Cultural "Integration"

[marct]

Blackwell is making some interesting articles available for free, and one of them caught my eye.

The translocation of culture: 'community cohesion' and the force of multiculturalism in history
Pnina Werbner

Abstract:
In his work on a Welsh border village, Ronald Frankenberg showed how cultural performances, from football to carnival, conferred agency on local actors and framed local conflicts. The present article extends these themes. It responds to invocations of 'community cohesion' by politicians and policy makers, decrying the failure of communal leadership following riots by young South Asians in northern British towns. Against their critique of self-segregating isolationism, the article traces the historical process of Pakistani migration and settlement in Britain, to argue that the dislocations and relocations of transnational migration generate two paradoxes of culture. The first is that in order to sink roots in a new country, transnational migrants in the modern world begin by setting themselves culturally and socially apart. They form encapsulated 'communities'. Second, that within such communities culture can be conceived of as conflictual, open, hybridising and fluid, while nevertheless having a sentimental and morally compelling force. This stems from the fact, I propose, that culture is embodied in ritual, in social exchange and in performance, conferring agency and empowering different social actors: religious and secular, men, women and youth. Hence, against both defenders and critics of multiculturalism as a political and philosophical theory of social justice, the final part of the article argues for the need to theorise multiculturalism in history. In this view, rather than being fixed by liberal or socialist universal philosophical principles, multicultural citizenship must be grasped as changing and dialogical, inventive and responsive, a negotiated political order. The British Muslim diasporic struggle for recognition in the context of local racism and world international crises exemplifies this process.

Marc

[goesh]

I said to myself when I saw the title of this Post. You aren't much for letting readers loaf, are you? One caveat to the paradigm of multiculturalism as a vehicle of social justice, change and adaptation may be seen in the larger culture's unwillingness to adapt core values of the lesser culture. In particular with Islam, there seems to be a general unwillingness to even attempt to understand its spiritual tenets let alone make any adoption of them. The adaptation we see is a matter of Law, man-made Law.The parameters of reciprocity are ill-defined in the multicultural model. We may see peripheal engagement and interaction at best, in short, acting the tourist in one's own land may account for much of 'multiculturalism', where we simply sample their food , music, attire and trinkets. History is replete with Deity adoption, adaptation and assumption by lesser cultures. Powerful Gods precede the powerful accoutriments of a culture, at least historically they have, giving the impetus for the lesser culture to accept and adjust to portions of the larger culture. I am not seeing this dynamic with Islam in Western societies, not nearly as much as the multiculturalist proponents would want and purport, though at times they tout the occasional conversion to Islam as proof of the pudding. In short, their model is static because there is no dynamic interplay of core, spiritual values. The article touts Rushdie as some kind of a turning point. Give me a break! This will consume too much of my time to go off in that direction......

[marct]

Hi Goesh,

I said to myself when I saw the title of this Post. You aren't much for letting readers loaf, are you?

LOLOL You should hear what my students call me .

One caveat to the paradigm of multiculturalism as a vehicle of social justice, change and adaptation may be seen in the larger culture's unwillingness to adapt core values of the lesser culture. In particular with Islam, there seems to be a general unwillingness to even attempt to understand its spiritual tenets let alone make any adoption of them. The adaptation we see is a matter of Law, man-made Law.

I think we are seeing a really interesting phenomena. Let me place this within Canada since a) I know it best and b) it is overtly "multi-cultural".

First, we have a general belief in "religious tolerance" that pre-dates most of the rest of the Anglo culture complex (1760 surrender of Quebec, reiterated in the 1774 Quebec Act). The interesting thing is that we have never said that we would adapt or absorb any core values of another religion, only that we would let them practice their beliefs as long as they did not interfere with any individuals choice of religion. Britain eventually adopted a similar position.

In effect, "man-made" law, at least in the matter of religious toleration, was sen as superior to any interpretation of "God's Law".

The parameters of reciprocity are ill-defined in the multicultural model. We may see peripheal engagement and interaction at best, in short, acting the tourist in one's own land may account for much of 'multiculturalism', where we simply sample their food , music, attire and trinkets.

Sure, that encapsulates Canada's views on multiculturalism almost perfectly. We have taken an extremely Protestant position, est encapsulated in the words of Oliver Cromwell - "Brethren, I beseach ye in the name of Christ to consider that ye may be wrong". As the basis of social tolerance, I think this is a pretty good situation .

History is replete with Deity adoption, adaptation and assumption by lesser cultures. Powerful Gods precede the powerful accoutriments of a culture, at least historically they have, giving the impetus for the lesser culture to accept and adjust to portions of the larger culture.

True but, again historically, we tend to find this in overtly polytheistic cultures mre than monotheistic ones. A friend of mine, Dr. Krishna Mohan Reddy has been looking into this in the context of Hindus integrating into other societies. When it comes to overtly monotheistic religions, the pattern tends to be different: some of the specifics of interpretation and practice may change but, overall, the core content stays the same.

I am not seeing this dynamic with Islam in Western societies, not nearly as much as the multiculturalist proponents would want and purport, though at times they tout the occasional conversion to Islam as proof of the pudding. In short, their model is static because there is no dynamic interplay or core, spiritual values. The article touts Rushdie as turning point. Give me a break! This will consume too much of my time to go off in that direction......

LOLOL Yeah. I've worked with a number of Muslims over the years and, on the whole, have gotten on quite well with them. I must admit that, personally, I don't like the extreme multiculturalist position - it is too reminiscent of knee-jerk cultural relativism (and that's a long rant too ).

Marc