, which is tantamount to ethnocentrism without a common culture. Therefore, for Bibbly cultural relativism could leads to a more divisive society by strengthening the vertical mosaic.
Bibbly argument may emerge in reality, United Kingdom for example, Gordon Brown the ex-Prime Minister of UK ever made a statement that multiculturalism had become an "excuse for justifying separateness" and called for a "stronger sense of patriotic purpose." In 2011, David Cameron also claiming that multiculturalism has "encouraged different cultures to live separate lives". The same rhetoric to denounce multiculturalism also appear in Germany, Dutch, and other country in Europe.
All those critiques emerge because the state policy for the right of minority acknowledgment fail to foster social cohesiveness. The recognition by law doesn't sufficient to eliminate the ethnic conflict. I do agree that we must seek something that goes beyond the conventional policy. For me social cohesion comes from understanding between people with different identity, or different background, therefore the government and society must create a grassroots movement, an organic interaction, where different ethnicity can communicate and accrue understanding between them. The old policy must accompany by strong community interaction. By putting society as the center of the gravity, I do believe it could help in creating a society with some shared sacrifices for seeking the common good.
Reference
Wong, Lyod. "Multiculturalism and Ethnic Pluralism in Sociology: An Analysis of The Fragmentation Position Discourse." Canadian Ethnic Studies Journal. (2008). 11-32.
David, Brooks. "The Death of Multiculturalism." diakses melalui http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/27/opinion/the-death-of-multiculturalism.html (30/10/2017)