What Multiculturalism Is Not
The recent controversy concerning the gay pride march in Jerusalem provided an interesting example of the internal conflicts within multiculturalism and the failure of self-declared secular multiculturalists to understand the values underlying their own ideology.
The facts are simple. A gay pride march was scheduled to take place in Jerusalem. The ultra-orthodox community threatened to use violence against the marchers. In their view the march is an affront to a holy city. In a rare display of solidarity, rabbis, priests and Muslim clerics all united against the parade. The police joined the efforts to ban the march by issuing serious warnings concerning expected violence and declaring that it would be incapable of protecting the marchers. After lengthy negotiations, conducted under the pressure of the attorney general, it was agreed that a rally instead of a march will take place in track stadium in Jerusalem.
Politically the religious opposition to the march was supported by many secular leftists on grounds of multiculturalism. The event was even described by multiculturalists as a flagrant unnecessary provocation. Why, it was argued, should the gay marchers march in conservative Jerusalem? After all, the religious community in Israel is a minority entitled to its own safe haven and the streets of Jerusalem should provide an environment which is congenial to the ultra-orthodox way of life. Multiculturalism, under this argument, dictates that minority communities should be able to sustain their forms of life uninterrupted by conflicting traditions and restrictions on the expression of sexuality in Jerusalem are a reasonable concession to make for the sake of respecting the sensitivities of the ultra-orthodox community.
This view represents a serious misunderstanding of what multiculturalism is or at least ought to be. To the extent that multiculturalism is valuable, its value stems from the enrichment of people’s life by exposing them to different ways of life. Lives lived in the boundaries of culturally homogeneous communities cannot be enriched by the interaction with different ways of lives. The cultural isolation of these communities impoverishes the lives of their members. Secular advocates urging the gay community to respect religious sensibilities fail to understand the values underlying their own ideals. Multiculturalist discourse ought not to be used as a strategy for isolationism.
The facts are simple. A gay pride march was scheduled to take place in Jerusalem. The ultra-orthodox community threatened to use violence against the marchers. In their view the march is an affront to a holy city. In a rare display of solidarity, rabbis, priests and Muslim clerics all united against the parade. The police joined the efforts to ban the march by issuing serious warnings concerning expected violence and declaring that it would be incapable of protecting the marchers. After lengthy negotiations, conducted under the pressure of the attorney general, it was agreed that a rally instead of a march will take place in track stadium in Jerusalem.
Politically the religious opposition to the march was supported by many secular leftists on grounds of multiculturalism. The event was even described by multiculturalists as a flagrant unnecessary provocation. Why, it was argued, should the gay marchers march in conservative Jerusalem? After all, the religious community in Israel is a minority entitled to its own safe haven and the streets of Jerusalem should provide an environment which is congenial to the ultra-orthodox way of life. Multiculturalism, under this argument, dictates that minority communities should be able to sustain their forms of life uninterrupted by conflicting traditions and restrictions on the expression of sexuality in Jerusalem are a reasonable concession to make for the sake of respecting the sensitivities of the ultra-orthodox community.
This view represents a serious misunderstanding of what multiculturalism is or at least ought to be. To the extent that multiculturalism is valuable, its value stems from the enrichment of people’s life by exposing them to different ways of life. Lives lived in the boundaries of culturally homogeneous communities cannot be enriched by the interaction with different ways of lives. The cultural isolation of these communities impoverishes the lives of their members. Secular advocates urging the gay community to respect religious sensibilities fail to understand the values underlying their own ideals. Multiculturalist discourse ought not to be used as a strategy for isolationism.
