Encouraging Interculturalism

This blog argues that modern, culturally diverse democracies should actively encourage intercultural relationships. They should not sit back, content with self-characterisation as ‘multicultural’, while allowing the prejudices of right-wing politicians to dominate public debate about culture by proxy in the form of anti-immigration rhetoric

Definitions: descriptive and normative
 
Most modern democracies can be referred to as ‘multicultural’. Their multiculturalism reflects their attractiveness as destinations for immigrants, long-standing relationships that reflect an imperial or colonial past and in some cases for the need to recognise indigenous populations. 
 
Both the term multicultural and the term intercultural can be used both in a purely descriptive sense and also in a normative sense. As a descriptive term ‘Multiculturalism’ simply involves the recognition of difference. The differences typically will be those of religion, race, colour, national origin, language, group social and family practices, or of a shared history seen from different perspectives. As a descriptive term ‘Inter culturalism’ recognizes links between cultures within a social whole.
 
The terms can also be used to reflect normative goals. Democratic countries providing a home to diverse cultures and attaching normative importance to multiculturalism want to recognise cultural differences within their society, to ensure fair treatment of different cultural groupings, to make amends for past mistreatments and for multiculturalism to be seen as a source of strength. It is a term that deliberately downgrades the role of a historically dominant culture such as that of white middle-class Anglo Saxons in the UK. 
 
Those societies attaching normative importance to interculturalism want cultural distinctions to be non-exclusive, and for divisions between cultures to be permeable. They want people to be comfortable with holding multiple, overlapping identities in their sense of self and comfortable also in a sense of social belonging that crosses cultural boundaries. 
 
The normative goals of multiculturalism and interculturalism are distinct from any goal of assimilation. Assimilation in a weak sense implies that minority cultural groupings should establish ties with the majority culture as their priority form of association. Assimilation in a strong sense implies that cultural differences should be submerged within a dominant culture – that of the host country. 
 
The normative goals of multiculturalism and interculturalism both stand in opposition to the anti-immigrant policies of right of centre politics including those of the new Trump administration. Implicit in the anti-immigration stance is a rejection of cultural diversity and the challenges it brings.
 
Encouraging interculturalism
 
Facts about cultural identification are often in short supply as compared with prejudice and preconceptions because social surveys including census inquiries are often inadequate as a source of evidence. However, there is a strong case in today’s democratic and culturally diverse societies for interculturalism to be promoted as the preferred normative standard. Many characterisations of cultural differences involve stereotypes and require a conscious effort to overcome. Some cultural groupings are self-protective in a way that forms a barrier to otherwise desirable social interactions. Protectionism from group leaderships also needs a conscious effort to overcome. 
 
Because culture is socially and politically a sensitive area, there are many politicians and officials from local to national government who are afraid to address cultural differences, afraid of a backlash from stepping on toes whether from the right or left or from culturally distinct groups themselves. They prefer to remain silent. One justification for inaction is that over time democratic societies will move of their own accord and dynamic to become intercultural so that a policy of intercultural promotion is unnecessary. However, this probably underestimates three factors:
 
The first is that of poor information. In the UK the lack of reliable information was a theme in a generally inadequate report by Baroness Alexis Jay into the sexual exploitation of children in Rotherham. In that instance cultural prejudice and predispositions likely played a major role in triggering abuse but the sensitivities and fears of local politicians and officialdom and defensive attitudes among cultural groupings themselves encouraged silence.
 
The second is that patriarchal power remains an important cultural factor in most western societies. Patriarchy is common to each of the Abrahamic religions, as well as others, and is reflected not only in their priesthoods but also reaches down into community leaderships, family and social practices. The need to reinstate the power of the feminine needs to be consciously addressed at all levels and in all groupings and is essential for multiculturalism. In patriarchies, girls may drop out from education, or may be encouraged to drop out, too early.
 
The third is that of education more generally. One of the most important tools for breaking down cultural barriers is through education. However, parental selection in the choice of schools and protective school boards mean that schools may perpetuate cultural difference. Inter school sport and music are the sort of activities needed to break down self-imposed barriers between schools.
 
Politicians in Western democracies often seem to adopt the attitude that cultural differences are too hot to handle, where politically fraught sensitivities cannot be avoided and best left to work themselves out over time. In the meantime, the hope is that outbreaks of exploitation, such as in Rotherham, or violence as provoked in Southport, will remain isolated exceptions and not stimulate anti-immigrant politics and right-wing politics more generally. The alternative is to confront the political right and for democracies to embrace the cultural diversity that immigrants bring and to adopt deliberate policies to encourage interculturalism. Trump’s anti-DEI policies are a step in completely the wrong direction.