So, multiculturalism is dead

[palimpsest.]

To be fair, both assimilation and acculturation can be used synonymously - i.e. both can mean either excange of values and customs when in contact with a new culture, or a dominant culture forcing itself on a minority. My former explanation is just the distinction we make at the uni, to show that assimilation is not necessarily a negative word. :)

ETA: it might depend on the culture, though, and the theory discussed. When talking about an individual, I remember we defined acculturation as the first contact with a new culture and assimilation as complete adaptation. :dunno:

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

The Turks in Cyprus have also been there a lot longer than the immigrant groups the politicians in western Europe are referring to. The Ottomans conquered Cyprus in 1570, and by 1600 there were at least 20,000 Turkish settlers on Cyprus. So the Turks in Cyprus have been there a bit longer than English speakers have been in what is now the United States.

Well...doesn't that suggest that assimilation isn't guaranteed even after more than 400 years?

I think it was a lot easier for ethnic groups to develop separate identities which could be maintained for the long-term back in 1600 than it is in 2010. Modern technology and education makes it harder for people to isolate their children from the surrounding culture.

Well, I think that's true to some extent, but saying "we're better off than in the 1600's" doesn't seem to be all that comforting. Plus, the flip side is that bad/malignant ideas can also get passed around much more quickly than in the 1600's.

That's one problem with the internet. To a large extent, there is so much information out there that a great many people reduce the scope by gravitating towards things with which they are already familiar. I mean, there are a great many people who spend time on the web who tend to affiliate almost exclusively with people with whom they already share wide agreement. That's why many boards "lean right" or "lean left", and comparatively few have a balance where views are assimilated. Aren't a whole lot of real conservatives here or on Democratic Underground, and not many leftists on Free Republic. Then you get places like Stormfront where racists diffused over a geographically wide area can congregate virtually, reinforcing their malignancy.

The internet also makes it much easier for immigrants to maintain much stronger ties with their home nation/ethnic group, etc. Get a large enough social group for personal contact, and internet contact with the home country, and assimilation may be even more difficult because people aren't as forced to interact with "the natives" as they might be otherwise.

[Ormond]

To be fair, both assimilation and acculturation can be used synonymously - i.e. both can mean either excange of values and customs when in contact with a new culture, or a dominant culture forcing itself on a minority. My former explanation is just the distinction we make at the uni, to show that assimilation is not necessarily a negative word. :)

\

Which courses at which "uni" in which country are you talking about? I think we may actually have a cross-cultural difference in the use of the words "assimilation" and "acculturation" here. I teach a course in cross-cultural psychology to undergraduates at a university in Nebraska myself.

ETA: it might depend on the culture, though, and the theory discussed. When talking about an individual, I remember we defined acculturation as the first contact with a new culture and assimilation as complete adaptation. :dunno:

And was this in an anthropology class? History? Sociology?

[Ormond]

That's one problem with the internet. To a large extent, there is so much information out there that a great many people reduce the scope by gravitating towards things with which they are already familiar. I mean, there are a great many people who spend time on the web who tend to affiliate almost exclusively with people with whom they already share wide agreement. That's why many boards "lean right" or "lean left", and comparatively few have a balance where views are assimilated. Aren't a whole lot of real conservatives here or on Democratic Underground, and not many leftists on Free Republic. Then you get places like Stormfront where racists diffused over a geographically wide area can congregate virtually, reinforcing their malignancy.

The internet also makes it much easier for immigrants to maintain much stronger ties with their home nation/ethnic group, etc. Get a large enough social group for personal contact, and internet contact with the home country, and assimilation may be even more difficult because people aren't as forced to interact with "the natives" as they might be otherwise.

I'm really not sure the Internet would be a net negative in terms of assimilation for people who've grown up with the Internet since they were kids. It seems to me that among the younger generation the Web is much more likely to lead to ideas from one culture being imported into another, rather than to leading to people from one culture isolating themselves. Isn't that part of what's happening in the Arab world right now? Events and ideas from elsewhere are massively influencing change in cultures/countries where they didn't originate.

And though they may not like to admit it, I think the people on Democratic Underground and Free Republic are all part of the same culture. I don't think the right vs. left political division which exists in all modern cultures is a multicultural clash; it's a completely intracultural matter.

[Lummel]

There's a kind of insecurity inherent in the idea that people need to be forced to accept your values.

Yes I think so. Cameron and Merkel's remarks, Sarazin's book, the sucess of anti-immigration partys in the polls across Europe are symptoms of the skittishness and nervousness that people are feeling. Our societies are complex but there is a tendency for people to like simple answers to complex issues. When times are good, the economy is growing, people have jobs and feel secure and confedient about the future then they don't care about strangers living in cultural enclaves such as blame the unintegrated for

Look at what happened in places like Cyprus, or Sri Lanka. The assimilation between different ethnic groups never really happened, and to the extent it eventually did, it was only after enormous problems and tensions that no reasonable country would prefer to endure.