7 Comments:
At 12:56 PM,
Robert Justin Lipkin said…
This perspective is only half right about “multiculturalism.” No doubt, one central element in multiculturalism is exposure to and tolerance of alternative conceptions of living a meaningful life. But multiculturalism also requires respecting (even celebrating) the integrity of different perspectives on the good life. Some conceptions of the good life are defined in part by an array of symbols, sanctified grounds, and so forth. When alternative life styles exhibit disrespect to these sacrosanct icons, conflict is inevitable. Such conflict presents a systemic problem in all liberal society, namely, it is often difficult to simultaneously satisfy the values of exposure and integrity. Indeed, this is true of conflicting life styles outside of the context multiculturalism. It strains the limits of tolerance. When Christian fundamentalists oppose same-sex marriage, what does tolerance require? On the one hand, yielding to the fundamentalist’s view of same-sex marriage arguably reveals intolerance towards gays and lesbians. On the other hand, insisting that fundamentalists keep their opinions to themselves, or otherwise not act on their religious convictions about same-sex intimacy, shows intolerance toward them. Exposure and integrity represent two fundamental values in liberal democratic society. Emphasizing only one of these values, as this post does, oversimplifies what is likely to be an intractable conflict within the confines of any diverse, democratic society.
At 12:57 PM,
Adam P. said…
One thing that struck me (besides the blatant bigotry) about the hubbub was the blatant endorsement of segregation. Secular leftists said, "Well, they can march in Tel Aviv." The implicit argument- Tel Aviv is a modern major city, but leave the *real* historical/spiritual capital gay-free. Of course, the reason why there needs to be a march in Jerusalem is because of the opposition to the march in Jerusalem.
On the multiculturalism point, it raises the "lowest common denominator" issue that occurs with both American and Israeli jewry. To make the most religious comfortable, cities shut down on the Sabbath (though this in Israel, granted, has positive/enjoyable effects for the nonreligious), orthodox religious customs are given legitimate standing (the bruhaha over a certain circumcision practice that led to 3 cases of herpes in NYC last year comes to mind), everyone eats kosher, etc. But this model assumes that a more liberal interpretation of religion is simply a "lesser" version of orthodox religion. In my own case, however, I find that my conceptions of judaism are in direct conflict with those proffered in Mea Shaarim. It offends my religious sensibilities to threaten people based on their sexuality, to subordinate women, to insist on eating separately from your host and his guests, etc. Yet, the "default" when we consider religion is to accomodate the most religious.
I've seen echoes of this in a lot of the first amendment/"anti-Christianity" litigation going on in the U.S. A resistance to fundamentalist religions in school, public organizations, etc., is seen as being anti-religion. In reality, though, it may simply be endorsing a different form of religion that values social justice and church/state separation. Why should that form of religion be given any less deference? And of course, the $10,000 question is shouldn't no religion be considered a religious belief, and also given deference.
At 1:01 PM,
Adam P. said…
And as to the above comment, there is a difference between respecting one's views, and having ones freedom of association and speech restricted because of someone's views.
I fully support the rights of the orthodox community to condemn me, however that condemnation should not prohibit me from conducting lawful activity. When it has, democracy ceases to function...hardly a liberal society.
As for the idea that gays walking in Jerusalem "violates" the integrity of holy sites, the same has been said for women in shorts or short-sleeves. Oh, well.
At 1:40 PM,
Michael C. Dorf said…
There is a great deal of interesting stuff here, but I'll resist the urge to say who I think is right on each of the particulars in this debate. I will venture one thought though: I don't think we make much progress by asking what "multiculturalism" or "liberalism" or any other "ism" or even "ty" (as in "liberty" and "equality") entails. These are contested concepts. So I read Alon's post and the comments on it not as a debate about the meaning of words but about what freedoms people should and shouldn't have in liberal democratic societies. And I don't mean to be deriving anything from the words "liberal" or "democratic" either. I'm just using the terms to identify the societies we're talking about.
At 2:36 PM,
Derek said…
To echo one of Robert's points, I think this post points to an essential problem with (some versions of) multiculturalism and liberalism. Namely, the problem of tolerating intolerance. If tolerance is a fundamental value, it follows that we must avoid practicing intolerance. But, in some instances, this entails letting other people practice intolerance, and this seems to be just as problematic with respect to treating tolerance as a primary value.
