The Times They Are a-Changin'

Multicultural (with respect to States, nations, societies) is an adjective that says that there exists a difference with regards to identity that exists within the noun. Multiculturalism then becomes the policies of the State that cater to the management of these differences or multi-cultures.

Countries such as France, have policies that ask an immigrant to meet the country half-way when he moves there. From immigrants to France, assimilation is expected. Different cultures and different immigrants must dissolve themselves into the State, and the State's culture (dominant culture) will exist as their culture. The State's history is their History. On the other end of the spectrum lie States like South Africa in the time of apartheid, that believe(d) in complete separation or segregation. Where not only policies but everyday society existed with definite boundaries between cultures. (I could also take this further and talk about Nazi Germany which believed in an extremist segregation turned into planned mass executions of the 'other' culture).

But in the middle of the spectrum lie states whose policies are those of integration. Integration is often referred to as liberal multiculturalism, and can be further divided into liberalism I (mild liberalism) and liberalism II (hard liberalism). Mild liberalism is often spoken with reference to America, where cultural differences are recognized but the State makes it clear that it will treat everyone equally, and it will not go out of its way to ensure the survival/preservation of a particular culture. Yes it sound perfectly nice, but I agree with Kymlicka (a scholar of Multiculturalism) when he points out that certain communities have been disadvantaged (for instance, the African Americans) and discrimination against them in recent history puts them behind others, right at the starting point of the race. In other words, a State cannot ignore the fact that there exist minority communities that might require more attention, simply because they were ignored (or even discriminated against), hampering their adequate (and equal) development.

Which then brings us to Hard Multiculturalism or Liberalism II, which States like Canada, Australia, and Singapore follow. A State with liberalism II policies ensures the survival of different cultures and makes policies keeping cultural differences in mind. It asks for the different cultures to preserve their uniqueness and allow for a system where cultures can be mutually tolerant and respectful, complementing each other and benefiting from each other. In States like Canada, a system of checks and balances installs itself giving every individual the right to exit his culture/community, which puts pressure on politicians and representatives of that culture to work not for themselves but for the people they stand for.

So if a State believes in integration, and implements Liberalist (Hard) Multiculturalism, it can allow for differences to exist, to prosper, and for a certain State Nationalism to exist alongside Multiculturalism, allowing for a conclusion that says good multiculturalism is not idealist nonsense.

And this is how the presenter in my Nationalism and Multiculturalism class concluded her monologue.

After which the professor looked at me, and asked me if AS ALWAYS I would like to point the rosiness of the argument in the theoretical and show that empirically the argument doesn't hold. And I did. I pointed out that firstly hard multiculturalism would hold if and only if a State was a properly functional democracy, and all cultures were represented well. Secondly, it would only work if the democratic system involved politicians who worked for their community not themselves. In other words in a system with minimal corruption, bureaucracy and a lot of transparency. Thirdly, if a government does make concessions for certain communities, the system would only work if these concessions would be implemented properly and effectively (for instance, instead of actual disadvantaged Scheduled Tribe members, middle class and even well-off people should not be flaunting their real or fake SC/ST certificates to get into colleges and jobs). Lastly, although the government might make good policies to deal with the differences, and say figure out ways to implement them well, there will always be people with grievances, who will go the "communal" route to gain support of fellow grievance-holders (because it IS a simple route!); and some culture or the other, at every point, will scream about the government's partiality to another.

So then is there anything called good multiculturalism? Will there ever be?

As I finished, my professor said I was much too cynical, and I must look at not what a State is today and how some idiot politicians have implemented perfectly good policies in perfectly terrible ways. But I should look at the principles on which a (my) State was founded, and what is aspires to be. Because with a solid foundation, things can change and they will. And although all backward classes may not be getting the opportunities that the government puts forth for them (thanks to both the non-backward classes with their fake stamps of backwardness and economically well-off "backward" classes who are not in any need of extra aid, but magically find their "backward" certificates whenever needed), the fact that some do is enough for us to not give-up and aspire for a system that gets better by the day.