The nature of the relationship of different groups isn't constant. It's always possible to stir up and radicalise groups and set them against others. There hasn't been a tradition or history of continual violence between greeks and turks in cyprus or tamils and sinhalese in Sri Lanka or even sunnis and Shiites in iraq. These kinds of relationship are sensiticve to changing economic and political circumstances too.

Really? My emotional reaction to the two words is exactly the opposite. "Acculturation" is the word normally used by psychologists to describe what goes on when someone moves to another culture. It does not necessarily result in the total abandonment of one's original culture that the word "assimilate" connotes, at least to me.

I agree, but maybe I've watched too much Star trek too. Acculturisation is I feel a fairly neutral term - isn't it the process of accomodating yourself or getting used too another culture?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I'm really not sure the Internet would be a net negative in terms of assimilation for people who've grown up with the Internet since they were kids. It seems to me that among the younger generation the Web is much more likely to lead to ideas from one culture being imported into another, rather than to leading to people from one culture isolating themselves. Isn't that part of what's happening in the Arab world right now? Events and ideas from elsewhere are massively influencing change in cultures/countries where they didn't originate.

I'm not sure of the net effect either. I think it can go different ways with different groups of people. We may see this play out for real in the eventual struggle for control in Egypt between liberalizers and religious conservatives/radicals.

And though they may not like to admit it, I think the people on Democratic Underground and Free Republic are all part of the same culture.

I see your point, but my point is the potentially destructive/divisive belief systems that internet niches can create or nurture. They may be part of the same general "culture" in the sense that it is all extremism, but that doesn't help their ability to live together.

To be honest, that's one reason I post here. The tendency among some to characterize any who disagree with them here as not being thoughtful or intelligent by definition is just plain interesting to me.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

I'd tend to agree, except we're having this conversation in english, so by default we're self selective. Theres probably a Japanese or Russian or Arabic language forum out there someplace full of native speakers of Finnish, Mongolian and Malayalam, discussing what an easy time they had picking up Arabic, but what a damn pain that English is. (well...probably not. Its too ubiquitous. I knew lyrics to english songs without trying well before I ever actually learned it.)

(oh, and Hebrew is actually really easy. Very consistent.)

I agree that Hebrew is fairly easy, though I do not know modern Hebrew, only biblical Hebrew. Anyway, although I have not learned Arabic, I had an easier time with casually figuring out the basics of the language once I had Hebrew and Aramaic under my belt. I think the greatest barrier is generally learning the script and understanding how Semitic languages operate.

[palimpsest.]

Which courses at which "uni" in which country are you talking about? I think we may actually have a cross-cultural difference in the use of the words "assimilation" and "acculturation" here. I teach a course in cross-cultural psychology to undergraduates at a university in Nebraska myself.

And was this in an anthropology class? History? Sociology?

I'm studying Sociology of Culture at the Faculty of Arts (the 'uni' being University of Ljubljana, Slovenia) and the class was either anthropology or sociology of culture. I agree that these might well be cross-cultural differences - that's why I said the definition might depend on the culture. :) And of course, I might be totally wrong, and in this case, I apologise for any confusion that I might've caused. I just don't remember ever regarding assimilation as something which is done to someone or some group, but rather as a process that affects both parties equally.

[Kosciuszko]

Here's how I understand the terms (keep in mind I've not studied this in detail).

Assimilation basically means the two groups are no longer two groups, but one. The original two cultures each effected the other and merged to become a single culture. Usually the new culture favors one of the old cultures over the new. I suppose St. Patrick's Day in the United States would be a pretty good example of this- everyone, not just Irish or Catholics, celebrates this.

Acculturation are where the two groups remain distinct from one another, though cultural exchange occurs. For instance, alphabets can be adopted by one society and the origin society may take nothing from the original and that could be the one thing they share. Or perhaps Christmas in Japan.

I don't necessarily think either is a bad thing. Both are natural processes and, so long as its not rule of law enforcing things, acceptable.

[Shryke]

To me, making assimilation voluntary (within certain limits - for example forced marriage) is the very definition of 'multiculturalism'. Obviously, Cameron et al aren't using the same definition, as I said. And if you truly believe in your values, you should logically support voluntary assimilation. There's a kind of insecurity inherent in the idea that people need to be forced to accept your values. Their merits should be enough.

Why?

I mean, you are making a pretty huge assumption here that the culture that eventually wins out will be the more desirable one.

This kind of "anti-multiculturalism" or whatever you want to call it is based in insecurity, but not in the kind you are implying. It's not insecurity in the superiority these people feel about their culture, it's insecurity in the ability of their culture to resist change (and specifically, change for the "worse", however you define that).