We can, of course, decide that tolerance only applies to practices that we find to be (morally, aesthetically, politically, etc.) acceptable, but that runs afoul of another principle of (some versions of) multiculturalism and liberalism -- the idea that no one view of the good life or morality is privileged over any others.
In my view, it's this last position that should be given up. It's true that different cultures have different views on what is right, but that doesn't mean we have to abandon our own perspective on the matter. We couldn't coherently do so even if we tried.
As far as I'm concerned, then, the sort of bigotry endorsed by the religious community in Jerusalem was unacceptable. If some version of multiculturalism demands we tolerate it, so much the worse for that version.
At 11:36 PM,
Caleb said…
As a Canadian (whenever "multiculturalism is debated in Canada we tend to assume we invented the word), I find the debate about what multiculturalism is fascinating. And, not being as strong as Mike, I couldn't resist the urge to weigh in with my 2 cents.
I think that I would define multiculturalism as the "political philosophy of pragmatism". That is, in some ways, neither exposure or integrity (or both - I think) can lead to a coherent philosophy.
I think that "exposure" ideas of multiculturalism tend towards a sort of monoculturalism that says you can express any viewpoint between these two bounds, but not outside it (and, actually, we'd prefer it if you were closer to the center). I think that religious groups that complain about being left out of multiculturalism are pointing towards this problem (even if they are often crying wolf). However, I think this is a problem for the right-of-center "multiculturalists" as well. I think the comment that "multiculturalism is bad because it fractures society by allowing groups to segregate themselves from the rest of society" (The sense that "x" group could keep their culture if they'd just ALSO become Canadian or American) epitomizes a right wing view that some difference will be tolerated but not all. Of course, if we're only going to tolerate a certain amount of deviation from the "norm" then I don't think we're talking about multi-culturalism so much as looser mono-culturalism.
At the same time, forcing groups to respect the "integrity" of other groups seems - to me - contrary to the idea of multiculturalism as well. I don't think that gay and lesbian groups should have to respect and celebrate the cultures of groups that oppose them any more than Republicans and Democrats should have to respect and celebrate each other. To force them to do so would be to (i think) limit their own integrity. In fact, I don't think that it would be consistent to try to stop gay & lesbian groups from trying to win over members of other groups to their cause (including members of groups that are opposed to them). We certainly wouldn't stop Republicans from trying to convert Democrats to their cause (or vice versa).
What we might stop, however, is Republicans from locking Democrats out of the political process by refusing to interact with them (we might even try to stop the opposite). I think that the main difference that multiculturalism should have over some sort of co-existence is a pragmatic recognition of the "other" and a willingness to interact with the other if necessary. I'm not trying to say that cultures shouldn't interact or celebrate each other, but just that we shouldn't penalize one for refusing to celebrate (or even respect the integrity of) another culture.
Instead, we should penalize the groups that refuse to engage in interaction (perhaps defined primarily politically?) with other groups. This would - I think - allow us to still sanction extremist groups like the klan (and even some fundamentalist groups) while being consistent and truly non-judgmental in our multiculturalism.
In the instant case, it would seem to be a messy question of who refused to deal with whom. Did either group come to the table and bargain. I'm not saying that either group would have had to recognize that the other's opinion was "right" or even internally consistent, but just that it was different AND that the other group was entitled to advocate for that opinion. If we're going to hand out opprobium (or even sanctions or penalties), I think it should be to a group that failed to interact, rather than to a group which held to its own beliefs.
At 10:53 PM,
Anonymous said…
I think Robert's post misses two historic appeals of multiculturalism. First, another intellectual appeal is anti-subordination. From this context, when the ultrareligious in Israel act to keep the historically persecuted lgbt community from using public facilities, this is an act of subordination. Second, there is an emotional tone to multiculturalism that is about creating a safe space for historically disadvantaged groups. And, here, too, lgbt persons in Israel have more basis to fear violence than do the ultrareligious.
Post a Comment
<< Home