A Brief Analytic Study of Muticulturalism

 By: Stephen [Dashu] Ainsah-Mensah

 “Know yourself” is a motivational assertion.  It inspires the individual to uphold and enhance the unique traits that define him/her whether as a biological entity or as a person that functions in social spaces.  A fine application of “know yourself” leads to commendable personal development and, by implication, general progress. Hence, the exclusive traits that differentiate the individual - including competence - in comparison with others is an epitome of the said assertion. 

If one should know oneself, then one’s personal identity is what is espoused. Yet, one can find shades of personal identities that crisscross such that individuals are collectively believed to portray matching personalities in a familial sense in one culture compared to other groups of individuals in another or other cultures elsewhere. Thereof, it may be rightly deduced that one culture is unlike another or others.

One may rush to claim that personal and collective identities limited to territories are likely to be debased if individuals migrate to settle in other cultures. Mature contemplation will show that this claim is unduly simplistic or that it’s, at least, wrong in many respects. In any case, the coalescence of cultures with the dominant culture which produces a new cultural reality for a new kind of progress is what is commonly called “multiculturalism”.

Multiculturalism may redefine and reshape the distinct identity of dominant-culture settlers when all sorts of immigrants settle and integrate in the culture. I say “dominant-culture settlers”, not “natives” since there are cultures where the native’s culture isn’t the dominant culture as could be found in, say, the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.  To simplify matters, let me refer to dominant-culture settlers as settlers. 

With a vigorous cultural mix, immigrants or visible minorities, so to speak, need to continually interrogate their original identities in relation to how they now live or ought to live in a dominant culture. Subsequently, they face the reality that life in the new culture is unsustainable, loaded with many difficulties, unless there is enough understanding, appreciation, knowledge and practice of what the new culture expects from them.  It’s as if the immigrant is being told: “Do as you see here, not what you saw and experienced in your native culture.”

Here, personal identity takes a new turn.  It’s broadened, given a new flesh that is a dilution of one’s original identity. However, this watering down of identity is offset by a synthesized personality that comprehends issues in life and around the world in a more broadened fashion.  In short, the immigrant’s worldview becomes far more open and complex; he/she sees the need to be tolerant and collaborative amid all sorts of individuals from different cultural backgrounds; and when the adaptability of settlers, aborigines and visible minorities turns reciprocal, the benefits go beyond the boundaries of the multicultural society.  In considering cultures in other parts of the world, impartial appreciation and acknowledgement of them is likely to take precedence over their belittling or denigration based on differences in science, technology, socio-economic and moral affairs. Unquestionably, this is healthy for diplomacy, multifaceted communication and other constructive engagements on the world stage and across cultures.

Thus, with multiculturalism, an immigrant interacts with, relates to, works with, and learns from aborigines, settlers and other immigrants from other cultures as a fundamental part of life. If, therefore, one should consider a core advantage of multiculturalism, it resides precisely in the expanded functional scope of the immigrant. To fully integrate helps to augment one’s humanity via cultural synthesis.  Personality is reshaped; the cultural domain in which one’s imaginations, thoughts and actions take place bestows a renewed robustness on many aspects of life.

Nevertheless, the pleasantness of multiculturalism is challenged and may be tainted if there is a steady proliferation of immigrants in the dominant culture. Settlers may feel threatened by the increasing number of immigrants believing that immigrants could not only outnumber and overwhelm them but also jeopardize the rights and privileges that they reap the benefits of such as access to educational, social and economic goods.  This obstacle or threat ought to be addressed by authorities in order to avert frequent socio-economic and moral conflicts in addition to the raging issues of discrimination and racism.

Multiculturalism, then, isn’t necessarily laudable.  Laws and institutions may have to be structured in such ways that they ensure justice for all; supervisory techniques must be strengthened and modified whenever needed to maintain justice.  Suppose this state of affair prevails, it can hardly be questioned that multiculturalism is of huge benefit to the society.

Now, school people may engage in debates regarding which is better, a monoculture or multiculturalism.  A monoculture - as the name suggests - is a culture of which the people come from a single cultural background.  Hence, the issue of immigrant populations and cultural diversity is practically non-existent, or it isn’t an issue of concern.  I presume the two kinds of cultures are both great, and this means debates aimed at showing a preference for one against the other are out of place.

A monoculture that induces progress in an atmosphere of peace, stability and harmony demands retention; the same goes for multiculturalism. Nevertheless, a monoculture that appears to face a steady decline in the workforce or/and shortages of skilled labour coupled with an ageing population needs the support of immigrants to fill the undesirable work vacuum.  With time, the monoculture may become a multicultural society.

Whether multiculturalism could flourish or not depends, not only on the praiseworthy efforts of visible minorities but also sustained teamwork and accords with/of settlers [and aborigines].  Fruitful multiculturalism lessens or eliminates the narrow-mindedness and destructive arrogance that is discernible of cultural insularity.  To claim, therefore, that multiculturalism doesn’t work is to assume that culture conflicts among the different cultural groups are inevitable and unresolvable.

Dancing to the rhythm of globalization has emerged as a growing trend; and allied to globalization is mass migrations to nourish the tree of multiculturalism.  Of course, other factors such as instability, internal strifes, in one’s own culture leading to incurable despair contributes to such migrations.  That migration is an inerasable phenomenon is doubtless resulting in the blurring of cultural boundaries. 

I believe that an on-and-off restructuring of the hinge on which multiculturalism turns will ultimately solve its unwarranted problems.  Admittedly, too, a multicultural society that is discrimination-free and racist-free grants stupendous optimism to any of its individuals to strive and utilize their full potentialities for personal and overall development. In reality, this kind of development will be one of the finest although my belief is that, so far, no multicultural society has reached this ideal destination.