And they are not entirely wrong (although I don't think what they fear is actually happening in this case) Cultural change does not have to be for the better.

[mormont]

I mean, you are making a pretty huge assumption here that the culture that eventually wins out will be the more desirable one.

That's the whole point of what I was saying, yes. If you look at my previous posts, I also explained the basis for that assumption in some detail.

Could a 'less desirable' culture win out? Well, that depends on how you're defining 'less desirable', which again I already touched on. I think the historical evidence shows a distinct trend towards 'more desirable' cultural values as I defined them winning out (democracy, human rights etc.) although of course this isn't an unbroken march of success, more of an overall win.

There is of course no guarantee that they will win: but then that's exactly what I'm talking about - having faith in your values. Many people profess faith in their values, but don't follow that through.

[Ormond]

Here's how I understand the terms (keep in mind I've not studied this in detail).

Assimilation basically means the two groups are no longer two groups, but one. The original two cultures each effected the other and merged to become a single culture. Usually the new culture favors one of the old cultures over the new. I suppose St. Patrick's Day in the United States would be a pretty good example of this- everyone, not just Irish or Catholics, celebrates this.

This is an interesting choice of example because turning St. Patrick's Day into a big celebration with parades and parties is a purely American idea. In Ireland itself, March 17 was a quiet day marked mostly by special church services. The parades began in the USA as a way for Irish-Americans to feel pride. They now have St. Patrick's Day parades in Dublin and Cork, but these only began when Irish-American tourists were so disappointed not to see them that the Irish realized they could make money by having them for the tourists. :)

So St. Patrick's Day is an excellent example of how something brand new that existed in neither previous culture can be created by cross-cultural contact.

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

Oddly enough, it has spread to smaller towns and cities, too, so it's becoming an Irish pride thing even within Ireland (even places sans tourists). It's sort of like a giant feedback loop! (I imagine some people abroad will point to Ballygobackwards and say "look, they have a parade! we should too - it's obviously an Irish thing to do!")

[Happy Ent]

I think the historical evidence shows a distinct trend towards 'more desirable' cultural values as I defined them winning out (democracy, human rights etc.) although of course this isn't an unbroken march of success, more of an overall win.

(I’m still not sure what “multiculturalism” means in the first place, so the discourse is somewhat ill defined. Still…)

I don’t think you can bring historical evidence to the table. Historically, cultures have been very aggressive against each other. In this marketplace of ideas, the desirable cultural values (i.e., liberal Western values, the societies built by dead white males) have indeed won.

But one way to define multiculturalism is to exactly not do that. To leave “the Other”s convicitons alone, to not challenge His views on, say, spanking, blasphemy, feminism, homosexuals, the role of the state, the role of religion, tigermomming, arborism, circumcision, because multiculturalism sanctifies certain behaviours (which would otherwise be subject to criticism) exactly when these behaviours can be seen as expressions of the Other’s culture. (You can take this my working definition of multiculturalism.)

The rejection of multiculturalism, in particular my rejection of it, entails not having double standards about behaviour based on cultural differences. To take a concrete and typical example: Muslims have to accept blasphemy in the public sphere just like Christians.

In that sense, multiculturalism is a historical aberration in that the dominant culture does not challenge the Other culture. Hence the appeal to history holds no water. To stress the analogy: the historical comparison shows that “more desirable” cultural values survive exactly when they challenge other agents in the marketplace of ideas. This requires open confrontation.

[Lummel]

I think the historical evidence shows a distinct trend towards 'more desirable' cultural values as I defined them winning out (democracy, human rights etc.) although of course this isn't an unbroken march of success, more of an overall win.

I find this a very Whiggish, maybe even optimistic, point of view which I find interesting, but I don't share. Your more desirable cultural values are values that you find more desirable, OK I guess given a blank sheet of paper and a pencil I'd probably by and large come up with the same or very similar list of desirable cultural values but then I guess we're of a similar age, born in the same country, exposed to broadly similar experiences so maybe that's not too suprising. But I can still imagine that it is possible to have cultural values that you value but which you've seen decline or disapear from the society in which you live. Change is just change. We're the ones who define that change as good or bad based on our own preferences (in so far as we can isolate those from the cultures, societies or thought-worlds in which we live).

I'm happy bringing historical evidence to the table but it looks as though I arrive at different conclusions to Mormont or Happy Ent.

I think you can bring historical evidence to the table, however my perspective is that you see change, alteration and variation rather than a trend in one direction or another. Ie we can talk of certain values being dominant in a given society at a given time rather than of certain values winning out. It's only from the perspective of today that those values are triumphant. Yugoslavia was trending towards ethnic tolerance and greater intermarriage between historically antagonistic communities at one time. Prussia was once one of the most tolerant and least anti-semitic states in Europe. We cannot be certain what stresses and strains our societies will endure in future and how that will change our ideas of what are desirable cultural values.

(I'm still not sure what "multiculturalism" means in the first place, so the discourse is somewhat ill defined. Still…)

I don't think you can bring historical evidence to the table. Historically, cultures have been very aggressive against each other. In this marketplace of ideas, the desirable cultural values (i.e., liberal Western values, the societies built by dead white males) have indeed won.

...

In that sense, multiculturalism is a historical aberration in that the dominant culture does not challenge the Other culture. Hence the appeal to history holds no water. To stress the analogy: the historical comparison shows that "more desirable" cultural values survive exactly when they challenge other agents in the marketplace of ideas. This requires open confrontation.

Except I don't agree that we are not challenging other cultures. We have laws and violations of those laws render you liable to legally mandated punishment. I'm not aware of anywhere where there is a multi-cultural defence that allows you to avoid prison because prison doesn't exist in your culture but you do have a tradition tariff of compensation instead and would the murder victim's family please accept two cows or six goats and call the blood feud quits?

What irritates me about Merkel & Cameron declaring multiculturalism dead or failed is that it is specious nonsense

-there's no definition of what multiculturism is and therefore no way to evaluate what or if anything has failed

-there's an irritating implicit assumption that there is one single homogeneous culture to which newcomers can conform to

-there's no sugested alternative or logical course of action following on from the statement, it's just a blatent column inch grab to appeal to people who know what they like and what they like is the way things were back in the good old days. No one is suggsting sending people to re-education camps to rid them of their foreign ways or compulsory Biergarten or Fish & Chips appreciation classes.

Bah.

[Happy Ent]

Except I don't agree that we are not challenging other cultures.

Well, I certainly challenge other cultures. So do many others. That’s why I don’t label myself a multiculturalist.

But the argument from culture is alive and well, and I meet it often enough. As if “it’s in their culture” makes it better. I am happy to see this argument rejected. (I’m just not sure that’s what Mercamerzy are doing.)

[Shryke]

That's the whole point of what I was saying, yes. If you look at my previous posts, I also explained the basis for that assumption in some detail.

Could a 'less desirable' culture win out? Well, that depends on how you're defining 'less desirable', which again I already touched on. I think the historical evidence shows a distinct trend towards 'more desirable' cultural values as I defined them winning out (democracy, human rights etc.) although of course this isn't an unbroken march of success, more of an overall win.

There is of course no guarantee that they will win: but then that's exactly what I'm talking about - having faith in your values. Many people profess faith in their values, but don't follow that through.

No, again, you are making the same false assumption that faith in the superiority of your values means you have faith they will win out. The two are not the same and you can't equate them.

Your argument is based on your belief in the inevitability of superior cultures. Not everyone believes this and that's where the insecurity lies.

[Solmyr]

As someone who lives in another EU country than his native, I have to say that multiculturalism never even made an effort to succeed. I'm sorry to say, but people treat foreigners like crap most places, not in an obvious manner, but there are very subtle hints if you know what to look for. And if you don't speak their language it gets even worse.

I've been living in the Netherlands for close to 4 years now, I can't say more than 3 words in Dutch, I never even tried to learn it, since it's a useless language - sorry Dutchmen and women, but no one outside NL speaks it (save for Aruba and a few other island states) and most people in NL speak English.

Even so, it comes as a huge downside in everyday life. Sure, everyone speaks English, but most people only know stuff for basic conversations. Try anything other than a casual chit-chat and you get in trouble. It really annoys me when I try to convey my point and they simply nod and pretend to understand, but in fact do not.

Having said that, English is the easiest language to learn, but hard to master. Not the hardest, but hard enough. There are a lot of words and people from different backgrounds use different words for the same thing. If you are blessed and know most different words for any one thing, you still have to be very careful and select the most appropriate one, based on topic and audience. Take 'quick', 'fast', 'swift', 'prompt' and 'rapid'. They all mean the same, but you can't say 'a rapid horse'. You'd use yet another word then - 'fleet'. Sure, you'll probably be understood if you did say rapid, but it rings a huge bell in the other person's head.

Also, grammar and pronunciation make a lot of sense. The fact that many people never bother learning them is another matter.

For the record, I am one of those people who's wired not to be able to learn languages. I only managed to learn English and with tremendous effort and constant use. I've tried both German and French over the years and wasted A LOT of time with absolutely nothing to show for it.

[Datepalm]

I never even tried to learn it, since it's a useless language

...

Even so, it comes as a huge downside in everyday life.

Srsly?

[ljkeane]

Srsly?

I think I'd probably make the effort anyway but I will say that everyone I've met when I've been to Holland has spoken perfect English so I think you could quite easily get away with not learning Dutch if you were that way inclined.